Clumsy.
A not unexpected response really. I wonder what other explanations can be produced in defense of your seeming tendency to lazily and above all derisively shrug off alternate viewpoints/evidence as 'conspiracy theories' without furnishing evidence/rationale/analysis for this decision.
If there was an absence of entrenched views I guess I would have hoped to see some reflection following your startlingly casual dismissal of Russian MoD evidence. For example, such cynicism could be expressed to the ridiculous evidence presented in the initial article (hopefully read by now). There could also be an admission that the frequent and ongoing claims of Russian incursions - sans concrete or verifiable evidence - are particularly odious to a methodical and critical thinker such as yourself. As far as I can ascertain however your cynicism is reserved for opponent viewpoints - happy to be shown otherwise.
What would you consider convincing evidence? I am genuinely interested.
Especially in context of the many vested interests, the palpable bias, the yawning abyss of hypocrisy and the baying for blood.
That seems to be more of a mission statement than something you have actually done here, but by all means feel free do draw attention to weaknesses of my arguments, I'll wait.
-

