4 ms·

Sorry, didn't understand what are you saying...? Did you confuse me with another person?

alganet 1y ago
Nope, that's for you. I said "rumours". You jumped right in at it with more rumours and name dropping. Are you doing it because you see other people doing or do you know what you're doing?
- owebmaster 1y ago
  Honestly reading his post I'm having a hard time understanding what you are talking about. > I said "rumours". You jumped right in at it with more rumours and name dropping. that is what happens when someone agrees with your "rumour"? weird interaction.
  - alganet 1y ago
    This is most likely because you don't understand that I was approaching the subject from the foreign relations perspective. I did gave a big hint though (mentioning the Itamaraty)! It was hard to miss, but somehow you missed it. Of course it's weird. It is meant to bring this lesser known approach to a potential public that does not know much about it.
    - owebmaster 1y ago
      It would be a better interaction if you made things more clear in place of thinking we thought too much about your way to write. > I did gave a big hint though (mentioning the Itamaraty)! It was hard to miss, but somehow you missed it. I approve the Itamaraty's reaction of not acknowledging the letter and sending it back. Lacking a proper world leader, we the people must take the responsability of actually not negotiating with terrorists. We need to step up. Missed what? Your point is that the Itamaraty did not acknowledged a tweet-letter and "sent it back"? Are you talking that our foreign ministry is competent? If that is the case, I agree, that is obvious for any brazilian that knows the bare minimum of foreign relations.
      - alganet 1y ago
        If you understood and agreed, why did you said it was weird? If you didn't understood, why didn't you asked for clarification? It seems that what you really missed was an opportunity to engage the interaction in a healthy way. Or maybe you missed an opportunity to listen more respectfully to the opinions of others. Look how far you dragged this discussion out of scope. It's kind of obvious that you made a mistake.
        owebmaster 1y ago
        > If you understood and agreed, why did you said it was weird? I agreed with your first post, not the weird reply to someone that engaged with your post agreeing with you. > Look how far you dragged this discussion out of scope. It's kind of obvious that you made a mistake. That is exactly what I think you did with that reply.
        alganet 1y ago
        Giving the lack of good candidates, I'll take the lead again then, and bring back the discussion to its tracks. Trump thinks he's the US. He thinks he is the country. You (all commenters on this sub-thread alike) are playing his game, a cult of personality game. If I talk about presidents, I make nations smaller than them. Therefore, Trump to me is just like a used car salesman in this discussion. In our country, Brazil, the Itamaraty answers foreign relation issues. Not the media, not president interviews. We, as a people, do not want to live in a cult of personality. I think our diplomats represent well that intent. You are free to disagree, of course, and cheer for your favorite leader. But in that case, you need to do it in another sub-thread. I do not welcome that kind of discussion. Now you met a different kind of brazillian, with a different kind of argument. Not new, not exactly original, but way different than you seem to be used to. It's completely fine that you find it weird that I keep trying the diplomacy stuff. You're used to the leader talk stuff, probably never saw anything other than that. Now you have. Having made the proper introductions (unecessary, you could have read the history of the Itamaraty and inferred why I answered that way), now you are better equipped to talk with me. If you don't do that and go back to leader vs leader nonsense, I will assume ill intent. In regards to diplomacy, it is in the interest of our nation to keep commerce with the US. We have a long history of it. Our nations also have much in common culturally, and our peoples are connected in several ways. These tariffs represent a break of that trust. We, as a nation, were spied on, meddled with and bullied. Our apparent inaction to some of those breaks of trust is not due to fear or some secret alliegence, but to work for enduring peace (we're tolerating a clown, trusting that people will see beyond the circus).
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- vitorgrs 1y ago
  I didn't mention any rumors. I talked about an interview Lula gave that I watched. Not sure why you are so stressed.
  - alganet 1y ago
    I understand, it's not intentional then. I'm talking about foreign relations. That's why I mentioned the Itamaraty. You're talking about news, media, interviews, etc. You didn't noticed what my angle was, and you wanted to participate, but ended up talking about a different thing.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      So your point is president Lula's own statements are worthless and we should be discussing possible diplomatic backroom deals instead. Who's really discussing rumours here? The only diplomacy I want to see is of the gunboat kind. The supreme court made it clear gunboat diplomacy was their condition for folding. They said something akin to "if they park an aircraft carrier next to us then we'll see". I would have loved to see that.
      - alganet 1y ago
        Perhaps I'm saying he trusts the Itamaraty with official information. Official diplomatic channels are the norm, not media theatrics (miles ahead of you, "do your art of the deal thing" was the first thing I said, you failed to see behind the nuance). Perhaps I'm saying nothing about election politics, and I'm more worried about the longstanding brazillian diplomatic tradition. Perhaps I knew someone would bring a specific discussion to this, and disarmed it beforehand (which is super weird, I agree, but within the realm of previsibility). Let's put some possibilities on the table: 1. You have no knowledge about diplomacy. You think it's talking soft or something like that, and you're repeating things you heard from someone else. 2. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb. 2a. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb to provoke me into going into a discussion that clearly has no conclusion. 2b. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb because you're suspicious of the way I approached the subject outside of common narratives. 3. You understand as much of the dynamics as I do, but you're putting me in a situation that I need to explain it more pedanticly (totally fine, I already explained in a simple way before, so this would be dumb on your part). --- Which one is the closest to what you feel? Is there another one? Please, enlighten us. Don't be shy to assume option 1 if that's what it really is. See? Cards on the table. Honesty. Try it, it's good.

Nope, that's for you. I said "rumours". You jumped right in at it with more rumours and name dropping. Are you doing it because you see other people doing or do you know what you're doing?

owebmaster 1y ago
Honestly reading his post I'm having a hard time understanding what you are talking about. > I said "rumours". You jumped right in at it with more rumours and name dropping. that is what happens when someone agrees with your "rumour"? weird interaction.
- alganet 1y ago
  This is most likely because you don't understand that I was approaching the subject from the foreign relations perspective. I did gave a big hint though (mentioning the Itamaraty)! It was hard to miss, but somehow you missed it. Of course it's weird. It is meant to bring this lesser known approach to a potential public that does not know much about it.
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    It would be a better interaction if you made things more clear in place of thinking we thought too much about your way to write. > I did gave a big hint though (mentioning the Itamaraty)! It was hard to miss, but somehow you missed it. I approve the Itamaraty's reaction of not acknowledging the letter and sending it back. Lacking a proper world leader, we the people must take the responsability of actually not negotiating with terrorists. We need to step up. Missed what? Your point is that the Itamaraty did not acknowledged a tweet-letter and "sent it back"? Are you talking that our foreign ministry is competent? If that is the case, I agree, that is obvious for any brazilian that knows the bare minimum of foreign relations.
    - alganet 1y ago
      If you understood and agreed, why did you said it was weird? If you didn't understood, why didn't you asked for clarification? It seems that what you really missed was an opportunity to engage the interaction in a healthy way. Or maybe you missed an opportunity to listen more respectfully to the opinions of others. Look how far you dragged this discussion out of scope. It's kind of obvious that you made a mistake.
      - owebmaster 1y ago
        > If you understood and agreed, why did you said it was weird? I agreed with your first post, not the weird reply to someone that engaged with your post agreeing with you. > Look how far you dragged this discussion out of scope. It's kind of obvious that you made a mistake. That is exactly what I think you did with that reply.
        alganet 1y ago
        Giving the lack of good candidates, I'll take the lead again then, and bring back the discussion to its tracks. Trump thinks he's the US. He thinks he is the country. You (all commenters on this sub-thread alike) are playing his game, a cult of personality game. If I talk about presidents, I make nations smaller than them. Therefore, Trump to me is just like a used car salesman in this discussion. In our country, Brazil, the Itamaraty answers foreign relation issues. Not the media, not president interviews. We, as a people, do not want to live in a cult of personality. I think our diplomats represent well that intent. You are free to disagree, of course, and cheer for your favorite leader. But in that case, you need to do it in another sub-thread. I do not welcome that kind of discussion. Now you met a different kind of brazillian, with a different kind of argument. Not new, not exactly original, but way different than you seem to be used to. It's completely fine that you find it weird that I keep trying the diplomacy stuff. You're used to the leader talk stuff, probably never saw anything other than that. Now you have. Having made the proper introductions (unecessary, you could have read the history of the Itamaraty and inferred why I answered that way), now you are better equipped to talk with me. If you don't do that and go back to leader vs leader nonsense, I will assume ill intent. In regards to diplomacy, it is in the interest of our nation to keep commerce with the US. We have a long history of it. Our nations also have much in common culturally, and our peoples are connected in several ways. These tariffs represent a break of that trust. We, as a nation, were spied on, meddled with and bullied. Our apparent inaction to some of those breaks of trust is not due to fear or some secret alliegence, but to work for enduring peace (we're tolerating a clown, trusting that people will see beyond the circus).
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
vitorgrs 1y ago
I didn't mention any rumors. I talked about an interview Lula gave that I watched. Not sure why you are so stressed.
- alganet 1y ago
  I understand, it's not intentional then. I'm talking about foreign relations. That's why I mentioned the Itamaraty. You're talking about news, media, interviews, etc. You didn't noticed what my angle was, and you wanted to participate, but ended up talking about a different thing.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    So your point is president Lula's own statements are worthless and we should be discussing possible diplomatic backroom deals instead. Who's really discussing rumours here? The only diplomacy I want to see is of the gunboat kind. The supreme court made it clear gunboat diplomacy was their condition for folding. They said something akin to "if they park an aircraft carrier next to us then we'll see". I would have loved to see that.
    - alganet 1y ago
      Perhaps I'm saying he trusts the Itamaraty with official information. Official diplomatic channels are the norm, not media theatrics (miles ahead of you, "do your art of the deal thing" was the first thing I said, you failed to see behind the nuance). Perhaps I'm saying nothing about election politics, and I'm more worried about the longstanding brazillian diplomatic tradition. Perhaps I knew someone would bring a specific discussion to this, and disarmed it beforehand (which is super weird, I agree, but within the realm of previsibility). Let's put some possibilities on the table: 1. You have no knowledge about diplomacy. You think it's talking soft or something like that, and you're repeating things you heard from someone else. 2. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb. 2a. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb to provoke me into going into a discussion that clearly has no conclusion. 2b. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb because you're suspicious of the way I approached the subject outside of common narratives. 3. You understand as much of the dynamics as I do, but you're putting me in a situation that I need to explain it more pedanticly (totally fine, I already explained in a simple way before, so this would be dumb on your part). --- Which one is the closest to what you feel? Is there another one? Please, enlighten us. Don't be shy to assume option 1 if that's what it really is. See? Cards on the table. Honesty. Try it, it's good.