***The tables are turning on that one, aint they? Right now we are being illegally colonized by Mexico to the tune of 30 Million or more.
Posted on 04/27/2022 7:38:21 AM PDT by Kevmo
Ukraine accused Russia of blackmailing Europe over energy in an attempt to break its allies, as fighting heads into a third month without Russia capturing a major city
WARSAW/SOFIA/KYIV — Russia halted gas supplies to Poland under the Yamal contract on Wednesday, data from the European Union network of gas transmission operators showed, in a deepening of the rift between the West and Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
Bulgaria, like Poland a NATO and EU member, said earlier that Russia would also halt supplies of gas to it.
Ukraine accused Russia of blackmailing Europe over energy in an attempt to break its allies, as fighting heads into a third month without Russia capturing a major city.
Poland’s gas supply contract with energy giant Gazprom is for 10.2 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year, and covers about 50% of national consumption.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has called on “unfriendly” countries to pay for gas imports in roubles, a demand only a few buyers have implemented.
“The ultimate goal of Russia’s leadership is not just to seize the territory of Ukraine, but to dismember the entire center and east of Europe and deal a global blow to democracy,” Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said late on Tuesday.
----------excerpted---------
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
It’s a mark of trolling to reply to someone’s post and list ‘troll’
***It is a mark of exactly what I said I would do: Treat you like a troll.
so they’re not made aware they’re being spoken to.
***I am speaking to a troll at this point in time. It is interesting that you acknowledge that the troll I am speaking to is you. Maybe you should just let that sink in.
Kevmo:Dude: It is a trolling technique.
US7Troll: Being given primary source documents for a historical matter under dispute...is a trolling technique??
***There you go again, down that troll path. The trolling technique is to throw around all kinds of bullshiite, then when the other guy is no longer responding, THAT’s when he realizes his error and starts posting [perhaps] some factual information. But this other particular troll also started posting wall-of-text ad infinitum ad nauseum trolling technique stuff. And YOU came in right alongside him acting like a troll yourself. You shoulda just argued his own points for him if you think they’re somehow compelling. It is notable that you DIDN’T argue his points you just pointed to his trollposts and said “that’s good”. Well they aint good, they’re trollposts and you have fallen into that well.
Are you for real?
***I am real when I say I’m frustrated with FReepers who are acting like pootypoot trolls with no solid reasoning to back up their claims other than their own circular affirmation that we shouldn’t get involved so we can’t get involved.
You’ve rendered your own credibility worthless.
***There is a certain point when a troll says certain insults that everyone knows that it’s smirkingly funny and the troll himself can’t even see how that phrase applies to himself. You just landed right there. TTFN.
Going to the UN is *literally* what the Memorandum called for!
We didn’t even declare war against Vietnam nor Afghanistan. The last time we declared war was when it was an existential threat, ww2. Why is it that you are pushing things back to such a time? Oh, it is because of your a priori approach towards this whole thing.
Good to know that the constitutional provisions regarding how America's military might must be levied mean so little to you.
And you passed up the chance to moderate this particular dispute, showing where your intentions lie.
Asking for others to 'moderate a debate' is a common troll tactic, so what would be the point? No one's obliged to moderate a 'debate' when one side is manifestly refusing to ignore the plain documentary evidence, notwithstanding your trollish and unserious demands for one.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, that brought an official end to the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), was signed on February 2, 1848, at Guadalupe Hidalgo, a city north of the capital where the Mexican government had fled with the advance of U.S. forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo
You've descended to the level of 'I know you are but what am I'.
How sad.
It obliges “respect” for Uke borders and sovereignty. That’s in the treaty. You have no comment on that. INVADING the other country is a straightforward violation of that treaty.
So when we sends weapons, materiel, people, information, et al to fight the invader all the way up to the original borders mentioned in the treaty, is that showing “respect” for those borders and sovereignty? Was the original INVASION showing respect for such things?
By just blithely skipping over this salient point, you have fallen into the troll well.
Kevmo: We didn’t even declare war against Vietnam nor Afghanistan. The last time we declared war was when it was an existential threat, ww2. Why is it that you are pushing things back to such a time? Oh, it is because of your a priori approach towards this whole thing.
US7: Good to know that the constitutional provisions regarding how America’s military might must be levied mean so little to you.
***There are congressional authorizations for sending force throughout our history without declarations of war, just like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Grenada, Gulfwars1&2, etc. It’s even signed off that there can be unauthorized force applications for a full 2 months before congress even has to be asked.
Kevmo:And you passed up the chance to moderate this particular dispute, showing where your intentions lie.
US7: Asking for others to ‘moderate a debate’ is a common troll tactic, so what would be the point?
***I’m not aware that such a thing is a common troll tactic. Since it is so common, you could easily provide 3 recent examples and since I haven’t heard of them I figure I could moderate such debates. Go ahead, find those 3. Should prove interesting, except for the obvious foreseeable event that you won’t be finding them.
No one’s obliged to moderate a ‘debate’
***There you go again with that “obliged” stuff. I ASKED you to consider it. I didn’t OBLIGE you. Try to stop doing that strawman argumentation stuff, it doesn’t look good on you. Lose that intellectual weight.
when one side is manifestly
***You came in at the end. Nothing “manifestly” about it other than you upholding a priori reasoning as sound, and obviously falling into the troll well. You never went to the front side of the argument.
refusing to ignore the plain documentary evidence,
***When you get hit by a train, it’s not the caboose that kills you.
notwithstanding your trollish and unserious demands for one.
***Demands? It was a fricken REQUEST. You’re all twisted around like a pretzel. Ask yourself when was the last time there was a 40-nation coalition to kick a regional bully out of a country he had invaded over oil resources? Yup, it was when we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait.
You’re startin’ to bore me.
” as well as significant means of its design and production.”
***That’s a phrase I hadn’t noticed before.
I’m not aware that such a thing is a common troll tactic. Since it is so common, you could easily provide 3 recent examples and since I haven’t heard of them I figure I could moderate such debates. Go ahead, find those 3. Should prove interesting, except for the obvious foreseeable event that you won’t be finding them.
It's common enough that other people have talked about it. Bold is emphasis mine:
It's so ubiquitous that it even has a dedicated term: sealioning. Quote: "Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the "sea lion" may seem innocent, they're intended maliciously and have harmful consequences." — Amy Johnson, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (May 2019)
thus works both to exhaust a target’s patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable.
***That is a very apt description of what that troll Woodsucker did against me. And then you came in on a tag-team to pile on.
Thanks for the reference to sealioning, I find it interesting that I had called out seagulling for so many times... but you aren’t proceeding along the Free Republic definition of trolling, nor did you come up with 3 recent examples I could help to mediate. Interesting side notes, commonly known as: Red herrings. Yet another trolling technique.
That's just flat-out incorrect. The 'sealion' is the one who persistently requests evidence, information, or "debates".
woodpusher provided you evidence and pointed out how you were blatantly incorrect in your interpretation of the historical record, which you proceeded to ignore repeatedly. As far as I'm aware, no one has challenged you to a 'debate', because the weight of evidence showing that you're wrong about the Budapest Memorandum is plain enough, your fallacious objections notwithstanding.
nor did you come up with 3 recent examples I could help to mediate
The only recent example on FR that I've seen requesting a debate is you. Besides, demanding that I provide you examples of something so generally ubiquitous on the Internet is akin to asking me to find examples of the sky being blue. It's called common knowledge for a reason.
Interesting side notes, commonly known as: Red herrings. Yet another trolling technique.
Whatever. You've got enough red herrings of your own to deal with.
Kevmo:That is a very apt description of what that troll Woodsucker did against me.
US7: That’s just flat-out incorrect.
***You came in at the TAIL END of what that troll was doing. It’s like coming onto a fight and watching one guy throw a punch when everyone else around him says that the other guy started the fight by throwing the first punch. Frack off.
The ‘sealion’ is the one who persistently requests evidence, information, or “debates”.
***In Woodsucker’s case, by throwing up several walls of text well AFTER he had engaged in trolling behavior which YOU never bothered to look into because you so desperately want to agree with him due to your a priori approach towards this conflict.
woodpusher provided you evidence
***I was ignoring him long before he provided anything of value so frack off.
and pointed out how you were blatantly incorrect in your interpretation of the historical record,
***I suppose anyone would just have to take your word for it but you never looked into how he acted as a troll much prior to that. He went down the same troll path you are going down, but he went down it much faster — basically he was already a troll.
which you proceeded to ignore repeatedly.
***Yes I have been ignoring him as a troll for several days now. Most of that is on HIM. He wanted to act like a troll so he’s treated like a troll.
As far as I’m aware,
***Your awareness doesn’t extend very far, I have noticed.
no one has challenged you to a ‘debate’, because the weight of evidence showing that you’re wrong
***Notice that there are several questions which YOU do not answer. No one wants to debate in light of knowing simple stuff like INVADING another country after you’ve signed a border&sovereignty agreement with that country & accepted their COMPLIANCE with that treaty, well no one wants to debate past that point because it wipes out the legitimacy of your side of the debate.
about the Budapest Memorandum
***That would be the Accession to the US senate ratified United Nations Nuclear Non Proliferation TREATY that the Ukrainians HONORED and the Russians VIOLATED by invading, twice. That memorandum.
is plain enough, your fallacious objections notwithstanding.
***If my objections are fallacious then point out the fallacies. Instead, your side simply comes up with the assertion that we shouldn’t get involved in foreign conflicts because we shouldn’t be involved in foreign conflicts.
Kevmo: nor did you come up with 3 recent examples I could help to mediate
US7: The only recent example on FR that I’ve seen requesting a debate is you.
***Then your point is nullified. Offering to have a debate mediated, and offering to mediate debates is not a troll technique. Frack off.
Besides, demanding that I provide you examples of something so generally ubiquitous on the Internet
***If it’s so ubiquitous then coming up with 3 examples should be trivial. I predicted you wouldn’t be able to, I was correct. You are off the rails.
is akin to asking me to find examples of the sky being blue. It’s called common knowledge for a reason.
***Just because you call sumthin common knowledge doesn’t mean it’s so common, especially when you can’t produce 3 quick examples where I could mediate the debates.
Kevmo: Interesting side notes, commonly known as: Red herrings. Yet another trolling technique.
US7: Whatever.
***That is tacit admission that you’re using a trolling technique.
You’ve got enough red herrings of your own to deal with.
***Now you’re just inserting a meaningless statement. It seems you don’t even know what a red herring is, nor which side has to deal with them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies
Red herring fallacies
A red herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. This includes any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.[66][67]
Red herring – introducing a second argument in response to the first argument that is irrelevant and draws attention away from the original topic (e.g.: saying “If you want to complain about the dishes I leave in the sink, what about the dirty clothes you leave in the bathroom?”).[68] See also irrelevant conclusion.
Red herring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
In the mystery story “A Study in Scarlet”, detective Sherlock Holmes examines a clue which is later revealed to be intentionally misleading (i.e., a red herring).
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently.[2]
The term was popularized in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, who told a story of having used a strong-smelling smoked fish to divert and distract hounds from chasing a rabbit.[3]
I actually did look into his posting history. He provides primary sources to support his arguments. That you find the "walls of text" 'annoying' is irrelevant to the fact that his arguments were supported by evidence, and yours weren't.
Notice that there are several questions which YOU do not answer.
Over numerous threads, people have pointed out where you were wrong. Repeatedly. That you keep maintaining your fictions and asking the same questions as if they had never been addressed before doesn't help you. It gets tiresome.
No one wants to debate in light of knowing simple stuff like INVADING another country after you’ve signed a border&sovereignty agreement with that country & accepted their COMPLIANCE with that treaty, well no one wants to debate past that point because it wipes out the legitimacy of your side of the debate.
Not when people point out the inconvenient fact that the Budapest Memorandum plainly does not oblige the United States to military retaliation by itself. Your repetitive blustering will not change this inconvenient fact.
If my objections are fallacious then point out the fallacies.
They have been. Repeatedly, on numerous threads. That you keep ignoring them is on you.
Instead, your side simply comes up with the assertion that we shouldn’t get involved in foreign conflicts because we shouldn’t be involved in foreign conflicts.
Straw man.
If it’s so ubiquitous then coming up with 3 examples should be trivial. I predicted you wouldn’t be able to, I was correct. You are off the rails.
Publications commenting on sealioning should be valid enough for your increasingly arbitrary standards. Or do you want me to waste more time and trawl message boards for something that's common Internet knowledge?
Then your point is nullified. Offering to have a debate mediated, and offering to mediate debates is not a troll technique. Frack off.
Except that's not what happened. You "nominated" me to be a moderator for a debate between you and woodpusher. You're the one requesting the debate, and demanding for other people to moderate said debate. When no one takes you up on it, you thereafter bask in moral superiority. It's a classic example of a debate troll.
Just because you call sumthin common knowledge doesn’t mean it’s so common, especially when you can’t produce 3 quick examples where I could mediate the debates.
If something is common knowledge that you didn't know, that's called being ignorant. And sealioning doesn't involve you mediating the debates, because you're the one who's been requesting and demanding debates that no one else has asked for. That's the whole point.
That is tacit admission that you’re using a trolling technique.
It's a tacit admission to how sad your displays have become, that's what.
Now you’re just inserting a meaningless statement. It seems you don’t even know what a red herring is, nor which side has to deal with them.
When you keep invoking the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Budapest Memorandum as though they inherently oblige the United States to declare war on Russia following their invasion of the Ukraine (when the source documents of the Memorandum, the NNPT, and NATO's own charter show such a conclusion to be false), and for you to keep doing so after being repeatedly shown that you're wrong? That's a herring so red it might as well be crimson.
I actually did look into his posting history. He provides primary sources to support his arguments.
***Like I said, at the TAIL END. After he was being treated as a troll because he was acting like a troll.
That you find the “walls of text” ‘annoying’ is irrelevant to the fact that his arguments were supported by evidence, and yours weren’t.
***He came in at the tail end with all that wall of text stuff that I wasn’t looking at, well after he had been dropped as a troll. Anyone can look this up in our respective histories, you didn’t bother to. You just jumped right in at the end so frack off.
I’ll deal with the rest of your stuff later... if I wanna.
Kevmo: Notice that there are several questions which YOU do not answer.
US7: Over numerous threads, people have pointed out where you were wrong. Repeatedly.
***It looks like you’re re-claiming sumthin sumthin yet again, a dog returning to his vomit. Just because people disagree with me doesn’t mean they’re right. You got it bad.
That you keep maintaining your fictions and asking the same questions as if they had never been addressed before doesn’t help you. It gets tiresome.
***It’s tiresome dealing with you trolls. You never seem to wanna use legit reasoning, it would appear your newfound @$$troll friend didn’t do so until well after I was done with him as a troll.
Kevmo: No one wants to debate in light of knowing simple stuff like INVADING another country after you’ve signed a border&sovereignty agreement with that country & accepted their COMPLIANCE with that treaty, well no one wants to debate past that point because it wipes out the legitimacy of your side of the debate.
US7: Not when people point out the inconvenient fact that the Budapest Memorandum plainly does not oblige
***There you go again. Your a priori reasoning tells you that you can’t go along with a foreign conflict because you can’t go along with a foreign conflict. That’s where your reasoning process begins and ends, with a circular argument. And that drives you to look for things like “obligations” and loopholes when there are very very incredibly obvious VIOLATIONS of said agreement, and some moral obligations to respect boundaries and sovereignty. We accepted the poor wording of the agreement when we took those nukes off their hands, it behooves us to accept it when their obvious borders & sovereignty have been violated, it behooves us not to push the Ukes into a nuke corner where they feel they need those nukes in order to have sovereignty because they know along with everyone else that they never woulda been invaded if they had kept those nukes.
the United States to military retaliation by itself.
***Who says “by ourselves”? I don’t. We are lining up 40 countries in a new coalition just like we did to the last tyrant who invaded his neighbor trying to steal oil rights.
Your repetitive blustering will not change this inconvenient fact.
***Your repetitive blustering is getting boring. And learn the definition of a fact: It is when both sides agree on sumthin. Do you agree that Russia invaded the Ukraine? Let’s see just how far off the rails you are.
Kevmo:If my objections are fallacious then point out the fallacies.
US7:They have been. Repeatedly, on numerous threads.
***Bullshiite. You guys keep using that circular logic of ‘we should not get involved in foreign conflicts because we can’t get involved in foreign conflicts’. That is not pointing out my fallacies, that is proceeding from your OWN fallacies.
That you keep ignoring them is on you.
***I keep ignoring trolls because you trolls use trolling tactics. I can’t help it that there are so many trolls on your side of the fence. Including YOU, it appears.
Kevmo:Instead, your side simply comes up with the assertion that we shouldn’t get involved in foreign conflicts because we shouldn’t be involved in foreign conflicts.
US7: Straw man.
***Nope. It’s circular reasoning. And your side uses it all the time.
Kevmo: If it’s so ubiquitous then coming up with 3 examples should be trivial. I predicted you wouldn’t be able to, I was correct. You are off the rails.
US7troll: Publications commenting on sealioning should be valid enough for your increasingly arbitrary standards.
***I posted that challenge before I ever heard of this ‘sealioning’ tactic. You can’t even come up with 3 examples even now. And it was your newfound @$$troll friend who was doing the sealioning with his ad nauseum ad infinitum tactics.
Or do you want me to waste more time and trawl message boards for something that’s common Internet knowledge?
***Yes I want you to expend the time because it is YOUR claim. You’ve spent the time to throw around all this droll bullshiite you’re dropping off, might as well spend it on finding 3 very easy to find examples that I predicted you would not find. With each passing piece of bullshiite you post without those 3 examples, you prove my point.
Kevmo: Then your point is nullified. Offering to have a debate mediated, and offering to mediate debates is not a troll technique. Frack off.
US7troll: Except that’s not what happened. You “nominated” me to be a moderator for a debate between you and woodpusher. You’re the one requesting the debate, and demanding
***THere you go again. Hyperbolic expanding of what the other person said just so you can argue against it. You keep looking for demands or obligations so you can find loopholes to jump through. You have become a simple troll.
for other people to moderate said debate. When no one takes you up on it, you thereafter bask in moral superiority. It's a classic example of a debate troll. Just because you call sumthin common knowledge doesn’t mean it’s so common, especially when you can’t produce 3 quick examples where I could mediate the debates. If something is common knowledge that you didn't know, that's called being ignorant. And sealioning doesn't involve you mediating the debates, because you're the one who's been requesting and demanding debates that no one else has asked for. That's the whole point. That is tacit admission that you’re using a trolling technique. It's a tacit admission to how sad your displays have become, that's what. Now you’re just inserting a meaningless statement. It seems you don’t even know what a red herring is, nor which side has to deal with them. When you keep invoking the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the Budapest Memorandum as though they inherently oblige the United States to declare war on Russia following their invasion of the Ukraine (when the source documents of the Memorandum, the NNPT, and NATO's own charter show such a conclusion to be false), and for you to keep doing so after being repeatedly shown that you're wrong? That's a herring so red it might as well be crimson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.