rip Boris Nemtsov

[Gromnir]

Heh, ok, if being untrustworthy of western media is being conspiracy theorist.

discounting all such sources as yellow journalism? dismissing such sources as the wsj 'cause Rupert Murdoch owns rather than giving specifics?  yeah, conspiracy explains better.  

 

western journalists is purposefully trying to make russia look bad.

 

western journalists is conspiring to make russia look bad.

 

starve on the difference, eh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 7, 2015 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

Well, depends on the sources, some have a reputation for being mouthpieces.  Don't tell me you wouldn't take a Daily Mail article as BS on the first pass, for example.

[Gromnir]

Well, depends on the sources, some have a reputation for being mouthpieces.  Don't tell me you wouldn't take a Daily Mail article as BS on the first pass, for example.

sure, we discount sources... individually.  mindlessly discount an entire group because o' imagined allegiance to an idea or some kinda plot to make russia look bad?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

Sheesh that's (sadly typical) revisionism Grommy. I gave multiple alternative links to other sources showing that Mr Murdoch's Yellow was in the minority with his extreme negative view- indeed, you inadvertently linked to another one yourself later. Your entire argument was based on one outlier article, yet somehow it's other people with the, lol, 'conspiracy theory'.

 

for a  guy s'posed tired of the conspiracy theories, you sure do like to indulge.  muslims, oligarchs, and o' 'course, the yellow journalists... oh my.

 

Nah. I'm not tired of 'conspiracy theories'. I actually find the term extremely lazy and to be used primarily by people who cannot argue properly as a cheap win, it's as bad as 'well your just wrong!' as an argument. Pretty much the only time I'll use the term is against someone who is oh so fond of it using it themselves, hence the :smug:

 

Indeed, the only 'arguments' I find more lazy than 'conspiracy theory' are outright abuse, and "you must be paid to say that".

 

I far prefer 'narrative following' or similar, it's more neutral since basically everyone does it, it doesn't imply that they're automatically wrong or paranoid delusional, just that they're human and as all humans do, like stories. You get people working back from conclusions and either ignoring evidence or having some sort of cognitive dissonance about things, but 'conspiracy theory' is just a lazy, unimaginative and really rather feeble label for a narrative that someone wants to discredit and cannot think of a better way of doing so.

 

(Now waiting to be told how I was actually entirely serious and the :smug: meant... god only knows what. Given I'm complaining about working back from conclusions that would be most highly ironic)

[Gromnir]

Sheesh that's (sadly typical) revisionism Grommy. I gave multiple alternative links to other sources showing that Mr Murdoch's Yellow was in the minority with his extreme negative view- indeed, you inadvertently linked to another one yourself later. Your entire argument was based on one outlier article, yet somehow it's other people with the, lol, 'conspiracy theory'.

 

for a  guy s'posed tired of the conspiracy theories, you sure do like to indulge.  muslims, oligarchs, and o' 'course, the yellow journalists... oh my.

 

Nah. I'm not tired of 'conspiracy theories'. I actually find the term extremely lazy and to be used primarily by people who cannot argue properly as a cheap win, it's as bad as 'well your just wrong!' as an argument. Pretty much the only time I'll use the term is against someone who is oh so fond of it using it themselves, hence the :smug:

 

Indeed, the only 'arguments' I find more lazy than 'conspiracy theory' are outright abuse, and "you must be paid to say that".

 

I far prefer 'narrative following' or similar, it's more neutral since basically everyone does it, it doesn't imply that they're automatically wrong or paranoid delusional, just that they're human and as all humans do, like stories. You get people working back from conclusions and either ignoring evidence or having some sort of cognitive dissonance about things, but 'conspiracy theory' is just a lazy, unimaginative and really rather feeble label for a narrative that someone wants to discredit and cannot think of a better way of doing so.

 

(Now waiting to be told how I was actually entirely serious and the :smug: meant... god only knows what. Given I'm complaining about working back from conclusions that would be most highly ironic)

your revisionism, not Gromnir's. your sources is clear minority regarding wsj pov.  is why we offered links to reuteurs and bbc, and a host o' others.  the notion that western sanctions is not hurting russia's economy, and that the pain the russian economy is only tied to oil is such a minority pov that it is not even worth mentioning.  again, why the suspicion o' Alexei Kudrin? hell, you even misread graphs that hurt your position showing the disproportionate plummeting o' the ruble compared to other oil-dependent currencies. 

 

and round we go.

 

regardless, is funny how little suspicion zor has for some stories.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps one wonders how many times we can double "and" in a post. sheesh.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

FFS. You didn't actually provide any support for the wsj article. You clearly didn't read what you were linking to or deliberately misinterpreted it in the hope I wouldn't read them: eg the reuters article you linked agreed with me and my links and directly and outright contradicted the wsj article, to whit:

 

"Russia is poised to exhaust its two reserve funds in 18 months if oil prices stay at around current levels of $50 a barrel" (your Reuters link, supporting what I said) versus your at current rate of spending, and given that the russian economy were tuned to 100 dollar per barrel oil prices, that $376 billion lasts anywhere from 6 months to a year that you/ wsj said.

And you're still banging on about 'me' saying that western sanctions have done no damage? Prove I said it. You spectacularly failed to do so when invited previous.

 

Indeed, you actually ran off when I looked at your Kudrin articles because, again, they supported what I was saying, not what you were saying. And they didn't have the figure in them that you claimed they had either, that 40% of currency depreciation was due to sanctions rather than oil price drops; the only '40%' figure was how much Russian imports had declined and how that would help stabilise the currency.

 

At that point... You were either so afflicted by cognitive dissonance that you genuinely thought a Reuters article saying 18 months supported your 6 months to a year and not my 18 months to 2 years or you were deliberately posting links in the hope they won't be read and challenged. Neither is particularly flattering as an interpretation.

 

Really though, if you want to relitigate this particular iteration of your, heh, 'wilful stoopid' shall we say? then take it back to the Ukraine thread where at least it's semi relevant.

[Gromnir]

ran off?  HA!  we stopped responding to your insanity.  sure, there is considerable debate about how long russia can last. because, shucks, future prognostications is always tough. what isn't near as difficult is recognizing that western sanctions has hurt the russian economy and has contributed significant to the devaluation o' the ruble.

 

"Nope, I said that economic sanctions would not severely impact Russia. The oil price is independent of the sanctions and unrelated to them, it's Saudi taking a dump on frackers."

 

"I'll throw in a complementary extra illustration: Bloomberg chart of rouble to oil prices- sanctions and counter sanctions applied March and August. As anyone can see sanctions had sweet asterisk all effect, the exchange rate almost perfectly matches oil prices- which is independent of sanctions."

 

"Oh ffs, if you insist and since this is at least relevant to something I have said instead of your imagination. Your figure, 30% price increase. My figure 100% increase due to exchange rate."

 

etc.

 

and yeah, http://www.ft.com/in...144feabdc0.html, kurdin did use 40% in addition to the other articles observing that,""We mustn't downplay the impact of sanctions … It's a very big blow every year to the Russian economy," Kudrin said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the Prime news agency reported." we can post more quotes from kurdin expressing how impactful western sanctions has been.  you really need more?

 

"At his annual press conference, Putin blamed the usual suspects for Russia's mess. However, it is his policies or the lack of it, and using oil and gas as a weapon to further Russia's geopolitical interest that has been responsible for the latest currency crisis. Alexi Kurdin, a former finance minister and also an ally of Putin, told Financial Times on Monday that the sanctions have been responsible for 40% of the drip in the Russian currency."

 

again, there were no running away.  your attempts to pretend that western sanctions were an insignificant contributor to the devaluation o' the ruble were making you so laughable that we saw no need to continue; why argue with somebody that will have agreement from nobody but the voices talking to them in their head?  we didn't realize that it were a Last Post Wins situation.

 

*snort*

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69691-ukraine-discussion/?p=1570457

 

this were also a reason we quit the thread as you had complete gone off the deep end.  you accused us o' content stripping and other such nonsense when clearly you were fighting the imaginary people in your head.  Gromnir had made zero mentions o' time-frames in our posts, but you inexplicably saw such.  

 

so yeah, you were doing an ostrich regarding impact o' western sanctions on the Russian economy and trying to makes such sanctions o' negligible impact compared to oil regardless o' folks such as wsj, reuters, bloomberg and Kurdin saying otherwise. go back and look at how many times you used "yellow journalism" to refute a source we provided.  that ain't making an argument. you had also turned Gromnir into a boogeyman and you were seeing imaginary stuff from us.  so, what were our motivation to continue arguing.

 

all o' which ignores the current topic which is about your comically selective suspicion.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 8, 2015 by Gromnir

[Agiel]

Personally, I blame it all on the Yeltsin era and the failure of Western countries to provide some kind of Marshall Aid package to post-Soviet countries (sadly, that would never happen without two competing global ideologies...).

 

 

I'm reminded of a passage from The War that Never Was that explains why this didn't happen, according to a character who was a former KGB analyst:

 

 

 

"Now think of the Cold War as the equivalent of a pair of sea anemones fighting for a rock. To the human eye, the two creatures appear to be waving their delicate little arms in the current, almost caressing each other. But your eyes deceive you. If you take a video of the anemones, and then you play it back at accelerated speed, you see the two animals lashing each other with poison tentacles in a life and death struggle for the control of that rock. What I'm saying is that the Cold War was a sort of slow-motion war. But if it was on video, and we could fast forward the Cold War, I would argue that we would see it for what it really was - a very deadly conflict."

 

"But you weren't defeated, in a military sense." Taft replied.

 

"No, but that's irrelevant. What's amazing is what actually took place in the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War was far, far worse than any of the scenarios dreamed up by your think tanks, or even the minds of your fiction writers. No one would have predicted such an utter collapse had the two superpowers actually fought a war! We were like the German Empire at the end of the First World War. Foreign troops hadn't yet crossed our borders, but we'd been defeated just the same."

 

"And now you're in what... your Weimar stage." Taft added.

 

"Yes, so to speak," Sinsukin admitted. "And who knows where that will lead."

 

Because it hadn't gone "hot," no one really considered the idea that the result of the political and economic collapse of the Soviet Union had about the same effect had it lost a conventional shooting war with the First World and its coalition partners.

[Gromnir]

 

Personally, I blame it all on the Yeltsin era and the failure of Western countries to provide some kind of Marshall Aid package to post-Soviet countries (sadly, that would never happen without two competing global ideologies...).

 

 

I'm reminded of a passage from The War that Never Was that explains why this didn't happen, according to a character who was a former KGB analyst:

 

 

 

"Now think of the Cold War as the equivalent of a pair of sea anemones fighting for a rock. To the human eye, the two creatures appear to be waving their delicate little arms in the current, almost caressing each other. But your eyes deceive you. If you take a video of the anemones, and then you play it back at accelerated speed, you see the two animals lashing each other with poison tentacles in a life and death struggle for the control of that rock. What I'm saying is that the Cold War was a sort of slow-motion war. But if it was on video, and we could fast forward the Cold War, I would argue that we would see it for what it really was - a very deadly conflict."

 

"But you weren't defeated, in a military sense." Taft replied.

 

"No, but that's irrelevant. What's amazing is what actually took place in the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War was far, far worse than any of the scenarios dreamed up by your think tanks, or even the minds of your fiction writers. No one would have predicted such an utter collapse had the two superpowers actually fought a war! We were like the German Empire at the end of the First World War. Foreign troops hadn't yet crossed our borders, but we'd been defeated just the same."

 

"And now you're in what... your Weimar stage." Taft added.

 

"Yes, so to speak," Sinsukin admitted. "And who knows where that will lead."

 

Because it hadn't gone "hot," no one really considered the idea that the result of the political and economic collapse of the Soviet Union had about the same effect had it lost a conventional shooting war with the First World and its coalition partners.

 

 

many mistakes made.  the myth that the ussr was a military and economic superpower died with the collapse o' the berlin wall.  even so, the russian economy and its over-dependence on oil has changed little from the soviet era days.  western governments and business were quite happy to take advantage o' russian business following the collapse o' the soviet union, but they ignored the rampant corruption and the dangerous fragility o' the russian economy.  

 

...

 

there is this pervasive paranoia that the west is out to "get" russia.  we had to disabuse zor o' this a couple times as we kept repeating that No Western Nation Would Be Pleased to See the Russian Economy Fail... again.  we don't want russia to fail. a russia fail is not a good thing.  When russia fails, as it inevitably will given current economic conditions, every western nation will suffer, and more than a couple major western business is gonna be shattered.  but anybody with a couple firing neurons coulda' seen this coming, because it has happened before. since mid 80s, the US invested far more in china modernization for chrissakes. freaking bass akwards...

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

Well, you can 'get' a nation without having them fall - keeping them neatly contained and no longer a threat to you in areas, etc.  Certainly can't fault someone outside the West thinking our leaders are full of crap when it comes to goodwill and deciding where to dispatch their air forces next, heh.

[Zoraptor]

ran off?

Yep- went and complained about 'conspiracy theorists' and how much you hoped that people would be banned in the political correctness thread.

 

Classy.

 

"Nope, I said that economic sanctions would not severely impact Russia. The oil price is independent of the sanctions and unrelated to them, it's Saudi taking a dump on frackers." Well, that is an actual quote from me at least. It does not support your assertion that I said "that western sanctions is [sic] not hurting russia's economy" at all, just that sanctions were not hurting it severely. Again, show where I actually said that sanctions are not hurting Russia, not some fantasy land interpretation where 'not severely' == 'not at all'.

 

"I'll throw in a complementary extra illustration: Bloomberg chart of rouble to oil prices- sanctions and counter sanctions applied March and August. As anyone can see sanctions had sweet asterisk all effect, the exchange rate almost perfectly matches oil prices- which is independent of sanctions."

 

 

Yep. The exchange rate did barely flicker in April and August when sanctions were applied, and only dropped when oil prices did, and that is what was shown. It was your chart that didn't show what you thought it did, not mine.

"Oh ffs, if you insist and since this is at least relevant to something I have said instead of your imagination. Your figure, 30% price increase. My figure 100% increase due to exchange rate."

Yep, basic economics, just about the most basic of economics. Imports cannot mitigate a 30% price increase when the currency devaluation mandates a 100% increase. Again, your own expert (Kudrin) agreed with me on that and not with you

 

and yeah, http://www.ft.com/in...144feabdc0.html, kurdin did use 40% in addition to the other articles observing that,""We mustn't downplay the impact of sanctions … It's a very big blow every year to the Russian economy," Kudrin said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the Prime news agency reported." we can post more quotes from kurdin expressing how impactful western sanctions has been.  you really need more?

 

Nope, I really don't want to encourage you to post any more. At least this time you managed to copy the link properly so I can actually check instead of including an ellipse in the url and turning it into nonsense worse than your shtick. And- of course- it's actually "up to 40%", as the actual quote, and not 40% as you stated. Plus a quote from the Moscow Suomi Times. Why not got the whole hog and quote VoA? And then

"At his annual press conference, Putin blamed the usual suspects for Russia's mess. However, it is his policies or the lack of it [sic], and using oil and gas as a weapon to further Russia's geopolitical interest [sic] that has been responsible for the latest currency crisis. Alexi [sic] Kurdin [sic], a former finance minister and also an ally of Putin, told Financial Times on Monday that the sanctions have been responsible for 40% [sic] of the drip [sic] in the Russian currency."

 

A barely literate 'quote' from a blog. Which, oddly enough, makes misquotes ("up to 40%", "kurdin") that mirror misquotes in your own writing.

 

again, there were no running away. 

 

lol.

 

you accused us o' content stripping and other such nonsense

 

 

lol. Unlike you I only make accusations I can prove. You've been disingenuous, at very best, misquoting and misinterpreting so frequently I can only assume it's deliberate, and I provide examples of how you are too.

 

when clearly you were fighting the imaginary people in your head

 

 

Well now, that really is projection when coming from someone who insists I said that sanctions would do no damage and the best quote they can find to 'prove' it is me saying it wouldn't do severe damage.

 

all o' which ignores the current topic which is about your comically selective suspicion.  

 

Weird, I thought it was about Boris Nemtsov's murder... yep, says "rip Boris Nemtsov" at top. I guess I could say it's really about your rabid Putinphobia, conspiracy theories, fallacious and bad faith argumentation or whatever, but that gives you importance you really don't merit.

[obyknven]

Imperial inquisition capture all killers. One of them explode yourself during arrest, but all others stay alive. Very soon they tell Everything  about people who hire them. Don't mess with Empire! 

[Gromnir]

run away is different than leaving the field after a win.  you had beaten yourself into insensibility for pages (deja vu) and when it became clear you weren't gonna add anything new, we stopped wasting efforts on what were clearly becoming excessive.

 

"Yep, basic economics, just about the most basic of economics."

 

basic economics that we showed a considerable number o' economists disagreed with you.  those yellow journalists were quoting economists. world monetary fund, kurdin, harvard.  

 

*shrug*

 

but you can't read a graph, so is to to help you.

 

your attempts to distinguish quotes ain't helping you.  am not sure why you keep it up.  you first laugh off articles suggesting that russian economy were in dire straits by pointing to the huge currency reserve they gots, a currency reserve that were over $550 billion mid 2013, $500 billion in january o' 2014, and had dropped over $70 billion in the last 4 months o' 2014.  Gromnir didn't mention anything 'bout time frames for fail, not until after You misquoted us.  you sure as hell couldn't prove context stripping 'cause as our previous link revealed, the two posts we made before your asinine and bass ackwards ejaculation about the quickly vanishing russian currency reserve were little more than links to articles quoting world bank and harvard economists.  we did point out that the articles we linked said the fail could come as quick as 6-12 months, in spite o' your claim we said 6 months.  again, weren't a Gromnir guess.  you then think that by posting an article suggesting that russians' reserve would hold for 18 months were somehow... am not sure what you thought with that.  the extra 6 months were what you were thinking showed that russsia weren't facing a dire financial crisis?  HA!

 

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69691-ukraine-discussion/?p=1570497

 

context stripping.  really?  say you proved don't make it so.  just as denying any western print source as yellow journalism ain't proof.  is... pathetic actually.

 

also, you misquote the kurdin quote, even though you miss the point... again.  the ft articles says "up to 40%" but in the context o' explaining that the kurdin believed that sanctions were hurting the ruble more than putin's claims o' 25-30%.  naughty. we noted numerous times that western sanctions had had a significant impact on the devaluation o' the ruble.  you disagreed.  *shrug*  we then linked a considerable number o' respected economists such as Kurdin and faayman and wmf and harvard professors.  not good enough?  your paranoia and suspicion being what it is (more on-topic) we focused on kurdin as he were russian and arguably risking his life by crossing putin.  

 

"We mustn't downplay the impact of sanctions … It's a very big blow every year to the Russian economy," 

 

you wanna fight over 40% as 'posed to 31%-40%.  *chuckle* even putin's evaluation makes western sanctions as having had a greater impact than what you were admitting 'cause o' your inability to read a graph and your clear flawed notion o' "basic economics."  

 

if you genuine believe you has done anything in this or the other thread to extricate yourself from your clear buffoonery regarding the russian financial crisis, then you can't be helped.  is a given amongst even those folks you has link to (such as bloomberg) that russia's situation is dire. 6-18 months o' reserve depletion when such depletion has been going on for years?  not good.  and your obstinate denial o' the impact o' western sanctions has now become hinged on the quote o' a russian economist who specific said, "We mustn't downplay the impact of sanctions … It's a very big blow every year to the Russian economy," 

 

am not sure what it is with you and the russia stuff.

 

satellite evidence regarding malaysia air = suspicion

 

literal dozens o' sources, including some o' zors, that show how dire and imminent a russian financial collapse appears = suspicion

 

Not suspicious o' the growing pile o' corpses?

 

Not suspicious o' the recent arrest?

 

you are transparent.  you are becoming a joke.  your best bet would have been to run away or at least pretend your ostrich routine regarding the russian economy had never occurred... wouldn't be a first for you.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

I kind of take it for granted that most people don't trust politicians.  It made me wonder the other day, does Oby have complete trust in Putin?  

[Volourn]

Yes.

[Malcador]

I kind of take it for granted that most people don't trust politicians.  It made me wonder the other day, does Oby have complete trust in Putin?  

 

Oby is Putin.

[Gromnir]

 

I kind of take it for granted that most people don't trust politicians.  It made me wonder the other day, does Oby have complete trust in Putin?  

 

Oby is Putin.

 

no, no.

 

putin is ferris bueller... but older and angrier.

 

 

wake up and smell the coffee.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 8, 2015 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

run away is different than leaving the field after a win.

 

You didn't and haven't 'won' on one single point. All you've done is misrepresent, move off when shown to be misrepresenting/ goalpost shift, shuffle and repeat- as you generally do. No doubt next post you'll be back to claiming that 'not severe' means 'none' again, or similar.

 

Oh wait, you do that again, further down.

 

Gromnir didn't mention anything 'bout time frames for fail [..]

we did point out that the articles we linked said the fail could come as quick as 6-12 months

 

Oookay. So you post articles, defend articles, quote from articles and yet "didn't mention time frames". Then admit you actually did a couple of sentences later. Pretty much sums things up.

 

I said I'd put my money where my mouth is and adopt an ostrich avatar for a year if the 6-12 months estimate were true- and I'll do so even if you had so little faith in wsj guy that you wouldn't reciprocate. Because I have 100% confidence wsj guy was spouting crap.

 

And if your complaint is based on you posting that wsj article as some sort of detached academic exercise then, lol.

 

also, you misquote the kurdin quote, even though you miss the point... again.  the ft articles says "up to 40%" but in the context o' explaining that the kurdin believed that sanctions were hurting the ruble more than putin's claims o' 25-30%.  naughty.

 

Nope. Mine was a direct quote of an article you'd (supposedly) already read and provided a link to, made to refute the bald and contextually inaccurate '40%' claim you'd actually pulled from a paraphrasing blog.

 

and your obstinate denial o' the impact o' western sanctions has now become hinged on the quote o' a russian economist

 

Uh, it was you who were fixated on the '40%' [sic] figure, not me. I was just pointing out that you were misquoting your expert. If you don't want that to happen then don't misquote him.

[Zoraptor]

And on something actually related to Nemtsov, it appears that one of those arrested (and the one who has confessed) is a member of a Chechen militia group related to Ramzan Kadyrov.

[BruceVC]

And on something actually related to Nemtsov, it appears that one of those arrested (and the one who has confessed) is a member of a Chechen militia group related to Ramzan Kadyrov.

 http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/07/europe/russia-nemtsov-murder-arrest/index.html

 

Yeah so it appears to be Chechen's who are responsible. I think there is some doubt about whether this is true. Ramzan Kadyrov, the Russian appointed head of the  Chechnya republic, is also questioning these arrests as he is saying the people arrested were all " proud Russian supporters "

 

So we need to see how this unfolds 

[Gromnir]

 

run away is different than leaving the field after a win.

 

You didn't and haven't 'won' on one single point. All you've done is misrepresent, move off when shown to be misrepresenting/ goalpost shift, shuffle and repeat- as you generally do. No doubt next post you'll be back to claiming that 'not severe' means 'none' again, or similar.

 

Oh wait, you do that again, further down.

 

Gromnir didn't mention anything 'bout time frames for fail [..]

we did point out that the articles we linked said the fail could come as quick as 6-12 months

 

Oookay. So you post articles, defend articles, quote from articles and yet "didn't mention time frames". Then admit you actually did a couple of sentences later. Pretty much sums things up.

 

I said I'd put my money where my mouth is and adopt an ostrich avatar for a year if the 6-12 months estimate were true- and I'll do so even if you had so little faith in wsj guy that you wouldn't reciprocate. Because I have 100% confidence wsj guy was spouting crap.

 

And if your complaint is based on you posting that wsj article as some sort of detached academic exercise then, lol.

 

also, you misquote the kurdin quote, even though you miss the point... again.  the ft articles says "up to 40%" but in the context o' explaining that the kurdin believed that sanctions were hurting the ruble more than putin's claims o' 25-30%.  naughty.

 

Nope. Mine was a direct quote of an article you'd (supposedly) already read and provided a link to, made to refute the bald and contextually inaccurate '40%' claim you'd actually pulled from a paraphrasing blog.

 

and your obstinate denial o' the impact o' western sanctions has now become hinged on the quote o' a russian economist

 

Uh, it was you who were fixated on the '40%' [sic] figure, not me. I was just pointing out that you were misquoting your expert. If you don't want that to happen then don't misquote him.

 

*chuckle*

 

we love the hypocrisy.  talk about "context stripping."  the 40% were relevant 'cause it went to substantiate that western sanctions were indeed impactful rather that your ignorant and obdurate attempts to diminish.  the 40% were only relevant as a repudiation or your continued ostrich routine... your peculiar need to believe that western sanctions weren't a significant contributor to russia's growing economic crisis.  even more amusing "context stripping" were you failure to put the Kurdin quote In Context o' suggesting that putin's guesstimates o' 25-30% were too little and that yes, indeed, western sanctions were hurting russia's economy a great deal.

 

"We mustn't downplay the impact of sanctions … It's a very big blow every year to the Russian economy,"  

 

might as well post that quote again 'cause the context o' kurdin's other quotes seems lost on you.  btw, that is a quote from the moscow times.  the 40% stuff were from the financial times. no blogs.

 

 

you context strip and then accuse us o' doing so... repeatedly?  is a bad habit for you it seems.

 

*chuckle*

 

accuse us o' context stripping (HA!) when the only context were your spontaneous ejaculation following two posts by Gromnir offering links.  at the same time, your recent posts is kinda the paranoid's handbook entry on context stripping for dummies... doing obvious and repeated.

 

reality:

 

Gromnir quote:

 

"hell, it were only a few pages ago in this thread when you were telling us that the Russian financial crisis were some kinda invention o’ western journalists, or some such nonsense. 

 

"“Yes, I hear that Russia is down to their last 376 billion!

 

"“Always a good laugh, seeing US press (and especially Uncle Rupes' Yellow Journalists) talking their enemies down, you'd think dealing with the 18 trillion dollar (and currently increasing at more than Russia's entire external debt annually) log in their own eye would garner rather more attention.”"

 

 

zor:

 

Hooray for context stripping. To remind people, you were saying that Russia would be out of reserves in "six months to a year at current rate of spending". I handily refuted the "current rate of spending" pages back, now there's nothing else to do but set the alarm clock for early August- Feb 2015/6 and see whose experts were right, mine saying 18 months to two years or yours saying max a year. Whoever is wrong can feel free to admit they were an ostrich.

 

'course the actuality can be seen, once again, via the links:

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69691-ukraine-discussion/page-13?do=findComment&comment=1569008

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69691-ukraine-discussion/page-13?do=findComment&comment=1569041

 

again, no mention o' time frames from Gromnir before your sudden and ridiculous observation that has every reputable economist outside russia, and even a few in, laughing themselves silly.  

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/26/investing/russia-credit-rating-junk/

 

cnn money showing that russia is no having junk status for s&p credit.  

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2015/01/06/russias-currency-crisis-continues-the-ruble-is-crashing-again/2/

 

is a forbes article detailing continuing ruble plight

 

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/warnings-of-russian-financial-crisis-spread-as-banks-start-failing/514503.html

 

another moscow times article highlighting the impending russian banking crisis

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/14/us-russia-crisis-idUSKBN0KN0Q620150114

 

a reuteurs article quoting russian finance minister speaking 'bout the severity o' the budget gap russia is facing.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/18/russias-plagiarism-problem-even-putin-has-done-it/

 

ok, that one is just for funsy... show putin's "doctoral" thesis were plagiarized, and the comical extent o' the plagiarizing. 

 

context stripping?  russia is down to their last (less than) $350 billion in reserves, and with the glut o' stored oil being too expensive to maintain, many/most prognosticators is predicting another drop in oil prices.  IF the current western sanctions is maintained, russia is in serious trouble within the next 6-18 months.  you really think the extra six months makes the situation worthy o' a "good laugh?" HA! it is funny, but is black humor, and EVERYBODY but oby and a few putin apologists would be laughing at you.

 

 

you is a Hoot. 

 

keep posting.  is funny.  am certain Gromnir will once again tire before you do, but it feels a bit like beating up a crippled and blind kid.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 9, 2015 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

Nah, doubt I'll last must longer as I'm having genuine difficulty deciphering what you're talking about enough to refute it- since it seems to have devolved entirely into bizzaro land fantasy where you misquote something (or perhaps quote a blog rather than the claimed article), I correct it, then you say I snipped context when you not only didn't provide the context yourself in the first place but you actively misrepresented it as an absolute figure and not the upper limit the article actually had it as.

 

Sorry bro, I cannot retroactively fix your initial failure to provide context. That's impossible, and if I could I'd have far better uses for such powers.

 

were your spontaneous ejaculation following two posts by Gromnir offering links

 

Oh, so you are going for the 'just providing things out of academic interest defence'. Can't say I didn't predict it. I guess that's the only way you can find to bail out, not actually standing behind links you provided and trying to imply I suckered you into your 6-12 months claim when you- freely and spontaneously- posted the article yourself and spent post after post defending it until even you realised it was actually too extreme to defend. Sorry bro, only person who suckered you was you.

 

After all, if it didn't represent your opinion, why post it in the first place? And why defend it? Why not simply say that it was an outlier example or similar? Only answer: because you believed it to be accurate, or you were so stubborn you set yourself up for the fall.

 

OTOH, I stood fully behind the links I provided, right down to being willing to make a one way bet on them- no worries, you don't have to reciprocate. But it shows exactly how much faith you actually have in the wsj article that you won't even back it with something as meaningless as an internet bet.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Drowsy Emperor]

I'm guessing exactly 0 tears were shed for this fifth column member. He was one of the cooperative individuals in the Yeltsin government and that's enough to damn anyone in Russia to oblivion in 2015.

 

Obviously it does Putin no good to have this happen at this particular moment (in which he's seen as defender of Russia with public support that would put most politicians in the west to shame), so those trying to pin this on him are very amusing to me.

 

Kill a third rate, irrelevant "opposition" member in the middle of a crisis, because...his busload of supporters are a grave threat? He's going to "expose" something?

 

roflmao

 

And now it turns out the chechens may have killed him. Where's the narrative going to go from here? AND HOW WILL WE FIND A WAY TO BLAME PUTIN? 

Edited March 9, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[HoonDing]

Turn to Page 3

[Gromnir]

Nah, doubt I'll last must longer as I'm having genuine difficulty deciphering what you're talking about enough to refute it- since it seems to have devolved entirely into bizzaro land fantasy where you misquote something (or perhaps quote a blog rather than the claimed article), I correct it, then you say I snipped context when you not only didn't provide the context yourself in the first place but you actively misrepresented it as an absolute figure and not the upper limit the article actually had it as.

 

Sorry bro, I cannot retroactively fix your initial failure to provide context. That's impossible, and if I could I'd have far better uses for such powers.

 

were your spontaneous ejaculation following two posts by Gromnir offering links

 

Oh, so you are going for the 'just providing things out of academic interest defence'. Can't say I didn't predict it. I guess that's the only way you can find to bail out, not actually standing behind links you provided and trying to imply I suckered you into your 6-12 months claim when you- freely and spontaneously- posted the article yourself and spent post after post defending it until even you realised it was actually too extreme to defend. Sorry bro, only person who suckered you was you.

 

 

this is getting repetitive... again. you can't read posts or graphs it seems.  YOU claimed that we context stripped 'cause you were refuting Gromnir's assertion, "that Russia would be out of reserves in "six months to a year at current rate of spending."  doesn't exist.  we made no such claim that could have inspired your ridiculous quote:

 

“Yes, I hear that Russia is down to their last 376 billion!

 

"“Always a good laugh, seeing US press (and especially Uncle Rupes' Yellow Journalists) talking their enemies down, you'd think dealing with the 18 trillion dollar (and currently increasing at more than Russia's entire external debt annually) log in their own eye would garner rather more attention.”"

 

no claim by us o' 6-12 months.  you didn't say squat about 18 months in this quote we linked.  we has reposted, numerous times, the only two posts we made that you coulda' been responding to.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69691-ukraine-discussion/page-13?do=findComment&comment=1569008

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69691-ukraine-discussion/page-13?do=findComment&comment=1569041

 

sorry, but there is absolute no way you can make a claim o' context stripping, though you has done so many times.   *chuckle* when we finally did mention the harvard and wmf  prediction o' six months to a year, we specifically noted that arguing over the time frame "complete ignores actual problems o' the crisis, but nice try."  so your observation that $376 billion in reserves were to remind folks o' how wrong our 6 to 12 months stand were clear fallacious, and we immediate noted that quibbling over the duration (a difference of six months?  HA!) were your attempt at distraction.  

 

your hypocrisy and paranoia is your most salient features.  make you an honorary mini-putin? we noted how you context stripped the Kurdin quote when clear the context were that western sanctions were having a greater impact than you were claiming. you see boogeymen in western journalism and Gromnir's posts.  you see...

 

*shrug*

 

is impossible to say anymore what you see, 'cause you don't make any sense, and you complete lose sight of your own arguments.

 

HA! Good Fun!