4 ms·

I believe this is the real answer

by canadiantim 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago
2 hours for a full flip from one obviously guilty party to another... wow.
- canadiantim 3y ago
  I was correct in pointing out that it looks like Ukraine may have coordinated the attack, as substantiated by the WaPo article. I also believe that WaPo may be making Ukraine look like they've coordinated the attack in order to keep blame away from any US involvement. The most unlikely guilty party would of course be Russia, who has the most to lose in Nord Stream's sabotage.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    No, you are not correct. You are pointing out that there is a vaguely sourced article that makes such claims, not that it looks like that is the case. > I also believe that WaPo may be making Ukraine look like they've coordinated the attack in order to keep blame away from any US involvement. No, that's not what the WaPo is doing. > The most unlikely guilty party would of course be Russia, who has the most to lose in Nord Stream's sabotage. This is factually incorrect for a number of reasons, a big part of which is that Russia has more to gain from dividing the EU than from losing Nord Stream.
    - canadiantim 3y ago
      I like how I use sources when stating things but you just state things are factually incorrect without any references. How about you try backing up your statements else you're just spreading disinformation.
      - verisimi 3y ago
        Perhaps, if the information is not something you have verified it could be false. Governments and media do lie. If that is the case here, by providing sources, it is you spreading misinformation. The other person is merely giving am opinion. Myself, I am trying to establish the truth of the matter - I don't accept so-called authoritative sources when they are proven liars. The only way I know of to satisfy myself off the truth is to verify it personally. Involving myself in these narratives, is like acting upon (convincing) hearsay or gossip. It's simply not part of my life. I won't call for harm to people I do not know on account of a story that could be a lie.
        canadiantim 3y ago
        That’s fair and I think you’re wise to only try to verify information yourself, but atleast by providing sources I am giving you more information you can digest to make your assessment. More information is better than less information even if its bad information (since as you say, you’re assessing the quality of the source anyway). So I think it’s still fair to say that it’s better to provide possible sources or support for a statement than not.
        verisimi 3y ago
        Fair enough! Cheers - all the best.

I believe this is the real answer

jacquesm 3y ago

2 hours for a full flip from one obviously guilty party to another... wow.

canadiantim 3y ago
I was correct in pointing out that it looks like Ukraine may have coordinated the attack, as substantiated by the WaPo article. I also believe that WaPo may be making Ukraine look like they've coordinated the attack in order to keep blame away from any US involvement. The most unlikely guilty party would of course be Russia, who has the most to lose in Nord Stream's sabotage.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  No, you are not correct. You are pointing out that there is a vaguely sourced article that makes such claims, not that it looks like that is the case. > I also believe that WaPo may be making Ukraine look like they've coordinated the attack in order to keep blame away from any US involvement. No, that's not what the WaPo is doing. > The most unlikely guilty party would of course be Russia, who has the most to lose in Nord Stream's sabotage. This is factually incorrect for a number of reasons, a big part of which is that Russia has more to gain from dividing the EU than from losing Nord Stream.
  - canadiantim 3y ago
    I like how I use sources when stating things but you just state things are factually incorrect without any references. How about you try backing up your statements else you're just spreading disinformation.
    - verisimi 3y ago
      Perhaps, if the information is not something you have verified it could be false. Governments and media do lie. If that is the case here, by providing sources, it is you spreading misinformation. The other person is merely giving am opinion. Myself, I am trying to establish the truth of the matter - I don't accept so-called authoritative sources when they are proven liars. The only way I know of to satisfy myself off the truth is to verify it personally. Involving myself in these narratives, is like acting upon (convincing) hearsay or gossip. It's simply not part of my life. I won't call for harm to people I do not know on account of a story that could be a lie.
      - canadiantim 3y ago
        That’s fair and I think you’re wise to only try to verify information yourself, but atleast by providing sources I am giving you more information you can digest to make your assessment. More information is better than less information even if its bad information (since as you say, you’re assessing the quality of the source anyway). So I think it’s still fair to say that it’s better to provide possible sources or support for a statement than not.
        verisimi 3y ago
        Fair enough! Cheers - all the best.