All of this is obviously correct imo.

We were so close to being done with this. You’re not wrong but it’s been said to him about ten times in different ways already and he simply refuses to believe anyone should be able to disagree with him.

Yes, I have a feeling browser will rue the day he made this post if he hangs around to engage with the discussion it spawns.

Because I'm not saying THIS is the definition of the word....I am saying GIVEN THIS DEFINITION, does the scenario fit THIS definition. Which is why being able to cite/quote it is imperative. It doesn't mean the cited definition is correct, but thats how we make sure the counter person doesn't address a different definition.

And then they can say 'i don't use that definition' I use a different' and thats fine too...but doesn't speak to my definition.

So, you picked that definition at random?

Ok because I took this as a warning from a mod, I don't have to heed it?

I wouldn't think its a problem if I'm engaging in debate about the definition. But if I were actually told I can't reference it that would be a travesty. If a person says is x scenario fitting to y definition. And someone counters no. You want them to be able to say x is not y because y is z and z is not x. etc.

if the person just repeats no, or uses a different definition, because they are insincere, its an important forum tactic to be able to hold them to speaking to that definition, or admit that they are using a different definition. And so like I said, it seems to me, that BGP can create a circular argument, has the favor the mods, and thus can stuff me, by fostering the circularity. My only real tool, is to ask them to show me in the definition how it doesn't agree.

They won't speak to the defintion, they won't quote the words and bold the ones that are not fitting.

Are you saying the facts are correct, or are you saying that if nato instigated and was control ukraine, thats not a proxy, by this definition


No thats not whats happening. I have made an argument and people have proved me wrong and I disagree. I am asking, by the definition given, if nato instigated the war, and is controlling ukraine, is that that a proxy war.

Effectively yes, someone might not find it useful, they may have one thats different, and that could be asked of the same questions etc.

If it fits the definition of wiki as a proxy war, that doesn't mean its a proxy war, that means by the wiki definition its a proxy war. You guys keep pretending i **** language. You guys are the ones that **** with it. I'm holding you to truth.

WTH

But this does more or less represent your view as you’ve said it’s obviously a proxy war. Why wouldn’t you choose a definition that fully represents your view or at least clarify how it does not?

If people have answered no and you disagree, what do you hope to achieve by simply asking the exact same question repeatedly?

Well my thoughts are, if we accepted that nato instigated and controlled Ukraine's efforts, then by the wiki definition is a proxy war. Wiki is a decent start for words with loaded meaning. Its not the end all be all and its not perfectly neutral but its a useful start imo. Perhaps if it didn't fit my narrative my bias would have precluded me from using it, you can check for that bias in the future versus me.

I would like that to be clarified and that would be helpful, bgp didn't seem to state that simply and clearly. Is that how you feel? If nato instigated it and is controlling and funding, and arming ukraine etc....then by the wiki definition you still think its not a proxy war? It would also obviously be helpful if someone pulled out the specific parts of the definition that are wrong, but no one seems to want to cite it in their responses.

Thats why I quote it back, because obviously Im calling you all out on that aspect.

Are you truly unable to see the distinction between "Now I can't post the definition of a word. You guys are creating insane rules for me when I point out people are wrong about things. I can't reference a definition?! Wow!!!" and "you have posted this definition more than 3 times per day on average in the past 5 days. Please stop. No one is lacking for that specific text."? That post, and Rococo's follow up that "you have engaged in the absurd tactic of posting the same definition of the term "proxy war" 15 times in the last 5 days in the same thread" makes it extremely obvious that you have overdone it with one particular definition in a short period of time. Are you really unable to comprehend this, or are you just being a complete and utter troll now?

If that's something you agree on, but you can't agree on the term for it, then why not just move on? Who gives a **** what people want to call it? In fact, it doesn't really matter what people call it even if you don't agree on it, because then your point of disagreement is whether "nato instigated and controlled Ukraine's efforts", and whether you or they call that a proxy war or not is irrelevant.

Basically, you're here once again:

This.

Rococo is usually a bit camera shy, but I just caught a rare snap of him.

Thats VERY unclear whether or not I will get banned for posting the definition. I'm not spamming, I'm engaging in an argument about whether or not the topic of the thread fits the word. I'm not just spamming the definition, I'm engaging and pointing to the words in the defintion. So yes I took it as I have to not post it or I get banned. Rococo seems to feel that I understood that wrong. But your post here, I don't know now?

Well when someone says 'its absolutely not a proxy war' I have NO DEFENSE but to bring a definition in and ask 'are you saying its not THIS'? Otherwise how do we address the same word together?

No one has clearly stated that 'even if nato was the instigator and controlling and funding ukraine then it wouldn't be a proxy war by the wiki definition. That would be quite useful. so for example, you have IMPLIED it, but you haven't stated it, and I think its because you don't believe it, and you don't wanna get caught saying something untrue. if you believe its wouldn't be a proxy war given those conditions, can you just be clear and state it?

Supposedly, that would make this a travesty, by some people’s definition.

You would think the mod that said it would come in and clarify, rather than have 2 mods rescue them, like last time. If I'm told to not post the definition, I wont.

How do you propose someone clarifies anything to a person who is either completely incapable of grasping or completely unwilling to grasp the most basic of concepts or instructions?

What has been explained (and repeated multiple times) to you in regard to your latest complaint, and more generally over the course of the last several days, months and, extrapolation would suggest, decades is crystal clear to literally everyone but you.

Oh, how excellent! That sounds like a lot of fun, I really should start reading the thread again!

Seems pretty ****ing clear to me that he wants you to stop posting that same definition over and over again. I don't know how my post makes that any less clear. I assumed English was your first language, but perhaps I was mistaken.

Gosh, what a conundrum. What possible solution could there be? IDK, maybe just agree to disagree and move on, discussing the issues at hand that are the reason you think it is one?

WTF are you talking about? I've implied no such thing. Here's a thought - stop speculating on what people believe but don't say. I haven't posted in that thread in almost 8 months, and have zero interest in engaging you in whether it is or isn't a proxy war.

Rescue him??? No, I'm trying yet again to demonstrate that your communication skills are complete and utter trash, and from what I've seen here you appear to be ruining yet another thread. No moderator needs rescuing here. You need to make a better effort at communicating clearly and not derailing threads with arguments about words, which you do over, and over, and over, and over again.

Holy ****. Seriously??

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen Bobo annoyed. Not even in the internet poker riggie thread.

I suppose, congratulations, button? Probably best to not post in any subs where he is a mod for a while though...

Just so you know, there are a lot of people here now that like me. And there are even more that think I'm far smarter than you. You are making **** up about me, and it will turn back on you.

Yes I'm confused. Ganstaman seems to have told me to stop, which seems to make it bananable if i do it more. And then Rococo seems to think that I wasn't told to stop.

While popularity on the forums is completely irrelevant to anything being discussed here, that seems a very unwise thing for you to hang your hat on.

Perhaps you should start by looking up the definition of "a".

I'm only here because of BGP, they are my favorite mod, protected me. And maven.

Man, I never get to hang with the cool kids. The popular kids like button are always bullying me. Mods, is this allowed? It's dehumanising!

The phrase "no good deed goes unpunished" has never been so apropos.

I don't know who maven is, but if the above is true, BGP and I are definitely going to be having words behind the bike sheds after class.