This is not about ego, it is about knowing what you do not know. Moving with a global view, leaves room to at least suppose there may have been others.
Knowing what you don't know leads to your claim being a question. To wit:
Have there been other "brave" celebrities before Nikki Minaj who took flak?
Your inference may proof true in many cases, because cynicism dictates such. Also an American-centric view helps in obscuring the global humanitarian-scope of this posing as a covid-19 healthcare coups des etats (plural).
As with every group, there are shades and geographical dispersion, and some simply will show their colors when needs be, because, despite being a celebrity, they at least are trying to use their platform to push back, despite the flak and perhaps personal consequences.
As far as disingenuous goes: Could it be you have no knowledge of what that word means, apart from maybe breaking your tongue when trying to speak such a word?
dis = not; lacking;
in = not; opposite off;
genu = cut off from genus = kind or class of things;
ous = suffix to transform things into adjectives in the sense of inclined to; full off.
Looking at it from this view, that word is raped beyond cognition and has no meaning. It's babble.
If you meant to say: dishonest, say so. But then again, was I dishonest in pointing out you are lacking knowledge and providing the means to correct? Or, was leaving you with MSN articles not in your native language, and without translation, is that dishonest, while knowing that a simply copy paste into DeepL solves your lack of knowledge?
You were not dishonest in providing information that most people in the world would never have access to,
BUT, you were dishonest in saying this:
A little research goes a long way, wouldn't you say?
Perhaps you meant it differently, but the meaning of this is essentially "You did not even bother to do even a little research".
The reason why this is dishonest because you knew very well that unless I was a German or Dutch person I would have no way of uncovering that information myself even with more than reasonable amount of research, and yet you implied I did not do even a little bit research.
Not only is this dishonest, its downright disrespectful in a site where we are here purely because we like to do research and learn the truth.
So your comment was dishonest, disrespectful and uncalled for.
Disrespectful ... well that again is a babble word, of which you have no clue what you are saying. Actually, you are telling me that my comment is lacking a re-view. (hahahaha). You meant to say: I feel butt hurt by your re-mark because you made me feel like a lazy fool and I don't like that.
Is it dawning on you that English is a false language?
A noun relates to French: nom = name derived from nomen or no-men = what it is called: name, name (Ger) or naam (Dutch), noam (plat). How did noun come in there? Somebody with a sense of humor heard something and wrote it down phonetically ? no-un? nono? Yes, you are being bullshitted by those who taught you no-thing: feigning!
And yes, you at least DID call (nomen) for it, as you were blurting out demonstrably false claims. Not that I am a fan of Doutzen, but I guess one should give credit where credit is due, and untruths, which is a dishonest thing, dishonoring yourself and others, by itself calls for correcting.
This is not the first time I have had to burst your bubble. And I will do so again, when called (nomen) for.
The response of trying to lay the blame on me, says a lot. But that is not a cargo I will take onboard. That's on you.
The response of trying to lay the blame on me, says a lot.
This is your interpretation since you are so focused on the syntax of words that you have forgotten how to understand words as they are commonly used. Remember, we are not trying to negotiate an maritime contract, we are two humans talkiong to each other.
And yeah, all I am doing is giving you feedback regarding your actions - and if you dont think there is any value in it, you are free to ignore them, unless it keeps bothering you, in which case I would suggest you mindfully reflect on them. There is nothing in this conversation beyond that.
This is not about ego, it is about knowing what you do not know. Moving with a global view, leaves room to at least suppose there may have been others.
Knowing what you don't know leads to your claim being a question. To wit:
Your inference may proof true in many cases, because cynicism dictates such. Also an American-centric view helps in obscuring the global humanitarian-scope of this posing as a covid-19 healthcare coups des etats (plural).
As with every group, there are shades and geographical dispersion, and some simply will show their colors when needs be, because, despite being a celebrity, they at least are trying to use their platform to push back, despite the flak and perhaps personal consequences.
As far as disingenuous goes: Could it be you have no knowledge of what that word means, apart from maybe breaking your tongue when trying to speak such a word?
Looking at it from this view, that word is raped beyond cognition and has no meaning. It's babble.
If you meant to say: dishonest, say so. But then again, was I dishonest in pointing out you are lacking knowledge and providing the means to correct? Or, was leaving you with MSN articles not in your native language, and without translation, is that dishonest, while knowing that a simply copy paste into DeepL solves your lack of knowledge?
You were not dishonest in providing information that most people in the world would never have access to,
BUT, you were dishonest in saying this:
Perhaps you meant it differently, but the meaning of this is essentially "You did not even bother to do even a little research".
The reason why this is dishonest because you knew very well that unless I was a German or Dutch person I would have no way of uncovering that information myself even with more than reasonable amount of research, and yet you implied I did not do even a little bit research.
Not only is this dishonest, its downright disrespectful in a site where we are here purely because we like to do research and learn the truth.
So your comment was dishonest, disrespectful and uncalled for.
Lovely!
Disrespectful ... well that again is a babble word, of which you have no clue what you are saying. Actually, you are telling me that my comment is lacking a re-view. (hahahaha). You meant to say: I feel butt hurt by your re-mark because you made me feel like a lazy fool and I don't like that.
Is it dawning on you that English is a false language?
A noun relates to French: nom = name derived from nomen or no-men = what it is called: name, name (Ger) or naam (Dutch), noam (plat). How did noun come in there? Somebody with a sense of humor heard something and wrote it down phonetically ? no-un? nono? Yes, you are being bullshitted by those who taught you no-thing: feigning!
And yes, you at least DID call (nomen) for it, as you were blurting out demonstrably false claims. Not that I am a fan of Doutzen, but I guess one should give credit where credit is due, and untruths, which is a dishonest thing, dishonoring yourself and others, by itself calls for correcting.
This is not the first time I have had to burst your bubble. And I will do so again, when called (nomen) for.
The response of trying to lay the blame on me, says a lot. But that is not a cargo I will take onboard. That's on you.
It is your choice.
This is your interpretation since you are so focused on the syntax of words that you have forgotten how to understand words as they are commonly used. Remember, we are not trying to negotiate an maritime contract, we are two humans talkiong to each other.
And yeah, all I am doing is giving you feedback regarding your actions - and if you dont think there is any value in it, you are free to ignore them, unless it keeps bothering you, in which case I would suggest you mindfully reflect on them. There is nothing in this conversation beyond that.