scrat wrote:George wrote:You said your opinion about the event. To prove, that it is a fact, not an opinion, you have to prove, that it was not the massive military attack of US on Yugoslavia.To prove, that it was not the massive military attack, it is required to prove, that it was impossible to solve the problem without massive military attack. By saying this I do not mean without weapon, but I mean without massive bombing. If you will think, than you will understand, that is impossible to prove (or disprove) it without a test, and no one can make such a test. So, your opinion (and my opinion too) can not be proved or disproved. That means that they can not be considered as facts, only as opinions. Understand?
"Understand?". Pfeh. Pedantry works so much better from a position of superiority, you know? Anyway, I'll humor you: Proof that the attacks on Yugoslavia were not the work of the US, but the work of NATO. Ready?
Do you want to say, that US did not attack? The fact, that other countries took part in the operation, does not disprove that US did. So, If you try to build your conclusions on someone's participation, than they are not asseptable.
scrat wrote:It's your opinions, which you -- despite protestations of innocence -- do try to pass off as facts, that I have something against.
Read my posts. I stand, as from the beginning of the thread, at the same position. I say my opinion, but suggest other people to give facts to disprove it. Because I understand, that if I'd say, that I represent facts, you could ask me for the provements. So, do not arrogate me the words, I've never said.
scrat wrote:I mentioned the reason for the bombings (-- to prevent more Serbian attrocities). You retorted by saying what you just quoted. I merely followed up with stating fact that Milosevic -- as leader of the nation (state/country for the semantically challenged) -- stands accused of warcrimes at the UN Warcrimes Tribunal. Basically, your rebuttals suck, comrade.
The fact, that someone stands at Tribunal does not mean, that this one is at fault. Don't you understand it?
scrat wrote:George wrote:scrat wrote:You're making another mistake. It is not up to me to disprove your assertions; it is up to you to prove your assertions and you have done nothing of the kind.
Then you are making a mistake. Because facts is the thing, that needed to be proved. I always (read the thread from the beginning) positioned my posts as opinion. But you say, that you are saying facts, not opinions, that means you have to prove them, not me to disprove them.
"Because US needs to protect themself from being condemn for the military attack of Yugoslavia". At no point does this statement contains any qualifiers indicating that it is merely your opinion. You're stating this -- and other ludicrous things -- as fact and hence put yourself in a very vulnerable position.
Should I write "IMHO" in the each sentence of this thred for you? I think it is enought that I said it in the beginning.
scrat wrote:In the meaning of the word as defined in the dictionary. In this case 'country' suffices. As would 'state'. (Guess why they call it the "United Nations").
Code: Select all
ООН Организация Объединенных Наций U.N.O. (United Nations Organization)
As you can see, it is not Организация Объединённых Государств. So, I suggest that N in UNO means people, not countries. I'd very suprised if the whole Russian is mistaken about it.
scrat wrote:Just admit that you are prejudiced against Americans, you silly man. This nightmare could end fairly quickly.
I have nothing against Americains, krtaylor or John, gor example. I have something against US, but, as always, it is only my opinion.
scrat wrote:Well, apart from the fact that the prosecutors of Warcrimes Tribunal have never indicted President Clinton, is what you just stated a fact or an opinion?
If I would be Warcrimes Tribunal, he'd stand there. So, its a defect in the work of Warcrimes Tribunal.
scrat wrote:NATO, Georgi. NATO. You know, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Georgij, if you want to use this notation. But I'd like to use George. And again, the fact, that not only US took part in the action does not prove that US did not. But if you want to see it this way, ok, lets say US and NATO has to answer for the massive military attack of Yugoslavia.
scrat wrote:You and your dictionary are gravely mistaken.
www.lingvo.ru
Are you sure?
2Owen. Could you clarify it?
scrat wrote:Spare me -- and any reader who has not been lulled into a comatose stupor by now -- your indignation. You treat others (Americans for instance) with utter contempt, calling them names, swearing at them,
Show me any plase in the forum where I said something, that can be concidered as bad words about someone, but US. It is a forum, the fact can be proved by search. If you will not prove this, I shall stop answering to you, because you way of debates wuold be considered as unasseptable.
And, it starts to seem to me, that your post is more rude, than mine.
2krtaylor. Is it my illusion or scart became rude?
scrat wrote:I have already cited a proper dictionary source. If that is not proof enough for you then I think you are unsalvageable.
Looks like you pointed me to a vocabulary (the list of words with meanings), not a dictionary (the list of words with translations), that is not correct in this case.