I'm arguing that his analysis is irrelevant and hypocritical in the face of pretty much his entire life of behavior.
You can call him a hypocrite or whatever, but that wouldn't make him wrong on this analysis. I'm still not even sure what your argument is.
I'm also mocking you for trying to praise an enemy for something as banal as describing their strategy.
I'll praise any enemy who describes his strategy, and even buy them a bouquet of flowers. I'd like to know how they're doing what they're doing and how they are getting away with it.
I don't get it. Are you arguing that his 'hypocrisy' and 'complicity' make his analysis false? If not, then he's right.
I'm arguing that his analysis is irrelevant and hypocritical in the face of pretty much his entire life of behavior.
I'm also mocking you for trying to praise an enemy for something as banal as describing their strategy.
You can call him a hypocrite or whatever, but that wouldn't make him wrong on this analysis. I'm still not even sure what your argument is.
I'll praise any enemy who describes his strategy, and even buy them a bouquet of flowers. I'd like to know how they're doing what they're doing and how they are getting away with it.
Being "right" on the subject includes not literally being part of the problem, so yes it does.
Well, I'm talking about being right on the description. We seem to agree that this is an accurate description. So he's right about that.