You are omitting some details in order to paint black pictures instead of realistic pictures. For example i noticed that the evacuation of the vast majority of Kherson's residents was not mentioned in your article about it, which was on the issue of people left behind.
I noticed things of that nature in other articles too.
Fully black or fully white pictures are an objectivity warning to me.
I also noticed the despair of your commenters. The people giving up. I do not like this. There are ways to bring bad news without making people give up. If the purpose behind your writings is to make people give up, you are certainly doing that well. That would also mean that you are their enemy, of course.
I had trouble with the 5D crowd way before the war started, which does not mean that i won't criticise the other side either.
99 % of the articles are Russia negative in one form or another. This percentage is too high and that is not normal. One possible reason could be that Russia did not live up to the writer's expectations so he is angry about it, and lashes out in return.
Regardless of the validity of those emotions, i'm not interested in the bias they bring in.
I'm not interested in 99 % negative articles just like i'm not interested in 99 % positive articles.
I'm interested in more objective articles and not bias, whatever the direction of it. So for now i will wait and see.
Good luck! While I don't agree with everything you write, I have added AE as recommendation on my blog as I find the point of view you express valuable in understanding of more aspects of a very complex game playing out before us. Hope this modest contribution will help you to achieve your goals.
since you're phrasing this subscription appeal as 'asking for feedback' - I'll give you some.
First off, when I sent an email to the address on your website assigned to 'comments, suggestions, feedback, etc.,' detailing the reason using your sole method of payment option won't work-or is highly unadvisable] for my geographic circumstance, and asked you to consider employing a specific(wholly anonymous)one which will,
I didn't get any response. While I didn't take that as a personal insult, I do consider it puzzling, for a guy who is putting a considerable amount of energy into soliciting support. It's also a drag - considering that pretty much EVERYTHING you've written here -in the way of 'self-advertising, bold self endorsement' - I happen to believe is true... even the Your favorite webpage part!(how did you know?))
Altho I had to bail on this substack edition of your site, due to the obnoxious presence of the kind of psychopathic personality which I've become all too aware is the 'norm' in this area of interest, I've been a regular on your website edition as you doubtless know, ever since. And I would GLADLY spare a few shekels if it allows you to do what you do best! It's your move - hombre!
You are omitting some details in order to paint black pictures instead of realistic pictures. For example i noticed that the evacuation of the vast majority of Kherson's residents was not mentioned in your article about it, which was on the issue of people left behind.
I noticed things of that nature in other articles too.
Fully black or fully white pictures are an objectivity warning to me.
I also noticed the despair of your commenters. The people giving up. I do not like this. There are ways to bring bad news without making people give up. If the purpose behind your writings is to make people give up, you are certainly doing that well. That would also mean that you are their enemy, of course.
I had trouble with the 5D crowd way before the war started, which does not mean that i won't criticise the other side either.
99 % of the articles are Russia negative in one form or another. This percentage is too high and that is not normal. One possible reason could be that Russia did not live up to the writer's expectations so he is angry about it, and lashes out in return.
Regardless of the validity of those emotions, i'm not interested in the bias they bring in.
I'm not interested in 99 % negative articles just like i'm not interested in 99 % positive articles.
I'm interested in more objective articles and not bias, whatever the direction of it. So for now i will wait and see.
Thanks for the reporting. It's hard to find good info, so thanks!
Good luck! While I don't agree with everything you write, I have added AE as recommendation on my blog as I find the point of view you express valuable in understanding of more aspects of a very complex game playing out before us. Hope this modest contribution will help you to achieve your goals.
Hello Marko -
since you're phrasing this subscription appeal as 'asking for feedback' - I'll give you some.
First off, when I sent an email to the address on your website assigned to 'comments, suggestions, feedback, etc.,' detailing the reason using your sole method of payment option won't work-or is highly unadvisable] for my geographic circumstance, and asked you to consider employing a specific(wholly anonymous)one which will,
I didn't get any response. While I didn't take that as a personal insult, I do consider it puzzling, for a guy who is putting a considerable amount of energy into soliciting support. It's also a drag - considering that pretty much EVERYTHING you've written here -in the way of 'self-advertising, bold self endorsement' - I happen to believe is true... even the Your favorite webpage part!(how did you know?))
Altho I had to bail on this substack edition of your site, due to the obnoxious presence of the kind of psychopathic personality which I've become all too aware is the 'norm' in this area of interest, I've been a regular on your website edition as you doubtless know, ever since. And I would GLADLY spare a few shekels if it allows you to do what you do best! It's your move - hombre!