"Such consideration is still assumption not evidence as well as alleged clandestine activities. What makes you think that your assumption is true???" -- still having reading difficulties? You asked for my definition of a "conspiracy theory", I gave you one. How is your objection related to it?
"What is about your reading skills??" -- they're fine, thanks for asking.
"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 told you where to find the source. If you are unable to do so because you are thick and uninquisitive, it is not my problem. I am not going to do your work for you.
"I did not asked for Ukrainian or Russian page, did I?" -- you asked for information. I gave you information. The medium of that information is not yours to decide.
"What makes you think that I cannot read Russian. I just prefer English." -- if you were able to read Russian, you would've at least known the page is in Russian, and not Ukrainian. Even if you don't speak either, you can still tell the difference, because the alphabets are far from identical.
"Just an illustration how real are your hypotheses. You are operating uncertain assumptions and you are so sure?" -- positive. And don't avoid the issue. What is important here is that you are incompetent on the issue you're trying to argue due to your linguistic limitations. Therefore, the argument is simply an exercise in muleheadedness on your part.
"If you really must offending people?" -- I'm not offending you. I am CLASSIFYING you. Understand the difference?
"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." -- you're changing the subject. On that particular topic, you asked for western media reports of western financing for the Yuschenko campaign. I gave you the newspaper, the date, and the author. Your failure to look it up is a telling sign of your inability and unwillingness to debate effectively and honestly.
"It is not a proof that facts are not important for me. Just a clear sign that some important fact can escape your notice." -- we can agree to disagree on this. I remain with my opinion that facts are not important to you. You can claim whatever you want in that regard. It is really not important to me.
"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??" -- you're changing the subject yet again. I merely pointed out that you summarized the ruling of the Supreme Court highly incompetently. Your attacks on "Kuchma nominated CEC" are irrelevant in that respect.
"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" -- if that is the limit of your knowledge of CIS observers' allegations, please accept my condolences. Read more Russian and Ukrainian media. But then, you're thick and uninquisitive, so my proposal will go unheeded.
"Yuschenko is a pro-Western liberal reformer" means that it is the fact." -- no, it means that it is an opinion of someone who has made such a claim. This opinion can also be a fact. But it doesn't have to be. Given your basic lack of understanding here, I don't feel the need to discuss your other mistakes regarding the subject of fact vs. opinion.
"Did I really write anywhere that proved theory does not became general rule and is not theory anymore?" -- yes. Unless you were having problems with English grammar again, that's how your statement sounded.
"I just ask for evidences that confirmed your theory. Just helping you with your comprehend difficulties?" -- "evidence", singular. The correct term would be "comprehension". And try not to ape my style of argument, develop your own.
As to the subject, I already provided enough evidence or pointers you can use to dig up evidence on your own. But then, you have reading problems, so that was in vain.
"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?" -- a representative sample can be used as a substitute. It is easy enough to assemble given my subscritption to Johnson's Russia List, as well as visiting
http://www.inosmi.ru You are welcome to try to find out just how representative their sources are on your own (of course, I'm not holding my breath on that, seeing how you're thick and uninquisitive)
As a side note, Rzeczpospolita is not western media, since Poland ain't exactly "the west".
"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%?" -- silly objection. "Almost scary uniformity" obviously has no precise threshold, but 90% certainly would fall in that range for most people where political views are concerned.
"3. what exactly claims do you mean? What is a criterion of choosing the claim." -- I already enumerated these claims of the western media in this forum. But seeing how your reading skills are not up to par, I doubt repeating the same thing for the second time would be productive. Instead, I recommend that you re-read my posts on the topic.
Are there other any other "objections" that your imagination can serve up?
"So now I try work it out myself:
.........
sitting at my computer desk say ?your methodology is silly? it is true. Funniest." -- will it surprise you if I say that your attempt at humor and logic is comprehensible only to yourself?
"And now seriously:" -- you're as bad at that as at humor.
"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." -- you're changing the subject. The problem with western media and its purpose as a propaganda tool is that it does not necessarily claim that "<insert international organization here> believes the elections were rigged". Very often the claim is simply "elections were rigged". And practically always, the opposing side in a debate (i.e., those who think elections were not rigged, or were rigged, but with no effect on the outcome) gets no air time. Otherwise, everything is peachy.
"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?" -- as a matter of fact, yes. There is a nice site called
http://www.inosmi.ru All I need is Russian in order to be able to read European media "in all its variety". Please don't forget to post a picture of you "iting" your computer mouse as proof. As to English language media, JRL serves fine.
"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." -- and you're changing the subject once again. The subject was the uniformity of coverage in western media, not what you consider fact or opinion. I am merely pointing out that you're a walking proof of my point in that regard, since you weren't even familiar with an alternative view on the topic before you started talking to me.
"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." -- hehe. Which exit polls? I already gave you a link to an article on a Ukrainian site that explained that different exit polls showed different results, depending on who financed them. The fact that western media mentioned only a single exit poll (one that was, no doubt purely by coincidence, financed by western sources), is just another proof for my theory.
"What makes you sure that the methodology is correct?" -- what makes you sure it is incorrect? More importantly, why should I bother arguing with you about Chomsky's findings if you haven't read him?
"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." -- it is an entirely valid approach when considering credibility of sources. If I were to claim that you were a pedophile (just as an example), that would not be credible. However, if you were to admit to being a pedophile without any prompting from me, that would be credible. Similarly, if Russia accuses "the west" of funding Yuschenko campaign, it's not credible without sufficient verifiable evidence. On the other hand, if a western source admits to "the west" doing that, even brags about it and demonstrates its approval (as is the case with Traynor's article), it is credible.
"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." -- I'm sorry, but that's getting a bit ludicrous. I'm claiming that western media is mostly propaganda, and I'm proving it. You're claiming that Russian media is propaganda only because I call western media propaganda. That is tantamount to your admission that you don't really consider Russian media a propaganda tool, because the only reason for your claim is my totally unrelated claim. Therefore, this part of the discussion might as well be closed.
"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)." -- firstly, that would be Boris Nemtsov. Please use generally accepted Russian Cyrillic to English transliterations, instead of Polish corruptions, as long as you're writing in English. Secondly, either you or the "Eastern Studies Centre" seem pretty incompetent, because the list of Russian parties supporting Yuschenko (besides Nemtsov, whose not really in charge of SPS anymore) is significantly larger. E.g., Yavlinskii's "Yabloko", Berezovsky's puppet party, other minor so-called "democratic" parties. Novodvorskaya recently put in a word, Dorenko... (well, maybe Dorenko should not be considered separatly from Berezovsky.)
"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." -- hehe, consensus. That was my point all along when it came to western influence on the Ukrainian presidential election.
"So post the sentence in original and give your source." -- out of curiousity, you're not aware of a single claim in western media that alleged that Yuschenko won the election (rather than that the election was merely fraudulent)? If I provide you with sources on that, will you "it" your computer mouse again (the replacement one I assume you'll be getting)?
"To be completely clear: for me Russification refers to a POLICY of conversion to the use of the Russian language." -- what, in everyday life? There was no such policy in USSR. At work, if it was of national significance? What's the problem with that?
"That's kind of ?Speak Russian or I kill you!!? - is it forceful?" -- of course that would be forceful... if it happened in reality, which it didn't.
"Or you have no choice you have to learn Russian because you wont be promoted/supported, no chance for education etc - is it forceful?" -- that's not forceful. Your career is your personal choice. Would someone who insists on conducting business in Bavarian dialect in a German company be promoted? Is that "forceful Germanization"?
"For you it is the same? Are you joking?" -- still having problems with reading abilities? You introduced the term "Russification/Sovietization", implying they're two names for the same activity. Don't try to weasel out now.
"You miss the simple point that Ukrainians had been living in Russian Empire since the Tsar?s Empire conquered Ukraine." -- gee, what a revelation. There I was thinking that it was the Ukrainian leadership that swore fealty to the Russian Tsar voluntarily (in fact, Moscow initially refused their request because they didn't want the headache of another war), but now it turns out the Russian "Empire" (of course, Russia became an empire about 60 years after the events in question, but I can't ask too much of you in terms of history knowledge) "conquered" it.
"Ukrainian has no chance to develop properly. Colonial masters - Russians supported ethnically Russian settlement." -- don't fantasize. It is not the job of the government to develop local culture. It is the job of the ethnicity itself to develop the culture. But the thing is, Ukrainian "ethnicity" as a generally accepted concept appeared only in the 20th century. Most Ukrainians were not aware they were Ukrainians until the Bolsheviks told them so. Both Ukrainians and Russians called themselves Russians, except, to differentiate the people presently known as Russians from Russians in general, they were called "Muscovites", based on their political center. That is, it was one ethnos split into different political entities.
Tsarist government, of course, did engage in Russification. But its effects were limited. Soviet government, on the other hand, actively promoted national minorities in ÔÈÅ 1920s, and while that promotion eventually waned, strong protections aimed at preserving other ethnicities remained in place until the collapse of the USSR.
"You are wrong:
.... Maybe some of them were privileged like colonial masters." -- I am right. Your claim here is totally irrelevant to the argument. If Ukrainians were moving to Russia and Russians to Ukraine for economic reasons, it has nothing to do with the alleged policy of Russification.
"I know it is private but if you do not mind - why it was first? You feel more Russian or Ukrainian?" -- it's first because my parents spoke Russian. My mom switched to Russian from our local surzhik dialect she grew up with because her parents wanted her to go to a Russian school. And I consider myself an Eastern Ukrainian, with all it implies (and I already described enough about how that's different from Russians or Western Ukrainians).
"Basically as long as you will blame "evil Poles" for everything I will do the same with Russians." -- then your anti-Russian claims are disingenuous, because they're based not on your knowledge of actual history, but are simply a mirror of what you believe I claimed. Therefore, your attacks on Russians can be disregarded, since apparently you don't believe in what you write yourself.
"If you do not maliciously attack Poles I will not response in the same way. Is that fair?" -- a) I don't "maliciously attack Poles" (care to provide a quote of mine in that regard?) b) Claims should be made based on facts, not the principle of reciprocity. Your opinion of Russia should not depend on my opinion of Poland. My opinion of Poland does not depend on your opinion of Russia (besides the fact that constant Polish Russophobia has built up a negative stereotype of Poles in my mind; however, if I speak of Polish crimes, I speak of them because they've occurred, not because Poles are irritating me).