@Lt Ripley
How many times do I have to repeat myself, spell it out and go over the same old turf again and again just because you can't cop it on the chin and admit your misleading claim ? Go back and re read the exchange.
Your unequivocal claim was....
"As it stands, the average life expectancy of a new Ukrainian recruit is 33 (or 36) hours."
Quite definite, leaving no room for any doubt ie all new Ukrainian recruits fighting the Russian forces were suffering such losses. No qualification or reference to particular locations, battles or periods included.
Any reader would conclude as I did your claim and those losses applied to all new Ukrainian recruits.
How else can it be read ? Are we supposed to use our vivid imaginations just because you're economic with the facts and full story with your claims ?
You responded earlier today and said
'The number i gave was wrong. It is 36h not 33h and was in a reference to the situation in Avdiivka recently.
The number is neither here nor there but by your own admission and in your own words you've acknowledged your original claim was at best innocently misleading and at worst deliberately misleading by omission..ie the alleged losses applied to a given battle/location and period and is obviously therefore not necessarily reflective of losses across all areas of the front. Unless of course you're also claiming all new Ukrainian recruits are/were in Avdiika in which case you'd obviously need to be able to offer evidence of that too.
[/QUOTE
“Not necessarily reflective of losses across all areas of the front.”
Not necessarily limiting either. I am admitting that the information posted might have given the impression that the number was applicable to the front line as whole. It was play with words, and nothing else.
