4 ms·

That’s not what was said whatsoever. Make your own comments, don’t try and fail to interpret others’ comments and restate them.

mdp2021 4y ago
That looks like "drawing conclusions", not like "attributing thoughts". "B wants stasis¹" // "Hence if A breaks it by removing doubts, B will act" - this is what was actually diplomatically declared, reminded, renewed in the past hours. ¹"stasis" - not the most proper expression of what is sought, but just to remain close to the original post in question.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  It doesn’t look like “drawing conclusions at all” They said “Put another way:” That is literally restating what the OG commenter said but with spin.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    Seems fully legit. «Put another way» completes what the original poster wrote, in a different telling perspective. The OP said, "A will refrain from B under condition C: the general intention of A is to refrain from B". The replying poster noted, "Admitting that A intends to refrain from B under condition C, the intention is also not to refrain from B, failing condition C". The replying poster is correctly noting that the relation is not just "C→¬B", but "C→¬B ∧ ¬C→B". FooBarWidget notes one half of the story; throw10920 remarks that the other half is also present. Correctly one states - reassuringly - "do not see a false extreme: B is not an absolute set intention", but the other notes that at the same time it should not be forgotten that "B is a set conditional intention". Which is what A has stated for a long time: "the reunification will happen: peacefully if possible, coercively otherwise". The 'put another way' formula is logically imperfect but rhetorically admissible, it is in a clear context. Of course throw10920 did not "repeat" what FooBarWidget wrote, «what was said»: he proceeded in the debate from the immediately preceding move posing a new "line". It is a "put another way" not in terms of restricting to the original poster's idea (thus re-reading it), but starting from the poster's idea in the context of given information.

mdp2021 4y ago

That looks like "drawing conclusions", not like "attributing thoughts". "B wants stasis¹" // "Hence if A breaks it by removing doubts, B will act" - this is what was actually diplomatically declared, reminded, renewed in the past hours. ¹"stasis" - not the most proper expression of what is sought, but just to remain close to the original post in question.

imwillofficial 4y ago
It doesn’t look like “drawing conclusions at all” They said “Put another way:” That is literally restating what the OG commenter said but with spin.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  Seems fully legit. «Put another way» completes what the original poster wrote, in a different telling perspective. The OP said, "A will refrain from B under condition C: the general intention of A is to refrain from B". The replying poster noted, "Admitting that A intends to refrain from B under condition C, the intention is also not to refrain from B, failing condition C". The replying poster is correctly noting that the relation is not just "C→¬B", but "C→¬B ∧ ¬C→B". FooBarWidget notes one half of the story; throw10920 remarks that the other half is also present. Correctly one states - reassuringly - "do not see a false extreme: B is not an absolute set intention", but the other notes that at the same time it should not be forgotten that "B is a set conditional intention". Which is what A has stated for a long time: "the reunification will happen: peacefully if possible, coercively otherwise". The 'put another way' formula is logically imperfect but rhetorically admissible, it is in a clear context. Of course throw10920 did not "repeat" what FooBarWidget wrote, «what was said»: he proceeded in the debate from the immediately preceding move posing a new "line". It is a "put another way" not in terms of restricting to the original poster's idea (thus re-reading it), but starting from the poster's idea in the context of given information.