>>"Please explain what criteria do you use to classify some theory as "conspiracy"?" -- it's very simple: a theory that is based not on evidence, but usually on a consideration of "who would profit from this" and some clandestine activities thrown in.<<
Such consideration is still assumption not evidence as well as alleged clandestine activities. What makes you think that your assumption is true???
>>"So where did you find it? Guardian?" -- I already told you who to ask. Reading's not one of your strong skills?<<
What is about your reading skills?? You wrote: >>As I've been corrected today, even western media reported on the allegations of electoral fraud in favor of Yuschenko.<< I asked you to give me the source of the information. Which western media published it. I did not asked for sending me to Quist (with all respect to Quist). I did not asked for Ukrainian or Russian page, did I?
For your information – I really can read. Difference between “reading skills” and “read and comprehend” skill) is too subtle?
>>"Thanks for link but unfortunately it is in Ukrainian/Russian I prefer English." -- the link's in Russian, and your inability to read it is not exactly my problem.<<
What makes you think that I cannot read Russian. I just prefer English.
>>Just an illustration that you are arguing about a topic where you can't even read the most important sources (i.e. Ukrainian).<<
Just an illustration how real are your hypotheses. You are operating uncertain assumptions and you are so sure…
>>"There is no need to classify each other." -- sorry, I have to. You're practically begging for it.<<
If you really must offending people… I stopped it when I was five. If you feel such a need, be my guest. I do not care about your opinion about me. If you want to waste your time and energy.
>>"How should I classify you if you make strong claims on the without the full knowledge of what the media have been writing these days??? = <<Personally, I'm too lazy to search through the archives of various news organizations.>>" -- there is no logical connection here. Being too lazy to provide information that you could've found on your own is not equivalent to not knowing that information. Especially considering that I told you the newspaper, the date, and the article's author. Sufficient to look it up, isn't it? Unless you're thick and uninquisitive.<<
As above. I asked you to give me the source of the information that even western media reported on the allegations of electoral fraud in favour of Yuschenko.
"Facts are important for me." -- haven't noticed.
It is not a proof that facts are not important for me. Just a clear sign that some important fact can escape your notice.
>>"The Ukrainian Supreme Court ordered the re-run on Friday after upholding opposition claims that the original vote was rigged in favour of Mr Yanukovych." -- you are clueless. The Supreme Court ruled that CEC resolutions 1264 and 1265 were invalid based on procedural violations during voting (the court did not care in whose favor the violations were). The court rejected all other claims by Yuschenko (such as the claim that he be declared the winner). In any case, how is this of any relevance to the topic being discussed?<<
CEC nominated by Kuchma did not notice it. According to CEC the winner was Kuchma’s protégé – Yanukovych. CEC did not notice procedural violations! Who would profit from this??
It also shows how objective CIS observers are. On 22/11/04 Vadim Gustow the chief of CIS observers admitted that there are some infringements but they have no influence on final result of election (main infringement noticed by him – excess of orange on streets during voting day [published on 2004.11.22, RTR-Planeta, PAP, www.gazeta.ru, www.newsru.com].
>>The claim "Yuschenko is a pro-Western liberal reformer" means that this particular reporter regards him as such. The claim that "Yuschenko is regarded as a pro-Western liberal reformer" means that everybody regards him as such, but the reporter does not want to make any claims in his own name. Which does not contradict my point that western agitprop presents Yuschenko to be something that he might not be.<<
"Yuschenko is a pro-Western liberal reformer" means that it is the fact.
"Yuschenko is regarded as a pro-Western liberal reformer" means presumption/opinion of somebody.
"Yuschenko is regarded as a pro-Western liberal reformer by everybody" means presumption /opinion of all society.
Natives where are you?? Help!!
>>"Really? Try to prove it. It will be nice conspiracy theory." -- if a theory is proven, it's not a theory anymore, much less a conspiracy theory. Just helping you with your semantic difficulties.<<
Did I really write anywhere that proved theory does not became general rule and is not theory anymore? I just ask for evidences that confirmed your theory. Just helping you with your comprehend difficulties…
I add it from previous posts to make it more clear (whole plot):
>>correction: according to western propaganda, Yuschenko is "a pro-Western liberal". Personally, I don't really know how to classify him, because words mean nothing, and he haven't really had an opportunity to act so far.<<
I took it from “the western propaganda” and in original (BBC) it was: “Yuschenko is concerned [should be "is considered"] as a pro-Western liberal”. Can you see the difference between “is concerned” [should be "is considered"] and “is”?
About propaganda – I suppose that you have nothing against when I call anything, which is published by Russian media as “the Russian propaganda” as you do while describing western media?
>>"About propaganda - I suppose that you have nothing against when I call anything, which is published by Russian media as "the Russian propaganda" as you do while describing western media?" -- it won't change my opinion of you even one bit. However, I have to point out that you would have a hard time proving that, due to the chaotic anarchy in the range of opinions found in the Russian media. While my point would be much simpler to demonstrate due to the almost scary uniformity of opinion in the western media. Such uniformity does not relate to Ukraine only<<
>>As to proof, I can tell you the methodology, you can work it out yourself. The methodology is to read the damn media in all its variety before coming here with your silly claims. Over 90% of the western coverage of the Ukrainian election crisis that I've seen make exactly same claims.
You are walking proof falsity of your theory.<<
It is particularly weak theory that I cannot decide which weak point should be struck first. Try this:
Impreciseness of methodology:
1. how many western (which are western?) sources should be chosen and what is the criterion of choosing the media? All of them? Most important? Most available? What decide about if e.g. Guardian is more important then e.g. Rzeczpospolita?
2. over 90% make exactly same claims - uncertain assumption: on what basis do you claim that over 90% is the trigger which makes scary uniformity? Why not 50% or 10%? Theory that makes next theory the general rule/true/fact?
3. what exactly claims do you mean? What is a criterion of choosing the claim.
Thesis which should be proved by methodology is unspecified/unclear.
1. what is the thesis which you try to prove by the methodology? That western media are propaganda because of scary uniformity in claming unspecified something (what makes you thing that uniformity means propaganda?) or that Yuschenko is (or is considered) "a pro-Western liberal" because of scary uniformity of western media or maybe something else?
So now I try work it out myself:
If over 90% of population of Poland say “it think it is going to rain” it will happen. Funny.
If over 90% of population of Poland say “Yanukovych did not faked the election” it is a fact. Funnier.
If all people sitting at my computer desk say “your methodology is silly” it is true. Funniest.
And now seriously:
If over 90% of polish media published information “International election monitors (OSCE, EU parliament, Council of Europe, NATO) say they believe Ukraine's presidential poll was not fully free and fair” it is clear sign of scary uniformity which shows that all polish media are propaganda. Still funny.
Have you tried your methodology with something that is really true? Have you tried your methodology with something that is fact and is in accordance in one’s policy?
>> The methodology is to read the damn media in all its variety before coming here with your silly claims. I have. You clearly haven't.<<
Liar. If you read the media in all its variety I will it my computer mouse. How many languages can you speak? Have you access to all European media?
>>Actually, it would be somewhat silly of you to argue against that, considering that you haven't managed to find a single mention of complaints filed by Yanukovich people about electoral violations, or any other alternative views. You are a walking proof of my theory.<<
I just think that it is more possible for Yanukovich to fake the election because as the Kuchmas’s protégé had more opportunities for it. That is my opinion and I do not claim that it is a fact. Yushchenko alleged massive fraud. His concerns have been echoed by international observers. That is all. I consider it more probable because of results of exit pools.
>>"It looks like another conspiracy but obviously you do not accept them. So please explain it more thoroughly." -- why should I waste my time explaining what you can read on your own? Chomsky analyzed the media coverage of some foreign policy issues and noted that it exhibits bizarre uniformity of opinion that flies in the face of facts. Of course, you might say he went on building his own conspiracy theory to explain that, but it's irrelevant for the present discussion. I just want you to be aware of that FACT that such uniformity exists.<<
What makes you sure that the methodology is correct?
>>"What convinces you that Ian Traynor's statement is true?" -- if Traynor was, let's say Chinese, nothing. But coming from a western journalist, it sounds more credible. Especially considering that Traynor's point was that such "support" is beneficial. In reality, this has been discussed for the past year if not more. These things weren't revealed just in time for elections.<<
Correct me if I wrong. All western media is propaganda in this case. Except from Guardian. Because it is beneficial. For whom? Who would profit from publishing theory that the US interferes in elections on Ukraine?
Speculations.
"I am following what Putin is saying. Try to listen to Putin and sources close to Kremlin." -- don't change the subject. You were talking about the coverage on Russian TV (which I expanded to Russian media in general), now you're talking about Putin's own statements. What exactly are you attempting to attack here?
Don't change the subject. I wrote that I am going to call Russian media as propaganda as you described western media. As long as you not convince me that western media are propaganda I am going to call your sources propaganda. You have still long way. And I do not need prove anything.
But - according to Eastern Studies Centre, which is monitoring Russian media, published that Russian political class is supporting Yanukovich except from right wing party represented by Borys Niemcow (he considered Ukrainian election free).
"So Russians do not have a long history of expanding or attempting to expand its sphere of influence??? Does not have a history of supporting "sons of bitches" just because they're "THEIR sons of bitches"??? And they are busy installing friendly regimes. It looks similar isn't it? And is as valid as your statement." -- this statement is entirely valid. However, we are discussing motivations of "the west" here, not of Russia. So, based on that, do you admit that "the west's" goal is not to promote democracy?
I am not going that it is completely wrong. I differently from you assess western democracy but I am not sure that I have absolutely right. So I consider Russian and western democracy as equal. On basis of this I think that both Russia and the UE want to expand its sphere of influence. I can only admit that democracy has nothing to do with it.
>>"Everybody in the west (or more precisely - Solana, Kwasniewski, Adamkus) called for election without fraud. On what basis do you built your theory?" -- it's not a theory, it's what's been reported in the media, which obviously you haven't read<<
So post the sentence in original and give your source.
>>"If somebody in its own country choose not to/do not want to speak its own language it is sign of disease. It leads to situation where Ukrainians are indistinguishable from Russians = russification." -- utterly idiotic statement. But highly indicative of your ability to comprehend what I am telling you. And I already told you, most Ukrainians have NEVER spoken the literary Ukrainian. Russification refers to a POLICY of FORCEFUL converstion to the use of the Russian language. Voluntary choice to speak Russian, especially considering that you live in territory that has been Russian (as in "not Ukrainian) from the start, has nothing to do with "Russification". Get that through your thick skull, and do not misuse terminology.<<
To be completely clear: for me Russification refers to a POLICY of conversion to the use of the Russian language. “Speak Russian or I kill you!!” – is it forceful? Or you have no choice you have to learn Russian because you wont be promoted/supported, no chance for education etc – is it forceful? What is forceful??
>>"I did not say that it is the same. I clearly differentiate it but in general both lead to increase of Russians on Ukraine and to situation when Ukrainians are indistinguishable from Russians." -- saying "Russification/Sovietization" is now supposed to be "clearly differentiating" between the two? Are you joking?<<
For you it is the same? Are you joking?
>>And you still don't get a simple point -- Russians and Ukrainians were one people who gradually became differentiated, but in the borderlands this differentiation never really occurred. Russian borderlands were populated by Russians, as well as Ukrainians fleeing from Polish oppression. This area, known as Slobozhanschina, was incorporated into UkrSSR only during the Civil War. Russians and Ukrainians there are virtually indistinguishable from each other, and all speak either surzhik or Russian with a heavy Ukrainian accent. What is going on there is interassimilation, not "Russification". The south of modern Ukraine was historically unpopulated by settled populations until it was conquered by Catherine II, who started its colonization by using both Russians and Ukrainians. This wasn't a historical part of Ukraine either. The entire south and east of Ukraine are a shared homeland for Russians and Ukrainians, and people there have a perfect right to speak any language they please. When some wannabe Ukrainian nationalist, who's not even Ukrainian and doesn't know any Ukrainian history at all, starts expounding on how they are being "russified" or how they are "diseased", the sight is pathetic.<<
You miss the simple point that Ukrainians had been living in Russian Empire since the Tsar’s Empire conquered Ukraine. Ukrainian has no chance to develop properly. Colonial masters – Russians supported ethnically Russian settlement.
>>"Why not if the migration is centrally (from Kremlin) steered?" -- ridiculous. It's one country, and if the government offers people to relocate because your skills are needed in another area, what's wrong with it? Especially considering that no one forced you to go (besided that Stalin era deportations, but that's another story).<<
I agree in description only definition/terminology is different.
>>"Agree. We should check migration Ukrainians to Russia and Russians to Ukraine." -- no, we shouldn't. Because it's irrelevant, and you're grasping at straws here.<<
You are wrong:
Assumption: it's one country and the government offers people to relocate because your skills are needed in another area, Russians and Ukrainians are equal, have the same chance to use their skills and the access to education is the same:
Thesis: in such conditions the same percent of Ukrainian population can move to Russia as well as the same percent of Russians to Ukraine. Basic data needed: demand for skills and area free to settlement, population data. Highly academic.
Maybe some of them were privileged like colonial masters.
>>And because it's my first language, despite my Ukrainian heritage.<<
I know it is private but if you do not mind – why it was first? You feel more Russian or Ukrainian?
>>Basically, I can understand your need to prove that "evil Russians" are to blame for everything, but I have to point out that your attempts are beyond pathetic when you are reduced to arguing with who you allege to be a victim of Russians (me, that is), about how evil the Russians are, and I'm forced to defend them. In short, stick to history, not propaganda.<<
Basically as long as you will blame "evil Poles" for everything I will do the same with Russians. It is as justified as yours.
If you do not maliciously attack Poles I will not response in the same way. Is that fair?