User Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: You didn't specify. That's the thing with your posts generally- vague statements, backed by nothing. I clearly must have quoted you somewhere when you said something. So which one? My posts are backed by the truth instead of whatever propaganda BS you are pushing. Quote
Scott75 Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 2 hours ago, User said: I clearly must have quoted you somewhere when you said something. So which one? This one: 21 hours ago, User said: Just because you link to some garbage claimed by someone else [snip] 2 hours ago, User said: My posts are backed by the truth Anyone can say that. What's harder to do is actually providing evidence that your claims are true. Quote
User Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 17 minutes ago, Scott75 said: This one: That was a part of our current general discussion about generalizations… not a good example. 18 minutes ago, Scott75 said: Anyone can say that. What's harder to do is actually providing evidence that your claims are true. Linking to someone else’s opinion pushing false statements is not evidence. Quote
Scott75 Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 (edited) 10 minutes ago, User said: That was a part of our current general discussion about generalizations… not a good example. I think it's a great example of how you insult people's sources without providing a shred of evidence that there's anything wrong with them. 10 minutes ago, User said: Linking to someone else’s opinion pushing false statements is not evidence. Linking to credentialed and well known journalists is a hell of a lot better than just believing what some anonymous poster online says, but hey, you want to think that everyone should just treat anonymous your anonymous word as gospel, that's your choice to make. Edited March 5 by Scott75 Quote
User Posted March 5 Report Posted March 5 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: I think it's a great example of how you insult people's sources without providing a shred of evidence that there's anything wrong with them. Which source? We were both engaged in generalities here. 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: Linking to credentialed and well known journalists is a hell of a lot better than just believing what some anonymous poster online says, but hey, you want to think that everyone should just treat anonymous your anonymous word as gospel, that's your choice to make. Well know to the Putin propagandists maybe. It is literally no better than some random person online. Facts are facts. Quote
Scott75 Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 (edited) On 3/5/2026 at 3:05 PM, User said: On 3/5/2026 at 12:28 PM, Scott75 said: On 3/5/2026 at 12:19 PM, User said: On 3/5/2026 at 12:01 PM, Scott75 said: On 3/5/2026 at 9:28 AM, User said: I clearly must have quoted you somewhere when you said something. So which one? This one: That was a part of our current general discussion about generalizations… not a good example. I think it's a great example of how you insult people's sources without providing a shred of evidence that there's anything wrong with them. Which source? You'll note that I said "insult people's sources", not "insult a person's source". You were insulting my sources generally. I haven't insulted your sources, but ofcourse, I haven't seen you cite any articles at all in our discussion, so there's nothing to insult, or praise for that matter. Anyone can insult someone else's sources and call it a day. Coming up with actual evidence for one's position, that takes some actual effort. Edited March 6 by Scott75 Quote
User Posted March 6 Report Posted March 6 11 minutes ago, Scott75 said: You'll note that I said "insult people's sources", not "insult a person's source". You were insulting my sources generally. I haven't insulted your sources, but ofcourse, I haven't seen you cite any articles at all in our discussion, so there's nothing to insult, or praise for that matter. Anyone can insult someone else's sources and call it a day. Coming up with actual evidence for one's position, that takes some actual effort. Once again, quoting another biased Putin propagandist isn’t evidence. Quote
Scott75 Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 20 hours ago, User said: Once again, quoting another biased Putin propagandist isn’t evidence. There you go, making yet another unsubstantiated assertion. Anyway, for the audience, I found an hour long video from someone who took the time to see what the Ukrainian/Russian loss ratio really is. He came to the conclusion that it's close to 1:1. Honestly, I've only seen the start and the end of the video at this point, but I've found that this guy has done some great videos in the past and so I tend to trust him on that alone- that being said, I imagine that the video probably goes some way to explaining his evidence in more detail as well... Quote
User Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: There you go, making yet another unsubstantiated assertion. Anyway, for the audience, I found an hour long video from someone who took the time to see what the Ukrainian/Russian loss ratio really is. He came to the conclusion that it's close to 1:1. Honestly, I've only seen the start and the end of the video at this point, but I've found that this guy has done some great videos in the past and so I tend to trust him on that alone- that being said, I imagine that the video probably goes some way to explaining his evidence in more detail as well... Once again, I asked you to provide something specific, you did not. If you are offering generalities, I can respond with them. This dude is some YouTuber "historian" commentator who, before the war, spent his time criticizing video games. I will believe reputable sources that show their methods that are reported on by major media outlets over some YouTuber. "Russian battlefield losses are roughly double Ukraine’s, at about a 2:1 ratio." https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UKRAINE-CRISIS/CASUALTIES/lgvdgmjbzpo/ Quote
Scott75 Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 56 minutes ago, User said: Once again, I asked you to provide something specific, you did not. If you are offering generalities, I can respond with them. You're the one who started with generalities, saying my sources were, and I quote, "garbage". I simply asked you to justify your assertion, which, ofcourse, you never did. Quote
Scott75 Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 57 minutes ago, User said: 3 hours ago, Scott75 said: Anyway, for the audience, I found an hour long video from someone who took the time to see what the Ukrainian/Russian loss ratio really is. He came to the conclusion that it's close to 1:1. Honestly, I've only seen the start and the end of the video at this point, but I've found that this guy has done some great videos in the past and so I tend to trust him on that alone- that being said, I imagine that the video probably goes some way to explaining his evidence in more detail as well... This dude is some YouTuber "historian" commentator who, before the war, spent his time criticizing video games. I went all the way back to HistoryLegend's very first video, around 5 years ago- it was about the World War I Battle of Vimy Ridge. Here to be precise: Now, I acknowledge that occassionally, the HistoryLegend channel has talked about a video game or 2, but I see nothing wrong with that- I myself play an online game called World of Warcraft. The bottom line is that this man has a solid track record of coming out with videos regarding the Ukraine war that I've found to be quite solid. Quote
User Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 5 minutes ago, Scott75 said: You're the one who started with generalities, saying my sources were, and I quote, "garbage". I simply asked you to justify your assertion, which, ofcourse, you never did. They are garbage. Just like this one was. I pointed that out and I provided my own source that you say I never do. Quote
User Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scott75 said: Now, I acknowledge that occassionally, the HistoryLegend channel has talked about a video game or 2, but I see nothing wrong with that- I myself play an online game called World of Warcraft. The bottom line is that this man has a solid track record of coming out with videos regarding the Ukraine war that I've found to be quite solid. Up until the war started, here were his videos, and it was more than "2" "Historian gets mad at Call of Duty Vanguard" "Battlefield 1 step by step analysis" "Historian reacts: Stalingrad Call of Duty Vanguard" "Historian reacts: El Alamein Call of Duty Vanguard" "Historian gets mad at Call of Duty Vanguard..." "Reaction to Call of Duty: Vanguard (Historian reacts)" Intermixed with that is reactions to movies and TV shows That list goes on. Edited March 7 by User Quote
Scott75 Posted March 10 Report Posted March 10 On 3/7/2026 at 3:57 PM, User said: Up until the war started, here were his videos, and it was more than "2" "Historian gets mad at Call of Duty Vanguard" "Battlefield 1 step by step analysis" "Historian reacts: Stalingrad Call of Duty Vanguard" "Historian reacts: El Alamein Call of Duty Vanguard" "Historian gets mad at Call of Duty Vanguard..." "Reaction to Call of Duty: Vanguard (Historian reacts)" Intermixed with that is reactions to movies and TV shows That list goes on. You notice how even in a lot of his videos on game, he references historians? He's clearly a fan of history, as the name of his channel suggests. And as you yourself seem to be tacitly admitting, once the war in Ukraine started, he focused a lot of attention on it. He's also done a lot of research, which I think is evidence if you watch his videos on the war in Ukraine as well. Quote
User Posted March 10 Report Posted March 10 4 minutes ago, Scott75 said: You notice how even in a lot of his videos on game, he references historians? He's clearly a fan of history, as the name of his channel suggests. And as you yourself seem to be tacitly admitting, once the war in Ukraine started, he focused a lot of attention on it. He's also done a lot of research, which I think is evidence if you watch his videos on the war in Ukraine as well. I don’t think he has done much research at all when he is pushing an absurd 1 to 1 casualty ratio. I am pointing out that your “source” is a YouTuber personality that fancies himself some kind of source on the Ukraine war now and in this instance is pushing obvious BS. Even on its face it doesn’t pass the smell test with what we know about the nature of warfare with assaults on fortified positions in what amounts to trench warfare and how the defender has natural advantages. Quote
Scott75 Posted March 11 Report Posted March 11 8 hours ago, User said: I don’t think he has done much research at all How much of his hour long video on the subject of the 1:1 ratio did you watch? Quote
User Posted March 11 Report Posted March 11 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: How much of his hour long video on the subject of the 1:1 ratio did you watch? Enough. Quote
Scott75 Posted March 12 Report Posted March 12 On 3/10/2026 at 8:50 PM, User said: Enough. Says the guy who hasn't linked to a single source of his own in this entire debate I've had with you. Quote
User Posted March 12 Report Posted March 12 37 minutes ago, Scott75 said: Says the guy who hasn't linked to a single source of his own in this entire debate I've had with you. This is beyond stupid now. I just did the other day in this discussion. You just keep repeating your bogus claims no matter how wrong you are or have been shown to be. https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/48379-ukraine-cant-win-the-war/page/97/#findComment-1895042 Quote
Moonbox Posted March 12 Report Posted March 12 9 hours ago, Scott75 said: Says the guy who hasn't linked to a single source of his own in this entire debate I've had with you. I can scroll back on this page and find a clear example of him doing exactly what you say he's not doing, and it took me 5 seconds: On 3/7/2026 at 1:49 PM, User said: "Russian battlefield losses are roughly double Ukraine’s, at about a 2:1 ratio." https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UKRAINE-CRISIS/CASUALTIES/lgvdgmjbzpo/ (For Scott75): You have to realize that anyone can say anything they want on Youtube or their blog etc, and you if you look hard enough you'll find somoene, somewhere, saying exactly what you want to hear. 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
User Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 On 5/15/2024 at 11:50 AM, Nationalist said: Today Ukraine is losing multiple villages daily. They have no military grunts left. Exactly as I and countless others realized...while you made stoopid statements. Now...as Ukraine is facing making a deal or losing everything...your response is not to finally see reality...but to double down on stoopid. Meh...limited intellectual capacity is only one of your shortcomings... 2 years later... this whole thread has been filled with years of bullshit proclamations like this, and yet Ukraine still stands, still fights. Quote
User Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 On 5/17/2024 at 8:17 AM, Nationalist said: Fact: Ukraine is now out of military personnel and is ceding territory quickly. Fact: The Ukrainian government is falling apart and Zelinsky's leadership is being openly challenged. Conclusion: Whether by design or by accident...NATO has hung Ukraine out to dry. Or die as the case may be. Fun Result: I get to gloat about having been correct in my predictions made based on cold reality...and you get to eat crow. I think if you put lots of salt and ketchup on your crow, you might even be able to enjoy it. Oh man, we are all still eating so much crow over here! ROFL Amazing how poorly your posts have held up here! Quote
Nationalist Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 1 hour ago, User said: Oh man, we are all still eating so much crow over here! ROFL Amazing how poorly your posts have held up here! The war was over quite some time ago. Russia has about 90% of the land it came for. The US is not financing Ukraine anymore. Russia has dictated a cease fire for the next couple days to celebrate the end of WWII, and has threatened to bomb Kiev if Ukraine breaks the cease fire. Ukraine hit a NATO nation with drones in the last few days...Oops... And...the lead Ukrainian negotiator is headed to the US for peace talks. Has the front line moved? Ya it creeps along further into Ukraine. In the end, Russia will claim victory for taking the provinces they came for...and Ukraine will claim victory for having not lost the entirety of the country. You can choose which to believe. But Ukraine regaining the conquered territory ain'-a-gonna happen. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
User Posted May 7 Report Posted May 7 36 minutes ago, Nationalist said: The war was over quite some time ago. Russia has about 90% of the land it came for. The US is not financing Ukraine anymore. Russia has dictated a cease fire for the next couple days to celebrate the end of WWII, and has threatened to bomb Kiev if Ukraine breaks the cease fire. Ukraine hit a NATO nation with drones in the last few days...Oops... And...the lead Ukrainian negotiator is headed to the US for peace talks. Has the front line moved? Ya it creeps along further into Ukraine. In the end, Russia will claim victory for taking the provinces they came for...and Ukraine will claim victory for having not lost the entirety of the country. You can choose which to believe. But Ukraine regaining the conquered territory ain'-a-gonna happen. OMG, now you say the war is over?! Please tell us, what was the amount of land Russia came for, and where is this published information? Other NATO nations are providing most of the $$$ to Ukraine. The US still has a fund they are spending from and as recently as a week ago sent them about half a billion dollars. Russia can ceasefire all they want... Ukraine is not bound to nor officially a part of anything. Russia has already been attacking Kyiv. Crap happens in war... so what? Russian advances have slowed and Ukraine for the first time in years has been taking land back earlier this year. In the end? End what? You have been proclaiming this was over for years. ROFL Ukraine has already been doing just that this year. OOPS Quote
Nationalist Posted May 8 Report Posted May 8 5 hours ago, User said: OMG, now you say the war is over?! Please tell us, what was the amount of land Russia came for, and where is this published information? Other NATO nations are providing most of the $$$ to Ukraine. The US still has a fund they are spending from and as recently as a week ago sent them about half a billion dollars. Russia can ceasefire all they want... Ukraine is not bound to nor officially a part of anything. Russia has already been attacking Kyiv. Crap happens in war... so what? Russian advances have slowed and Ukraine for the first time in years has been taking land back earlier this year. In the end? End what? You have been proclaiming this was over for years. ROFL Ukraine has already been doing just that this year. OOPS Sure...you go with that. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.