You REALLY need to learn how to think, AND how to communicate, because you are demonstrably awful at both.
Do you need to always try to make things personal? Why not just discuss the evidence?
I'm not trying to make things personal; You are attempting to do something you clearly do not have the necessary skills to do. My advice is that you obtain those skills before making any further such attempts.
If I was trying to entertain people by playing the violin, I would not be justified to consider their telling me I need to learn to play the violin first as 'making it personal'; anyone who has heard the sound I make with a violin would be absolutely justified in saying that I can't play it, and need to learn how before getting it out in public. Anyone who has read your 'arguments' in this thread - particularly in the last few posts, would be equally justified in saying that you need to learn how to think, and how to communicate, before engaging in public debate.
Here is an example:
That is A convoy; there is no reason to call it 'the' convoy - and as the video is titled 'Typical day in Donbass',
Incorrect again.
In English, this exchange has
tupac chopra telling
bilby that the title of the video is NOT 'Typical day in Donbass'.
Had
tupac chopra wished to object instead to
bilby's statement "there is no reason to call it 'the' convoy", it should have looked like this:
That is A convoy; there is no reason to call it 'the' convoy
Incorrect.
- and as the video is titled 'Typical day in Donbass',
Note that the 'again' needs also to be excluded, as this is the first time
bilby and
tupac chopra have discussed this convoy; Previous discussions
tupac chopra may have had with other people cannot form the basis of this new discussion, as one party is unaware of the content of the earlier discussion.
These simple communications failures render you incapable of accurately making any kind of argument; essentially you are being incoherent. Perhaps where you went to school, you were told that 'close enough is good enough' and that as long as you say something that is similar to what you mean, others will pick up the slack for you, and divine your meaning. Well, if so, you were misinformed.
As to thinking - well, here we have a video of a convoy of military vehicles, that does not include a BUK launcher. You seem to be attempting to claim that this demonstrates the absence of a BUK launcher from the Donbass region; but the 'evidence' you have is a video that has a title that clearly implies the existence of OTHER convoys in the Donbass - so this CANNOT be evidence that no BUK launcher is in that area - only that no BUK Launcher is in that particular convoy. This is basic logic; If you really don't see how a video that does not show a particular object is NOT evidence that that object does not exist, then you need to go back to the basics of logic and start again.
I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to teach you to communicate or to think, any more than I would expect you to teach me to play the violin. But I would be most grateful if you could learn before your next public attempt. This is not a personal attack, any more than criticism of my violin recital would be a personal attack; it is an observation that a particular skill is lacking, and that observation is inspiring advice to learn that skill.