|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On May 21 2025 16:05 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2025 15:31 maybenexttime wrote:On May 21 2025 13:23 ETisME wrote:On May 21 2025 11:55 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2025 11:24 ETisME wrote:On May 21 2025 10:10 KwarK wrote:
There is no compromise offer on the table, nor will there be. This war is existential. Russia is unwilling to accept a former colony having independence. They require Ukraine return to vassal status. If it’s existential then why have talks for the past few years? I thought ceasefire etc would buy Russia more time for bigger invasion? Those talks that haven’t gone anywhere? Not sure you’re making the point you think you are. They were a waste of time which is why Russia didn’t bother with them. Russia has decided they will not tolerate an independent Ukraine. Ukraine can’t compromise with that because you can’t be sovereign only half the time or whatever. There is no middle ground. um no? Ukraine doesn't see it as "waste of time" or "can't compromise" or "no middle ground". If Ukraine sees it as the way you do, there wouldn't even be any attempts for any talk, and for the past few years there had been multiple attempts and talks. Having no result, or Russia grand scheme of eliminating Ukraine, is not even relevant. It's been explained multiple times yet you keep asking those stupid questions. There is no middle ground for Russia. Nothing short of full conquest of Ukraine (either now or at a later stage) will satisfy them. Ukraine is prepared to make some concessions (like losing some territory in exchange for credible security guarantees). That's why Ukraine has been engaging in peace talks in earnest while Russia has not. For Russia they're a tool to create bad optics for Ukraine. Every time Russia makes some ludicrous offer and Ukraine rejects it, there will be idiots painting Ukraine as not wanting peace. This is particularly true after Trump was re-elected. It's a stupid presumption that Ukraine is treating Russia as an existential threat and that there is no middle ground for any kinds of negotiation, even with all the talks that have been happening. And yes one side eventually have to make compromise and make some counter-offer, and that's the losing side. This is how any negotiation goes. Ukraine or Russia, don't matter, same logic applies. If Ukraine loses there will be no surrender because Russia's goal is genocide.
If Russia loses Putin is not going to give up because he dies if he does.
The only visible patch to peace talks is if Putin dies and his replacement blame this disaster of a campaign on him to save face and goes home.
|
United States42716 Posts
Why not have the PRC rule the ROC on weekdays and the ROC rule the PRC on weekends. Compromise.
Sovereignty isn’t the kind of thing you can do half way.
|
On May 21 2025 16:05 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2025 15:31 maybenexttime wrote:On May 21 2025 13:23 ETisME wrote:On May 21 2025 11:55 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2025 11:24 ETisME wrote:On May 21 2025 10:10 KwarK wrote:
There is no compromise offer on the table, nor will there be. This war is existential. Russia is unwilling to accept a former colony having independence. They require Ukraine return to vassal status. If it’s existential then why have talks for the past few years? I thought ceasefire etc would buy Russia more time for bigger invasion? Those talks that haven’t gone anywhere? Not sure you’re making the point you think you are. They were a waste of time which is why Russia didn’t bother with them. Russia has decided they will not tolerate an independent Ukraine. Ukraine can’t compromise with that because you can’t be sovereign only half the time or whatever. There is no middle ground. um no? Ukraine doesn't see it as "waste of time" or "can't compromise" or "no middle ground". If Ukraine sees it as the way you do, there wouldn't even be any attempts for any talk, and for the past few years there had been multiple attempts and talks. Having no result, or Russia grand scheme of eliminating Ukraine, is not even relevant. It's been explained multiple times yet you keep asking those stupid questions. There is no middle ground for Russia. Nothing short of full conquest of Ukraine (either now or at a later stage) will satisfy them. Ukraine is prepared to make some concessions (like losing some territory in exchange for credible security guarantees). That's why Ukraine has been engaging in peace talks in earnest while Russia has not. For Russia they're a tool to create bad optics for Ukraine. Every time Russia makes some ludicrous offer and Ukraine rejects it, there will be idiots painting Ukraine as not wanting peace. This is particularly true after Trump was re-elected. It's a stupid presumption that Ukraine is treating Russia as an existential threat and that there is no middle ground for any kinds of negotiation, even with all the talks that have been happening. And yes one side eventually have to make compromise and make some counter-offer, and that's the losing side. This is how any negotiation goes. Ukraine or Russia, don't matter, same logic applies.
Ukraine treating this as an existential threat is not a presumption. It's a fact. It's Ukraine's official position on the matter.
You don't seem to have the slightest clue as to what Ukraine's position is, what Russia's position is, or why either side is engaging in the peace talks.
|
|
|
On the topic of why there are peace talks which (surprisingly) isn't going anywhere: It's about perception. This is something Trump started pushing through, and whilst that could on the surface be seen as a good thing, the truth is that it's completely pointless as neither side is willing to concede; Ukraine doesn't want to stop being Ukraine, and Russia can't live with Ukraine continuing to be Ukraine. Any idea that this war isn't existential in nature is hopelessly blind.
But both parts also wants to be perceived as reasonable on the world stage, and willing to meet for talks, knowing it'll never lead to anything. Because being seen as unreasonable is going to bring consequences in forms of less support for Ukraine, or more sanctions for Russia. So they show up to negotiations, make demands they know the other part isn't going to accept, agree to disagree, and leave.
This is exactly why Zelenskyy pushed for a face to face with Putin, knowing full well Putin never would or even could meet him, as that would suggest legitimacy to Zelenskyy's rule, which Putin have been working incredibly hard to create an image that he isn't. So Putin didn't show, Zelenskyy did, which created the excuse EU needed for another round of sanctions. This is how politics works; it's all about optics.
|
United States42716 Posts
The point that Putin literally can’t talk to Zelenskyy is a good one. Central to the Russian narrative is that in the world there are great powers that have sovereignty and then there are vassals which have governors. To him Zelenskyy is a rogue governor that has been swayed or corrupted by one of Russia’s rivals. That’s why they’re allowed to just invade the place and annex it. It’s not a real country. That’s why they insist on negotiating with the US, the US must be behind the trouble, Ukraine is incapable of acting alone.
If Putin meets with Zelenskyy then he recognizes that Ukraine is capable of electing its own leader and making decisions for itself. And in that scenario they can’t justify the invasion. Zelenskyy can only be a criminal within the Russian narrative.
|
No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality.
The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries.
|
United States42716 Posts
On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote:
No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality.
The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries.
Perhaps you could explain the middle ground between being a Russian dominated proxy and having independence backed up by a credible military capable of resisting Russia.
You are laughably ignorant about this conflict. The "both sides have raised their stakes non stop" shit is absurd. One side opened with a full military invasion, rush to seize the capital, and an annexation of half of the other. The other resisted. The stakes could not have been higher from day 1. It doesn't get much higher than an armoured column attempting to seize the seat of national government and impose a quisling governor. What more could they have demanded on day 1? Total control of Ukraine and a ham sandwich? What form of resistance could Ukraine have offered that you would not consider escalatory?
Putin has as much interest in listening to Ukraine as a lion has in the opinions of the gazelle it has caught. And the gazelle will continue to kick because it can't propose that the lion only eat the right side of its body and leave the left. The gazelle may kick its way free or it may be devoured but there is no scenario in which the gazelle talks the lion into eating its head and torso but leaving the rump flesh.
You're here trying to convince us that the gazelle is equally at fault for kicking and that if it stops then the lion might decide to not eat so much of it.
|
On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote:
No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality.
The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries.
There is no middle ground to be had, that's what you're not understanding. Ukraine can only accept an offer with security guarantees, which in practice means joining EU or Nato, as words are cheap. Anything else will just be an excuse for Russia to re-invade later. For Russia, this is a non-starter. They'll rather fight down to the last man than accept Ukraine joining Nato as part of a peace deal.
That's not to say peace can never be achieved. Negotiations just can't be forced through right now. Something has to change first. This is why you can't just do a Trump and pretend peace is easy "you just need to get both parties to the table". Both parties must want to be at the table too.
And for the last time, stop equating it to other wars that are nothing alike. They've been fighting in the middle east for thousands of years, with a constant change of borders and religious excuses. It's not remotely a similar situation
|
On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote:
No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality.
The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries.
So Russia openly announces its genocidal intent and commits numerous genocidal acts, and Ukraine proclaims the war as an existential threat, but you know better.
You're the one detached from reality.
|
On May 22 2025 15:03 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote:
No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality.
The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries. So Russia openly announces its genocidal intent and commits numerous genocidal acts, and Ukraine proclaims the war as an existential threat, but you know better. You're the one detached from reality.
+1
"It's time for settling". jesus. I'm not omniscient but pattern I am able to spot. So let me tell you about Putin's strategy in a nutshell:
Start War + spreading BS + wait.
until
It's time for settling aka win the war you started + open bottle of champange.
wait
Start War + spreading BS + wait.
until.
It's time for settling aka win the war you started + open bottle of champange.
wait
...
|
On May 22 2025 16:05 jodljodl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2025 15:03 maybenexttime wrote:On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote:
No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality.
The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries. So Russia openly announces its genocidal intent and commits numerous genocidal acts, and Ukraine proclaims the war as an existential threat, but you know better. You're the one detached from reality. +1 "It's time for settling". jesus. I'm not omniscient but pattern I am able to spot. So let me tell you about Putin's strategy in a nutshell: Start War + spreading BS + wait. until It's time for settling aka win the war you started + open bottle of champange. wait Start War + spreading BS + wait. until. It's time for settling aka win the war you started + open bottle of champange. wait ...
It's a genius strategy! Only costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, impacting millions more (billions if you consider the effects of flushing the world economy down the toilet). Such a graceful benevolent man!
|
Different people value different things. To some people, lines on a map are a lot more valuable than the lives of hundreds of thousands of men. Sadly, these kinds of people are often in positions which allows them to decide what happens to lots of people.
|
On May 22 2025 14:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote:
No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality.
The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries. Perhaps you could explain the middle ground between being a Russian dominated proxy and having independence backed up by a credible military capable of resisting Russia. You are laughably ignorant about this conflict. The "both sides have raised their stakes non stop" shit is absurd. One side opened with a full military invasion, rush to seize the capital, and an annexation of half of the other. The other resisted. The stakes could not have been higher from day 1. It doesn't get much higher than an armoured column attempting to seize the seat of national government and impose a quisling governor. What more could they have demanded on day 1? Total control of Ukraine and a ham sandwich? What form of resistance could Ukraine have offered that you would not consider escalatory? Putin has as much interest in listening to Ukraine as a lion has in the opinions of the gazelle it has caught. And the gazelle will continue to kick because it can't propose that the lion only eat the right side of its body and leave the left. The gazelle may kick its way free or it may be devoured but there is no scenario in which the gazelle talks the lion into eating its head and torso but leaving the rump flesh. You're here trying to convince us that the gazelle is equally at fault for kicking and that if it stops then the lion might decide to not eat so much of it.
"laughably ignorant"
Yeah you have written an entire fan fiction and theories, except for the very basic fact that Ukraine and Russia almost reached a peace couple months after the invasion. OOPS
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine
And no, raising the stake = raising the cost, doesn't matter if Ukraine is being forced to response with higher force.
Unless you think the stakes have stayed the same for the past few years, even when Germany started off by sending helmets.
You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended.
Whether this is the conflict to end all be all, that's where you seem pretty settled about from your own point of view.
But let's not get all upset just because your reality isn't quite aligning with all that's happening.
|
On May 23 2025 18:17 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2025 14:22 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote:
No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality.
The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries. Perhaps you could explain the middle ground between being a Russian dominated proxy and having independence backed up by a credible military capable of resisting Russia. You are laughably ignorant about this conflict. The "both sides have raised their stakes non stop" shit is absurd. One side opened with a full military invasion, rush to seize the capital, and an annexation of half of the other. The other resisted. The stakes could not have been higher from day 1. It doesn't get much higher than an armoured column attempting to seize the seat of national government and impose a quisling governor. What more could they have demanded on day 1? Total control of Ukraine and a ham sandwich? What form of resistance could Ukraine have offered that you would not consider escalatory? Putin has as much interest in listening to Ukraine as a lion has in the opinions of the gazelle it has caught. And the gazelle will continue to kick because it can't propose that the lion only eat the right side of its body and leave the left. The gazelle may kick its way free or it may be devoured but there is no scenario in which the gazelle talks the lion into eating its head and torso but leaving the rump flesh. You're here trying to convince us that the gazelle is equally at fault for kicking and that if it stops then the lion might decide to not eat so much of it. "laughably ignorant" Yeah you have written an entire fan fiction and theories, except for the very basic fact that Ukraine and Russia almost reached a peace couple months after the invasion. And no, raising the stake = raising the cost, doesn't matter if Ukraine is being forced to response with higher force. Unless you think the stakes have stayed the same for the past few years, even when Germany started off by sending helmets. You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended. Whether this is the conflict to end all be all, that's where you seem pretty settled about from your own point of view. Don't get upset just because your reality isn't aligning with what is going on.
How does your personal opinions become basic facts?
|
On May 23 2025 18:20 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2025 18:17 ETisME wrote:On May 22 2025 14:22 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote:
No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality.
The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries. Perhaps you could explain the middle ground between being a Russian dominated proxy and having independence backed up by a credible military capable of resisting Russia. You are laughably ignorant about this conflict. The "both sides have raised their stakes non stop" shit is absurd. One side opened with a full military invasion, rush to seize the capital, and an annexation of half of the other. The other resisted. The stakes could not have been higher from day 1. It doesn't get much higher than an armoured column attempting to seize the seat of national government and impose a quisling governor. What more could they have demanded on day 1? Total control of Ukraine and a ham sandwich? What form of resistance could Ukraine have offered that you would not consider escalatory? Putin has as much interest in listening to Ukraine as a lion has in the opinions of the gazelle it has caught. And the gazelle will continue to kick because it can't propose that the lion only eat the right side of its body and leave the left. The gazelle may kick its way free or it may be devoured but there is no scenario in which the gazelle talks the lion into eating its head and torso but leaving the rump flesh. You're here trying to convince us that the gazelle is equally at fault for kicking and that if it stops then the lion might decide to not eat so much of it. "laughably ignorant" Yeah you have written an entire fan fiction and theories, except for the very basic fact that Ukraine and Russia almost reached a peace couple months after the invasion. And no, raising the stake = raising the cost, doesn't matter if Ukraine is being forced to response with higher force. Unless you think the stakes have stayed the same for the past few years, even when Germany started off by sending helmets. You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended. Whether this is the conflict to end all be all, that's where you seem pretty settled about from your own point of view. Don't get upset just because your reality isn't aligning with what is going on. How does your personal opinions become basic facts?
It's not a personal opinion to know every day war goes on, more resources = more stake
or
the fact that they almost reached a deal way earlier in the war.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine
Do you know what is an opinion and what is basic fact?
|
Interesting article but... Ahm... Care to explain how you derive from it that there was almost a peace agreement when they, for various reasons, couldn't even negotiate a cease fire? Even your article states this a bit further down...
Yes, they exchanged several drafts and were in talks for a peace deal. So? Who wouldn't? Even in the article it states that the drafts all contained positions Ukraine (or Russia) couldn't/wouldn't swallow among other minor poison pills that made it unfeasible for Ukraine (or Russia).
Yes, Ukraines/Zelenskys hunger for immediate peace dimished after the atrocities Russia commited and Ukraines army porving to be capable to hold it's own and maybe even defeat Russia. That doesn't seem hard to understand or illogical?
Maybe if the West pressured Ukraine to get a deal asap either due to being unwilling to support Ukraine and being willing to "accept" Russias actions, things would be diffrent or, according to your article, give bigger future safety guarantees than even Natos Article 5 would....
But why would the "West" do so (and why would Russia in the end suddenly accept this)? Whats the interest from the West here? I mean, if you don't like to appease a spineless mass murderer leading a rogue state that has proven to not be capable of achieving his goals (at the very least in the short term)?
|
On May 23 2025 18:22 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2025 18:20 0x64 wrote:On May 23 2025 18:17 ETisME wrote:On May 22 2025 14:22 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote:
No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality.
The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries. Perhaps you could explain the middle ground between being a Russian dominated proxy and having independence backed up by a credible military capable of resisting Russia. You are laughably ignorant about this conflict. The "both sides have raised their stakes non stop" shit is absurd. One side opened with a full military invasion, rush to seize the capital, and an annexation of half of the other. The other resisted. The stakes could not have been higher from day 1. It doesn't get much higher than an armoured column attempting to seize the seat of national government and impose a quisling governor. What more could they have demanded on day 1? Total control of Ukraine and a ham sandwich? What form of resistance could Ukraine have offered that you would not consider escalatory? Putin has as much interest in listening to Ukraine as a lion has in the opinions of the gazelle it has caught. And the gazelle will continue to kick because it can't propose that the lion only eat the right side of its body and leave the left. The gazelle may kick its way free or it may be devoured but there is no scenario in which the gazelle talks the lion into eating its head and torso but leaving the rump flesh. You're here trying to convince us that the gazelle is equally at fault for kicking and that if it stops then the lion might decide to not eat so much of it. "laughably ignorant" Yeah you have written an entire fan fiction and theories, except for the very basic fact that Ukraine and Russia almost reached a peace couple months after the invasion. And no, raising the stake = raising the cost, doesn't matter if Ukraine is being forced to response with higher force. Unless you think the stakes have stayed the same for the past few years, even when Germany started off by sending helmets. You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended. Whether this is the conflict to end all be all, that's where you seem pretty settled about from your own point of view. Don't get upset just because your reality isn't aligning with what is going on. How does your personal opinions become basic facts? It's not a personal opinion to know every day war goes on, more resources = more stake or the fact that they almost reached a deal way earlier in the war. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraineDo you know what is an opinion and what is basic fact?
It's your interpretation of what you read, not what was written nor what was happening. So yes, we see you as little stubborn and simple minded but let this be a little bit of love and attention you crave so much.
|
On May 23 2025 19:11 0x64 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2025 18:22 ETisME wrote:On May 23 2025 18:20 0x64 wrote:On May 23 2025 18:17 ETisME wrote:On May 22 2025 14:22 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2025 14:12 ETisME wrote:
No one should expect anything "reasonable" with the first few offers, especially not when both sides have raised their stakes non stop for the past couple of years and it's time for settling.
To say they are existential threat means they can't make a middle ground deal is just disconnected with reality.
The entire middle East is a giant battleground, and they still can make their deals, even if war breaks out every now and then throughout the centuries. Perhaps you could explain the middle ground between being a Russian dominated proxy and having independence backed up by a credible military capable of resisting Russia. You are laughably ignorant about this conflict. The "both sides have raised their stakes non stop" shit is absurd. One side opened with a full military invasion, rush to seize the capital, and an annexation of half of the other. The other resisted. The stakes could not have been higher from day 1. It doesn't get much higher than an armoured column attempting to seize the seat of national government and impose a quisling governor. What more could they have demanded on day 1? Total control of Ukraine and a ham sandwich? What form of resistance could Ukraine have offered that you would not consider escalatory? Putin has as much interest in listening to Ukraine as a lion has in the opinions of the gazelle it has caught. And the gazelle will continue to kick because it can't propose that the lion only eat the right side of its body and leave the left. The gazelle may kick its way free or it may be devoured but there is no scenario in which the gazelle talks the lion into eating its head and torso but leaving the rump flesh. You're here trying to convince us that the gazelle is equally at fault for kicking and that if it stops then the lion might decide to not eat so much of it. "laughably ignorant" Yeah you have written an entire fan fiction and theories, except for the very basic fact that Ukraine and Russia almost reached a peace couple months after the invasion. And no, raising the stake = raising the cost, doesn't matter if Ukraine is being forced to response with higher force. Unless you think the stakes have stayed the same for the past few years, even when Germany started off by sending helmets. You can repeat every single sentence here for the Russia invasion in 2014 and they would still make sense, except that also ended. Whether this is the conflict to end all be all, that's where you seem pretty settled about from your own point of view. Don't get upset just because your reality isn't aligning with what is going on. How does your personal opinions become basic facts? It's not a personal opinion to know every day war goes on, more resources = more stake or the fact that they almost reached a deal way earlier in the war. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraineDo you know what is an opinion and what is basic fact? It's your interpretation of what you read, not what was written nor what was happening. So yes, we see you as little stubborn and simple minded but let this be a little bit of love and attention you crave so much.
Who is 'we' exactly? Are multiple people using your account? You really should inform these multiple personalities that bandwagoning and ad hominem attacks against neutral opinions dont help their cause.
|
Being neutral is not the same as being willfully blind or allways trying to stand in the middle of two opposing parties or points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
