Reply #63: results in error [View All]

[sweetheart]

I can only point to the result that the empire lost india largely
due to the influence he brought to bear, and that was unbending
intent, like a volcanic phenomenon of nature.

I certainly don't mean it in any particular interaction, and right
that i've not read much on him, only having spent a year or so in
india. Just the british were sent out, as his intent rallied the
whole country, it was so strong and unbending.

I call that ruthless. Perhaps the word sounds mean, but is not
a volcano ruthless? What made him so powerful, IMO, is that his
approach was victorious at the outset, it was seen by friend and
foe as unbending... "ruthess?"

It is not about whether i'm wrong or right... we're chatting about
definitions of words, truth be told, and my usage of ruthless does
not deny any compassion. I would ruthlessly vote down bush on
behalf of millions of disenfranchised poeple who move my heart.

Perhaps, if ruthless is wrong, then "unbending intent" is less
emotive. Thanks. :-)