skepller@lemmy.world to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 1 year agoChina Is Joining Russia’s Shadow War on Europewww.bloomberg.comexternal-linkmessage-square63linkfedilinkarrow-up177arrow-down14file-text
arrow-up173arrow-down1external-linkChina Is Joining Russia’s Shadow War on Europewww.bloomberg.comskepller@lemmy.world to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square63linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squarerandomname@scribe.disroot.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·edit-21 year ago@plyth@feddit.org That is a good attitude. I obviously don’t see the need in this case. It’s not prose but facts. They can’t be significantly altered in the summary. Ah, now it’s clearer how your comments come about. Very illuminating. Don’t read. Just the summary and Wikipedia.
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·1 year agoDo you think my comments are wrong because I haven’t read the book?
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 year agoYou want to judge something you don’t know. That’s never a good idea.
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoI don’t judge the book. I judge the situation of a war by a summary of an analysis of the geostrategic relevance of the area.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 year agoWhy are you regularly referring to this precise book?
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoSo that others can see how the experts analyse the situation.
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoIn which way? The original book or the adjusted part of the reprint? With the given assumptions I think the book does a reasonable analysis.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoHow would you know if you haven’t read it?
@plyth@feddit.org
Ah, now it’s clearer how your comments come about. Very illuminating. Don’t read. Just the summary and Wikipedia.
Do you think my comments are wrong because I haven’t read the book?
You want to judge something you don’t know. That’s never a good idea.
I don’t judge the book. I judge the situation of a war by a summary of an analysis of the geostrategic relevance of the area.
Why are you regularly referring to this precise book?
So that others can see how the experts analyse the situation.
Do you agree with the book?
In which way? The original book or the adjusted part of the reprint?
With the given assumptions I think the book does a reasonable analysis.
How would you know if you haven’t read it?