Let’s talk about the eXile, the self-proclaimed “alternative” news source for information in English within Russia.
The eXile hates the Moscow Times. In La Russophobe‘s opinion, whatever faults the Times may have, any single issue from its archives is worth all the eXile issues that ever have been and ever will be published. If the eXile ceased to exist tomorrow, nobody would be the less for it and nobody would care (just the same can be said for the MT’s late column by the maniacal Chris Floyd). What’s more, the eXile is a profit-making institution, and one of the main ways it seeks to make profit is by helping poor, lonley, pathetic guys like Mr. Ames to hook up with poor impoverished Russian women by featuring advertisements from wedding brokers like this one. In other words, with a certain amount of cynicism (say, the amount Mr. Ames has), you could say Mr. Ames is a pimp.
On the other hand, one must say two things in the eXile’s defense. First, it’s a quintessentially Russian institution. By that we mean that it’s a huge bucket of slop, but every so often if you fish around carefully you can pull out a diamond in the rough. Second, it’s being operated at Ground Zero in Russia, and the authors are risking something by publishing some of the things they do. Granted, it’s the same kind of risk taken by the morons who film those Jackass movies, not a risk run by courageous patriots out of love for humanity. But after all, risk is risk. For this reason, La Russophobe has a link to the eXile’s website. By no means should this link be construed as an endorsement of the site or the publication as a whole, and given what follows there is no way of telling how long she’ll be able to justify it.
So, with this in mind, it’s time to take the eXile to task. Let’s see if they can take it as well as they dish it out (which is rather badly, so it’s quite a low standard even the kiddies at eXile should be able to meet).
A new item in the eXile by editor Mark Ames (pictured above) starts like this:
Bush’s America has gone from the world’s bitch-slappers to the world’s bitch-niggaz. That means that even resurgent Russia is causing Americans a serious case of Putin-Envy.
Mr. Ames is a wonderfully educated and erudite fellow, isn’t he? You can hardly help but credit every word that follows after a brilliant introduction like that. And at the same time he’s so cool and hip, isn’t he? Isn’t it amazing how he can pull off both of them at the same time? It really makes you stop and wonder what sort of vast right-wing conspiracy is at work for such a genius to have been denied a Pulitzer Prize for so long.
Note to Mr. Ames: Not that you care, but I now think of you as maybe a racist mysogenist, and I have no doubt that many others do as well. If you don’t mind leaving that out there, so be it. But maybe you’d like to reconsider and correct this impression in the future?
What proof does Mr. Ames offer his readers of America’s newfound jealousy of Russia? It’s the article from Newsweek magazine previously published by La Russophobe entitled “Why Russia is Really Weak.” There’s not a shred of truth in it, Mr. Ames says, and the only reason it appeared in Newsweek was that Americans are consumed by a frenzied jealousy of wonderful Russia and that Newsweek is the helpless pawn of the Republican party and the religious right.
Mr. Ames refers to the authors of the Newsweek article thusly: “Rajan Menon and Alexander Motyl — a pair of academic beigeocrats with appropriate ethnic names.” Beigeocrat is the term Mr. Ames uses for someone who doesn’t speak in obsenities . A person who punctuates with four-letter-words like Mr. Ames is a Rainbowcrat, I guess. You know, the kind of rainbows you see when you’ve sniffed just a tad too much glue. A white-skinned person with a name like “Ames” might worry about sounding racist by using a phrase like “appropriate ethnic names” but luckily for Mr. Ames he is in Russia, so his main concern is probably whether he sounds racist enough.
You see, dear reader, it’s like this: Mr. Ames isn’t ever going to get published in Newsweek magazine. In fact, he isn’t ever going to get published anywhere that matters (and even if he were he’d be instantly forgotten), and that’s all that matters to him. He fancies himself a “writer” and he’s just sure that he’s cleverer than everybody else on the face of the earth, so it really burns him up that nobody with an actual circulation (other than Playboy) will publish him and guzzle down his wisdom like Russians guzzle vodka, but to better effect. He’s not going to write the great American novel, or the great Russian novel, in fact not even the great Moldovan post card. In the end, after he found it he just couldn’t cut it in America, or any decent country for that matter, he ended up in Russia — where it’s easy for him to feel superior to just about everybody, but after a while that just isn’t very satisfying when you’ve got an ego the size of Mongolia. So then it’s time to start spitting crazed poison.
Oh, and quite a lot of poison, too. 4,194 words worth of it. The article in Newsweek that he was responding to was well under 700 words (666 to be exact — clear proof to somebody like Mr. Ames that it was written by the Devil, I guess). So in other words, Mr. Ames needed more than six words to respond to each one of Newsweek‘s — and yet he criticizes Newsweek for needing to insert the word “really” in the title. You spend enough time in Russia drinking the water and listening to the television, and this is what is bound to happen to your “brain.”
And you tend to gloss over silly little things like facts when you’re “writing” in this state. So, for instance, Mr. Ames fails to let his readers know that Dr. Menon is Monroe J. Rathbone Professor of International relations at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He has a PhD from the University of Illinois and a resume of publications as long as your arm (click through on his name for his resume). And likewise he fails to tell his readers (if such there be) that Dr. Motyl holds a PhD from Columbia University and is Professor of Political Science, and Deputy Director of the Division of Global Affairs, and co-director of the Central and East European Studies Program at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Of course, while you’re not mentioning facts like those, you also don’t mention your own educational credentials — or lack thereof. According to Wikipedia, Mr. Ames “attended the University of California.” But it doesn’t say he graduated, or what he studied. He then “played in a short-lived punk band” while he “‘lived in poverty and spitefulness with a Czech girlfriend in a suburban California nursing home.” Impressive stuff, is it not? Especially compared to the good doctors. Certainly more than enough credentials to opine on Russia’s economic condition.
Knowing this, you probably wouldn’t have to read through all 4,000+ words “written” by Mr. Ames (as if anyone could, or would) in order to confirm there was no need to read even one of them before concluding that the man (well, very little boy) is really quite insane.
In fact, you probably realized as soon as you saw the opening sentence of Mr. Ames’ “work” that the only thing he got right in his crazed diatribe was the importance of jealousy. But not whether America was “jealous” of Russia’s $300/month incomes, or its 55 year male adult lifespan, or its universal conscription (and horrific military hazing), or its ongoing war in Chechnya, or its declining population, or its pandemic race violence, or its aid to Hamas and Hezbollah. Because, of course, jealousy of those things doesn’t exist. Rather, of course, we’re speaking of Mr. Ames’ puny, pathetic jealousy of Newsweek, and all the significant publications of the world that dared to refuse him their pages for the dissemination of his brilliance.
If you read Mr. Ames, here’s a few of the “facts” you’ll learn:
- Anyone who reads the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post or the New York Times is a moron. Only those who read the eXile have intellligence.
- The fact that the Journal, the Post, the Times and Newsweek, to say nothing of not one but two PhDs, agree with each other and disagree with Mr. Ames proves how smart Mr. Ames is.
- Russia won the war in Chechnya.
- It’s just fine to refer to America as “a nation of Bible-thumping, pious militarists” but if you refer to Russia as “weak” this means “it’s okay to hate Russia and to despise it for being weak, because that’s all the bastards deserve” (isn’t it wonderful how Mr. Ames leads by example?).
- The Newsweek article by two PhDs is “pathetic” and guilty of “schoolyard-taunting” by including the word “really” in the title but Mr. Ames’ article, full of devastating insights like “Fuck no, bitch!” is a work of mature genius.
La Russophobe is informed that David Johnson edited Mr. Ames’ piece to remove all the outrageous, childish profanity (“so it can get through spam filters”), while leaving in of course the racist-sounding statement about the professors’ names, and then ran it in Johnson’s Russia List (the entire boldfaced lead-in appearing at the top of this page was deleted). Sadly, La Russophobe isn’t even a little bit surprised. Good old Dave apparently has plenty of time to run any defense of the Putin autocracy he can find (he’s got plenty of payback obligations after all the octopus he devoured at Valdai), and meanwhile no time at all to put any coverage of racism in Russia on his website. Hopefully, at least a few readers of the JRL will find time to write Dave and object to the circulation of this pornographic slurry of excrement as part of a so-called serious attempt to “understand” Russia — and maybe even ask a few questions about how the Valdai Experience has colored the judgment of the JRL, increasingly superfluous in the Internet Age. You know, like how it is that a person who doesn’t speak Russian and has never lived in the country manages to edit such a publication. And maybe one or two will even find time to write Mr. Ames and ask how he can possibly allow his “writing” to be published on the JRL by David, one of the world’s leading beigeocrats if ever there was one. Not even a little hypocritical? Doesn’t Mr. Ames show himself as an Uncle Tomski among the Rainbowcrats?
On the other hand, if Ames is the best (or any) criticism of Drs. Menon & Motyl, they’re surely due for a Nobel Prize. And if he’s the best friend Russia’s got, the poor country is even more doomed than La Russophobe dared to imagine. Maybe that was the point the JRL was trying to make by publishing this drivel. As if.
So now you, dear reader have a choice. You’ve got a lump of cash in your pocket, and you have to bet it. You can bet on the version of the world etched by Drs. Menon & Motyl (and by La Russophobe every day of the week), or you can bet on the finger painting by Comrade Ames. Think of it like this: You’re going to be transported 100 years into the future and dropped into either Russia or the United States, to take up a position in society chosen purely at random, and live in that position for the rest of your life. Which country will you choose?
It’s up to you.
In closing, it should be pointed out that La Russophobe has not shied away from making tough criticism of academic analysis of Russia, and it’s certainly worthwhile to at least consider the views of someone who is at Ground Zero in Russia, so La Russophobe would be the last one to judge the eXile too harshly. Still, when La Russophobe looks back on her recent criticism of Dr. Stuart Malawer of George Mason University, she feels there is a marked contrast with the eXile’s screed. First, Malawer is at least as much of a “beigeocrat” as Menon and Motyl — yet for some reason the eXile has no problem with Malawer’s pro-Russian beigeocracy. Second, La Russophobe didn’t need to rely on the cheap, shoddy obscenity that permeates the eXile piece. Third, La Russophobe‘s analysis is no longer than that of Dr. Malawer. Fourth, her analysis is permeated with hyperlinks to source material contradicting Dr. Malawer. The eXile offers readers virtually no information of this kind, just the wild-eyed views of its author. Fifth, there is nothing in La Russophobe‘s analysis that disparages higher learning, for which La Russophobe has nothing but the highest respect. The eXile seems to feel that anyone who actually reads books and does research should be shipped of to a gulag.
Still, though, the eXile’s tirade is so pathetic, so devoid of meaningful content and so self-indulgently puerile that it actually gives La Russophobe pause. It can’t be denied that the eXile’s tone was vaguely present in the Malawer piece, and the association is embarrassing. Even though La Russophobe had every right to be outraged at the gross misrepresentations contained in the Malawer piece and to express that outrage, and even though she showed remarkable restraint compared to the eXile’s example, maybe she went a bit too far with the tone and not quite far enough in acknowledging Malawer’s credentials. She will bear this in mind for future reference. She will not become an eXile. And if the eXile itself can’t get a grip, she’ll have no choice but to delist them. So it just goes to show that you can learn something even from an idiot.
Shame on you, boys. Get a grip!
Nice
It’s funny how much breath Russophobe wastes on the eXile, despite the fact that it is a self-recognized SATIRICAL publication. However, Mark Ames has also written in all seriousness about issues such as the US-orchestrated war in Georgia and other such affairs. I’d really like to see Russophobe focus his enormous capacity for hatred on those. hahaha
Did you read the independant report Slavboy?
It was more damning of Russia than any other state actor in that little drama.
Yep, I sure read the Independent report, if by that, you mean the EU special investigation. It does not shrink from the fact that trigger-happy Saka fired the first shot and that Russian reacted, legally and legitimately, against attacks on its peacekeepers. As for the report being damning, it critisized us for disproportionality, which is in the eye of the beholder. The Euro-Atlantic community is perfectly willing to “damn” us for disproportionality, but is perfectly OK with its bombing of weddings in Afghanistan, so its not as if their claim carries any weight.
Actually retard, the report stated “there is no evidence of Georgian attacks on Russian peacekeepers”
Andrew
[Actually retard, the report stated “there is no evidence of Georgian attacks on Russian peacekeepers”]
No, the retard here is you. It is exactly the OPPOSITE. You don’t have any reading comprehension. What the Report said was that “there is no evidence that the Georgian attacks on Russian peacekeepers were justified”. THus, there was no doubt that Georgians attacked Russian peacekeepers, and the only question was whether this attack was justified. And the Report says: “No, this attack was NOT justified.”
Buy yourself a brain, Andrew.
http://www.ceiig.ch/Report.html
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia
An additional legal question is whether the Georgian use of force against Russian peacekeeping forces on Georgian territory, i.e. in South Ossetia, might have been justified. Again the answer is in the negative.
…………………………………..
This Report went out of its way to go gentle on Georgia, but it found Georgia to be the aggressor. See more extensive quotes later in this thread.
It also states that the invasion from Abkhazia was completely illegal and constituted an invasion that breaches the UN charter.
It also stated that Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia was illegal.
Furthermore it scomments about who fired the first shot also had the caveat that Georgia was reacting to multiple Russian/Separatist provocations, but should have shown more restraint.
Learn to read slavboy
“The shelling of Tskhinvali (the South Ossetian capital) by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia,” the report says.
It adds later: “There is the question of whether [this] use of force… was justifiable under international law. It was not.”
It also says Georgia’s claim that there had been a large-scale Russian military incursion into South Ossetia before the outbreak of war could not be “sufficiently substantiated”
Read Up, Wonderboy
International law is based on precedent, thus once Euro-Atlantic criminal violated international law by dismantling Yugoslavia and creating their puppet state in Kosovo, the international ramifications of recognizing dubious territories with at bes weak claim for sovereignty become a non-issue, whether you like it or not. Besides, compared to the charade in Kosovo, the Ossetians and Abhazians actually have a legitimate claim for statehood.
Was the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq a “proportional response” to 9-11?
Here are more extensive quotes from this report:
http://www.ceiig.ch/Report.html
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia
An additional legal question is whether the Georgian use of force against Russian peacekeeping forces on Georgian territory, i.e. in South Ossetia, might have been justified. Again the answer is in the negative.
There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation. Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive on 7/8 August could not be substantiated by the Mission. It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of such a major attack, in spite of certain elements and equipment having been made readily available.
There is also no evidence to support any claims that Russian peacekeeping units in South Ossetia were in flagrant breach of their obligations under relevant international agreements such as the Sochi Agreement and thus may have forfeited their international legal status. Consequently, the use of force by Georgia against Russian peacekeeping forces in Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August 2008 was contrary to international law.
In the first instance, there seems to be little doubt that if the Russian peacekeepers were attacked, Russia had the right to defend them using military means proportionate to the attack. Hence the Russian use of force for defensive purposes during the first phase of the conflict would be legal.
There were reportedly more than a hundred US military advisers in the Georgian armed forces when the conflict erupted in August 2008, and an even larger number of US specialists and advisors are thought to have been active in different branches of the Georgian power structures and administration. Considerable military support in terms of equipment and to some extent also training was equally provided by a number of other countries led by Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Israel, the latter contributing in terms of technology and quality rather than quantity, all of them adding to the new military strength of Georgia, which was proudly displayed on suitable occasions such as National Day parades.
… Georgia had been given much-needed protection against ravaging neighbours. The installation of a system of modern administration ranging from road building to an efficient education system was another achievement brought to Georgia by Russia… Georgians were to some extent even a privileged nation within the Russian Empire.
Yhere were many in Georgia with an aversion to Russian imperial power and its heavy-handed and backward ways, but at the same time they were attracted by modern civilisation and a European outlook as offered by and through Russia.
There were reportedly more than a hundred US military advisers in the Georgian armed forces when the conflict erupted in August 2008, and an even larger number of US specialists and advisors are thought to have been active in different branches of the Georgian power structures and administration. Considerable military support in terms of equipment and to some extent also training was equally provided by a number of other countries led by Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Israel, the latter contributing in terms of technology and quality rather than quantity, all of them adding to the new military strength of Georgia, which was proudly displayed on suitable occasions such as National Day parades.
2.) On the night of 7 to 8 August 2008, a sustained Georgian artillery attack struck the town of Tskhinvali. Other movements of the Georgian armed forces targeting Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas were under way, and soon the fighting involved Russian, South Ossetian and Abkhaz military units and armed elements.
3.) The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia
During the period of transition to post-Soviet sovereignty the country´s first President, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, then did a lot in terms of nationalism to alienate the two smaller political-territorial entities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from the Georgian
independence project, proclaiming ethno-centrist slogans such as “Georgia for Georgians”.
Zviad Gamsakhurdia´s successor, President Eduard Shevardnadze, had to ask Moscow for assistance in October. Russian troops helped as requested. In October 1993 Eduard Shevardnadze signed Georgia´s accession to the Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and Collective Security Treaty (CST), too. Four Russian military bases extended their presence on Georgian soil and Russian border troops remained deployed along Georgia´s border with Turkey and patrolled the sea shores. In addition, Russian forces undertook peacekeeping responsibilities both in South Ossetia and later in Abkhazia.
An agreement concluded in June 1992 in Sochi between the two leaders Eduard Shevardnadze and Boris Yeltsin established the Joint Peacekeeping Forces (JPKF) for South Ossetia, consisting of one battalion of up to 500 servicemen each of the Russian, Georgian and Ossetian sides, to be commanded by a Russian officer.
There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia, beginning with the shelling of Tskhinvali during the night of 7/8 August 2008, was justifiable under international law. It was not.
Georgia had acknowledged that the prohibition of the use of force was applicable to its conflict in South Ossetia in specific legally binding international documents, such as the Sochi Agreement of 1992 or the 1996 Memorandum.
It is not possible to accept that the shelling of Tskhinvali during much of the night with GRAD multiple rocket launchers (MRLS) and heavy artillery would satisfy the requirements of having been necessary and proportionate in order to defend those villages. It follows from the illegal character of the Georgian military assault that South Ossetian defensive action in response did conform to international law in terms of legitimate self-defence.
——————
Legitimate self-defence.
I love you, man. But not in that way :) Russophobe just a few hours ago threatened to ban me from this distinguished bin of information. Next, an idea struck me. Why not get some willing people together and start up a blog that is dedicated to promoting actual civil discourse on the whole spectrum of issues concerning the new Russia ? I don’t claim to have much expertise in the tech side, but it could be something to start thinking about, right ?
Sounds interesting. Let’s talk more. Do you want to discuss this on your blog pages?
Awww, how sweet. You two lovebirds are planning to start a Putin fan blog together? How romantic. You’d have to compete with a lot of other propaganda websites though. But good luck!
If I were to start a blog, I would not try to “compete” with other pro-Russian blogs. I would view them as friends, not foes.
I would hope that if I write compelling arguments, supported by numerous evidence, I will find my audience.
Let me tell you of a glorious term. It’s name be “objectivity” Not that you’d know anything about that, little Andrew. And please, don’t use the term “propaganda website” to describe LR’s competitors. Are you really that crass that you would think LR is anything other than a propaganda website ? It’re more humorous how you’re passionately obsessed with this blog and its contents, which place no premium on coherent arguments, empirical evidence or daily realities.
Let me remind the readers how even the most anti-Russian Western media
reported:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093001870.html
Probe Finds Georgia Violated Law, Provoked War With Russia
Washington Post, September 30, 2009
MOSCOW, Sept. 30 — An independent inquiry ordered by the European Union has concluded that Georgia violated international law and triggered last year’s war with Russia by attacking the breakaway region of South Ossetia. “None of the explanations given by the Georgian authorities in order to provide some form of legal justification for the attack lend it a valid explanation,” The
European investigation is considered the most authoritative and independent inquiry into the causes of the war to date.
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1330-Georgia-Started-the-South-Ossetia-War.html
Georgia Started the South Ossetia War
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,652512,00.html
Independent Experts Blame Georgia for South Ossetia War
EU Investigators Debunk Saakashvili’s Lies
Der Spiegel, 10/01/2009
The truth about the war sounds somewhat convoluted, as expressed in the final report of the independent EU fact-finding mission. To put it more simply: It was Georgia who started the war.
The EU report, which is extensive, detailed and well-informed, makes clear that the Georgian claims are completely fabricated. “It was Georgia which triggered off the war when it attacked Tskhinvali” said Heidi Tagliavini, the mission head, in a statement. Although the EU commission tactfully avoided using the word “lie,” the report implies that Saakashvili did not tell the truth about how the war started. Just a few days ago, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had insisted that no one took seriously reports that his country was responsible for the war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8281990.stm.
Georgia ‘started unjustified war’
BBC News, 30 September 2009
The war in Georgia last year was started by a Georgian attack that was not justified by international law, an EU-sponsored report has concluded.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/foreign-affairs/russia-triumphant-eu-georgia-war-report-sees-light/article-185934
Russia triumphant as EU’s Georgia war report sees light
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1330-Georgia-Started-the-South-Ossetia-War.html.
Georgia Started the South Ossetia War
Atlantic Review, European Issues
US Foreign Policy, October 1, 2009
That is the central conclusion of the report of the Council of the European Union, which was released today. And even the Wall Street Journal, which has published a fair amount of columns by the Georgian President Saakashvili, had a headline that reads ‘Report: Georgia Triggered War With Russia’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8284046.stm
BBC News, 30 September 2009
Uncomfortable conclusions for Georgia
It said Georgia’s use of force on the night of 7 August 2008 was not justifiable in the context of international law. It also said that it could not substantiate “Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive on 7/8 August”.
The Georgian government’s response – as expected – has been to dismiss those comments. Wednesday evening’s national TV news bulletins said the report pinned the blame on Russia.
“This report lays out the extent of the problem the country faces,” argues Lincoln Mitchell, a professor of international politics at Colombia University.
Most Georgian people have also made up their minds. Large-scale street protests calling for Mr Saakashvili’s resignation in April 2009 were in part an expression of demonstrators’ belief that their president recklessly dragged the country into a war Georgia could not win. But the country’s leader refused all calls to step down, pointing out that only a minority of his countrymen had taken to the streets to denounce him.
How then should Georgians respond? There are many good ways (for a broader consideration, see Paul W. Blackstock’s classic study, “The Strategy of Subversion”) but three immediately suggest themselves.
First, no Georgian should be in the business of helping Moscow to spread its lies about Georgia. That means not issuing emotional responses every time the Russians say something. If Georgian leaders could say something like “Moscow has released the latest in a long line of lies about our country” and leave it at that, Georgia and Georgians would be much better off. Only the FSB would suffer, and it seems unlikely many Georgians would see that as a bad thing.
Second, no member of the Georgian opposition should be afraid of speaking out about either how absurd the Russian charges are or about his or her disagreement with how Georgian government officials are responding to them. If opposition figures are frightened of doing either, they are serving neither their own interests nor those of Georgia; they are serving the interests of those in Tbilisi who do not want democracy and those in Russia who do not want Georgia to be independent.
Third, given the rapid multiplication of Russian charges in this area, Georgians, both in the government and outside it, would almost certainly benefit from the formation of an international commission that could assess these charges. Such a group would both move the issue beyond a “he said-she said” situation of the kind in which Georgia found itself after the August 2008 war and provide the kind of cover Georgians of various political stripes may need to act as vigorous members of a democratic polity.
Obviously, there will always be the temptation among government circles to charge critics with being supporters of an outside power, especially in a country with Georgia’s history and location. But that temptation must be fought, because failure to fight means that Georgians, despite all their convictions to the contrary, will be playing into Moscow’s hands.
Andrew, that spam/core dump that you have just unleased, is a great show of your respect for other readers and for lR herself.
Keep it up!
P.S. Did several people ask me why I don’t read Andrew’s long posts?
Correcting the typo:
Andrew, that spam/core dump that you have just unleashed on htis blog, is a great show of your respect for other readers and for lR herself.
For the record:
You have dumped the total of 47 pages, 34 lines per page, Andrew.
That’s more than 1500 lines of text. A whole book!
Had I posted a message that’s only 5% of that – I would have been banned by LR.