Response to SB's closed thread.

[steve_vlasenko]

Stephen,

Steve V.

" My mate anacdotes " are a personalised form of "empirical evidence" and I don't apologise for them.

Academically it▓s called hearsay. You▓d have used my mate▓s examples in an essay at UNI? Where did you read?
I'm STILL waiting to hear why your Sikh 'chaps' dislike muslims ???
I've told you why 'my' Sikh G.P. doesn't; now let's hear why sikhs known to you, do ??
What my mates say is largely irrelevant to you and this argument, what I said was you should get out of the sticks and ask some of the Sikhs living in London, or Birmingham etc.

You're happy enough (as I am too) with MS LippyChick's account of her friend who was abducted. How come mine aren't good enough??

LippyChick▓s example was not ▒of her mate▓. It was an example of a Universities un-willingness to take a stand against this. The reference was the educational establishment NOT her mate.
Do I really need to explain how to right an essay / present and academic argument?


Earlier, you (fair enough) criticised me over "linguistics"; but then you dismiss the Economist's EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE by (again, fair enough) pointing to their reference to Ukraine as THE Ukraine.
We both know that The Economist leans as much towards the
U.S. as Britain - and americans commonly refer to
Ukraine as The Ukraine.
Only the moronic ones
And we all know how they (mis)pronounce "Eye-rak" or "Eye-ran" or "Mascaw".
Surely, a "linguistic" argument ??

A linguistic argument? : The use of the definite article is both grammatically incorrect and politically offensive. Grammatically, the definite article is used only with the name of states when genitive is either present (e.g. the United States of America) or implied (e.g. the
Czech Republic). It is also politically offensive as it has historically been used to connote the idea that Ukraine is merely an area of territory (like THE Pennines) rather than a separate nation and/or state. I recognise that this is a common error, but this makes it no less offensive. It was another tool of the Russians in their attempt to subjugate the Ukrainian consciousness. I thought this point had been hammered home last year on this board.

Ask anyone related to the study of Eastern Europe for their opinions of the Economist and they▓ll tell you the same as I have done. It▓s a laughing stock. Possible the level of evidence required in sociology is lower than in history and politics, but referencing the economist academically is going to present problems.

Here▓s an example of the excellence of the Economist journalism:-

'Russian gloom or boom?' Edward Lucas in the Economist
Publications 'The world in 2001'

This will be another miserable year for most Russians, as they stay more or less as poor, unhealthy, badly housed and badly governed as in 2000. Oddly, that may be a good thing.
It is only when the costs of cronyism and disorganisation become blindingly clear that Russians will ditch their idiosyncratic habits and try to do things in the way that happier countries do.

(1st para of article)
Printed without permission.



Do you need more evidence of the pejorative journalism?

Take Care.

Vlas

[Stephen_Bailey]

Steve,

Semantics !!

" Mr Logic" would be proud. (Apologies to anyone who doesn't read Viz).

I disagree with you.

1. I think you'll find MOST American people (not of Ukrainian descent) refer to Ukraine as THE Ukraine.
They also say The Netherlands and The Argentine.
Hardly a basis to dismiss The Economist (??)
of course it's Journalism is less than perfect. I'd be delighted to hear what publication you would rate more highly ( Newsweek?? Time?? ).

2. Lippychicks tale about her unfortunate friend was a VITAL contribution to that thread. You're splitting hairs to say it was just about the crap response of a University. it was (as I'm sure you know) what religious extremists and a cowardly college did - TO THIS GIRL.
If she'd simply said muslim extremists go around abducting girls who want an education we'd all have said "So what?"
And if I simply said 'moderate muslims don't hate anyone' or 'unrestricted free speech causes innocent people to get their heads kicked-in' or 'many sikhs don't hate muslims'
you'd be entitled to say, so what?

Meanwhile. I'm still waiting to hear why you think Sikhs hate Islam ??

I bet, down in London, you DO have sikhs who hate muslims and muslims who hate christians and hindus who hate sikhs and feminist athiests who hate 'em all.
But why is that ??
My theory is, because in big cities like London and Birmingham there are extremists (from all communities) abusing their right to "free speech" and stirring up pointless hatreds.
here in "the sticks" we have muslims and sikhs and hindus and christians - and they all get on with their lives and each other.

What's your view on that ?

S.B.

[LippyChick]

Bailey,

I posted the info on the girls to show how liberal s**t-heads at my University, were willing to stand by and let this girl be dragged to life of servitude. University's un-willingness to get involved with Islamic issues is an example of PC scum bags standing by while outrageous acts are committed.

Arguing with you is become one hell of a tedious task, are you totally unable to grasp concepts wider than 2 + 2 = 4? If yes then you'll do well in Islam, all totalitarian doctrines love the dim.

So what if dim-wits use THE with Ukraine, IT IS STILL WRONG AND OFFENSIVE AND ANYONE CLAIMING TO KNOW THEIR SUBJECT I.E. UKRAINE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. More evidence of stupidity.


LippyChick

I guess you'd s**t you pants if you came in to London.

[Stephen_Bailey]

Dear MS LippyChick,

Tut-tut. For a professional Economist, you are rather presumptuous. How do you know I didn't spend, oh?, 20 years in London? You don't. How do you know I'm not from London? You don't.
So why say I'd **** my pants if I ever came there?
Silly girl.

Anyway. You've defeated your own argument. You're absolutely right in that a "P.C. ****-head University" allowed the girl in question to be carried off - and yet, you lump ME in with such "P.C. ****-heads".
Read my lips. I AM SLAGGING THEM OFF FOR IT.
Satisfied? I doubt it.

Ok. Let's find out how much YOU know about Ukraine. Come on? Tell us. (Feel free to make things up if you like )
Steve V finds it "offensive" to call Ukraine "The Ukraine".
That's tough.
1. By his own admission he's british-Ukrainian, not Ukrainian and I haven't met any ukrainians (who actually live there) and find it offensive.
2. So what if it's offensive? You're a supporter of free speech?
The Ukraine
The Ukraine
The Ukraine
The Ukraine
You exercise your free speech to hurl insults around.

Anyway. It's 16:40 now, so I guess you'll be busy getting someone's tea ready? Don't forget the ironing!

( Uuuuhh! We should never have given them the Vote )

S.B.

[Nonson]

Ain't RESURRECTIONS just grand?

Nonson
2.26.01

[LippyChick]

You're slagging the UNI off, well done now slag the religion that permits this subjugation off.

THE UKRAINE

I knew you'd come back with that argument, we had it last year.

This is UKRAINE.COM, what are you here for if not to discuss aspects of Ukraine. I'm not calling for your removal, just questioning what, if you're that ignorant about Ukraine are you doing here, other than to learn? Which you're not doing. Oh yes! of course you're one of the losers who can't get a bird in England.

Feel free to show your ignorance of the English language.

Ukrainians do object to the use of NA instead of V when referring to Ukraine, it's used to 'connote' that Ukraine is only a territory of Russian, the same as THE Ukraine. I guess you don't speak Ukrainian.

Argentina is never referred to as the Argentina and the Nederlands has genitive implied! You really are a dumb ass.

If you'd lived in London, for any amount of time (I don't mean visiting, to see your favourite Lloyd-Weber play) you wouldn't display you stunning naivety.

LippyChick

Keep the humour coming, I nearly peed my pant on your last post.

[Nonson]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHH!!!!!!!! ouch. that one hurts.) (Pinkey?)

Nonson
2.26.01