K. Albanian group "to partially block roads"

"He said activists would block only the road used to bring in Serbian goods but that they would not impede free movement of citizens, and noted they would stay put until they achieved their objective."

Strange that he didn't mention if his gang will stone Serbian cars again or not.

This is good. Let the world see what little multi-ethnic angels theEU/US are backing. Wonder if KFOR will come and use their tear gas to break up the Albanian protesters, like they did the Serbs at their barricades? I think not - and there lies the problem - they are not neutral.

trizo
your a hypocrite hiding behind words and emails, where were you when the kosovo serbs demonstrated on the kosovo border and needed support. I bet you supported the likes of arkan and milosovic the cleansing of kosovo of its people and the idea behind it. you are so lucky my friend you have no idea what you are talking about when you have c.n.n footage. you should have been there to see first hand the suffering and sensless deaths of both serbs and albanians, mentaly, physically, spiritually. I have an idea that all serbs meet albanians who have suffered and speak to them of there loss and sufferring and albanians meet serbs and listen to there stories of loss and suffering and the destructive nature of an idea a land that belongs to both people and not to either

How could the police agree with blocking Serbian goods from entering Kosovo?

How stupid. The goods have most likely been ordered by Albanian shop vendors and this will surely affect Albanians more than Serbians. We've been paid for the goods so we don't really care all that much.

Vetevendosje is a pathetic group of uneducated & unemployed losers who aren't brave enough to stand on the real 'front line' so they act like they are hardcore by harassing innocent Serbs living in Kosovo.

How easily we could crush pathetic movements like this if Germany, US & Austria weren't partially controlling our homeland.

"Wonder if KFOR will come and use their tear gas to break up the Albanian protesters, like they did the Serbs at their barricades?
(winston, 13 January 2012 11:04)

In case these 'peaceful protesters' will block KFOR and EULEX vehicles, KFOR will surely act.

"However, the activists of the radical ethnic Albanian group will block one lane at each crossing in order to stop trucks with Serbian goods from entering Kosovo and the police will not prevent them from doing this, the Kosovo police said in a release late Thursday."

So it is not against "Kosova"'s laws to block trucks from Serbia since the police do not prevent this? Then why all the hullaobaloo when roadblocks were set up in the north?

And EULEX, KFOR, Merkel, Pristina & Co. who all went ballisticl over the roadblocks in the north now seem so, so, so serenely silent ..... double standards are we?

Looks like these eejits are at it again, harassing the police and ordinary citizens going about their daily business. It's straight out of a Monty Python sketch.

Send in the clowns.

Thaci's orders are received and will be followed. He fools nobody save the limited.

@ Ozzi,

Yes I can criticize Vetevendosje behind emails, of course when I read that they want to prevent Serb trucks carrying Serbian goods from entering and the KPS agree on this 'deal'.

How pathetic of you to assume I supported Arkan & Milosevic.

I never wanted to cleanse anyone from Kosovo but anyone who has hatred towards Serbs and anyone who makes a Serbs' life hard to live in peace, then yes I will battle them.

You clearly don't respect the fact that Serbs were once a majority of Kosovo and hundreds of thousands have left as living conditions became intolerable as well as forced evacuation.

All throughout Serbia you meet Serbs from Kosovo who ran to get away from the black hole that the K.Albanians have turned it into.

When the Vetevendosje make pathetic statements like the one they just did, and the president of Albania + Kosovo condemns their statements... it's pretty idiotic of you to criticize me for making a criticism.

So ignorant of you to just make such outlandish assumptions. Go back to reading comic books.

That's true Kenny, but the difference is that Pristina is imposing customs officers at administrative crossings. That is the difference, and you know it. But fine, let the world see how well the Serbs and Albanians can co-exist in the multi-ethnic land of Kosova. IMHO, they Never will - nor do they want to.

I feel sorry for my family and all the Serbs that have to live in this hell hole with these guys.

Its only fair this way. If K-Serbs in the North can block roads, than so can the Vetvendosje protesters.

And their objective is...? Your guess is as good as mine. It sounds to me a tit for tat action, one without substance. Sort of a 'Rebel without a Cause' action if you like.
Albanians and Serbs need to understand that compromises need to be made on both sides if Albanian self declared independence is going to succeed.
Letting Serbian goods into Kosovo is one such compromise which ultimately benefits everyone.
The way I see things is that this Kosovo story is likely to drag on for years and years. Our children's children (both Albanian and Serb) will exchange anecdotes among themselves on how stubborn and pathetic our grandfathers & mothers were, on how this conflict with much unnecessary suffering could have been settled years ago with friendly gestures and bilateral beneficial agreements instead of a bitter exchange of rhetoric, rape, pillage and bullets as happened in the past and surely will happen again if no solutions are found.

Concerning reciprocity: reciprocity could work like that:

No more Serbs in Prishtina - no more Albanians in Belgrade.

"You guys need a new military when they are scared to fight."
(USA United States of Albania, 13 January 2012 16:11)

Serbia has an army, unlike some self-proclaimed state in the neighborhood :)

Its only fair this way. If K-Serbs in the North can block roads, than so can the Vetvendosje protesters.
(Kenny, 13 January 2012 10:58)

The Vetvendosje protesters should block roads from Albania to Kosovo province to make it symmetrical.

Fight fire with fire! Good job Albanians! Its about time you give the Serbs a taste of their own medicine. And what is the Government of Serbia going to do about it? Issue a "strong protest" as usual, a whole lot of nothing. This is going to really show the Serbs that their government has absolutely no control over anything. When the Serbs set up barricades KFOR blasted them with water and tear gas to disperse and even fired rubber bullets at them when they were attacked by the Vaselinovic gang. Whats Serbia going to do? Where is the Serbian military and police? Isn't it the military's constitutional duty to fight for "their" land? You guys need a new military when they are scared to fight.

USA - United dilusions of Albanians

Serbia has/had army only NATO could barely defeat.

Only some showed up and all Albanians run to forest and to Albania and further crying for help.

So think before you post.

They will block Serbia,couse Serbia is blocking Kosova,since 1913.They will do now and foreve,till Serbia will recognise us,as we recognise it.

The 14 Jan blocking will just unvail the K-Albanians political immaturity and deep inferiority over Serbs. I'm sorry to say this but it is true.

Serbian goods should be baned from every single Kosovar by simply refusing to buy them. No. Kosovars LOVE them. Simply can't give up of them. They need to finiance the Serbian economic recovery so hopefully Serbs can finish the unfinished job of the 1999. Kurti simply unable to explain the simple thing to his countrymans: have a bit of dignity; decided to block the roads. It is act of desperation infront of the imense stupidity of the Kosovars.

You are dumb as no one nearby you. face it. You finance the one that wants your state to dissapear. And you are fierce in defending that. Sometime I simply want to say: ok I wish you get what you deserve.

LOL as I predicted, they can only "partially" block roads because in reality they don't have enough supporters to do this. Kurti even went as far as asking people in Albania for help and no one listened. Ok, have your demonstration, but he really should learn from the Serbs in the north how to properly resist.

It is not fair for Serbia to try and strangle and disrupt the Kosovan economy at every turn.
(Joe, 13 January 2012 17:38)

LOL trust me, the Kosovan economy doesn't need Serbia to strangle it. They do a great job strangling themselves :)

This is a lie. They will block the entire road, not partially.

"You guys need a new military when they are scared to fight."
(USA United States of Albania, 13 January 2012 16:11)

Serbia has an army, unlike some self-proclaimed state in the neighborhood :)
(Comm. Parrisson, 13 January 2012 16:56)

How many times does this need to be spelled out? Yes, Serbia has an army......that does nothing. Bravo! They've accomplished....nothing. True "heroes", defenders of nothing.

"No more Serbs in Prishtina - no more Albanians in Belgrade."

As if we cared! Send the traitors back, we'll see who will regret it the most.

LOL trust me, the Kosovan economy doesn't need Serbia to strangle it. They do a great job strangling themselves :)
(Balkan Anthropologist, 13 January 2012 19:41)

Such a cheap shot.

One action leads to the next. That said, this group does have a point when it comes to the one sided - trade embargo being imposed by Serbia. It is not fair for Serbia to try and strangle and disrupt the Kosovan economy at every turn.
(Joe, 13 January 2012 17:38)

What about one-sided-declared independence?

I remember before UDI declaration Albanians boasted they were not AFRAID of Serbia embargo, having many world's powerful countries with developed economy on their side.

One action leads to the next. That said, this group does have a point when it comes to the one sided - trade embargo being imposed by Serbia. It is not fair for Serbia to try and strangle and disrupt the Kosovan economy at every turn.

Fight fire with fire! Good job Albanians! Its about time you give the Serbs a taste of their own medicine. And what is the Government of Serbia going to do about it? Issue a "strong protest" as usual, a whole lot of nothing. This is going to really show the Serbs that their government has absolutely no control over anything. When the Serbs set up barricades KFOR blasted them with water and tear gas to disperse and even fired rubber bullets at them when they were attacked by the Vaselinovic gang. Whats Serbia going to do? Where is the Serbian military and police? Isn't it the military's constitutional duty to fight for "their" land? You guys need a new military when they are scared to fight.
(USA United States of Albania, 13 January 2012 16:11)

Hey weren't you one of the clowns yelling how stupid the Serbs' idea of blocking roads was? Now you are cheering the Albanians for it? You see the hypocrisy? You and you're fellow clowns claimed how stupid the Serbs would be to block roads when winter comes. Now the are not blocking roads and your goofy relatives are there freezing. Do any of you use logic?

Trizo,
"who aren't brave enough to stand on the real 'front line' "
We're you brave enough to be on the "front line"? Can't mean anything but the war. Considering the venom you spew, I'm sure you attitude is self explanatory on your thoughts of a war from a place far far away. I've seen it yet I preach reconciliation, no academy awards here no matter what you say or how you say it, it won't bring back the dead, and doesn't bring people closer and doesn't obsolve the guilt. Kosovo was always a black except under the ottomans.
Did you go to support the Serbs in the north? Did you go support them in war? Did you "battle them" Albanians are a forgiving race. I see Serbs and Albanians together al the time
Serbian land what Albanian stuff you smoking? The land belongs to the people of Kosovo! Which includes Albanians and always has. Why would a famous Serbian painter paint a picture of Serbian migration that would include Albanians
Google paja jovanovic Serbian migration. And explain the story of Serbian knights and priests leading orthofox Albanians out of Kosovo? Strange is it not? Where are the serbians? Or are the Albanians considered Serbian coz they were orthodox and some still are orthodox?

Serbian goods should be baned from every single Kosovar by simply refusing to buy them. No. Kosovars LOVE them. Simply can't give up of them. .... It is act of desperation infront of the imense stupidity of the Kosovars.
(ben, 13 January 2012 17:39)

If there would be products from Kosovo with competitive prices, I'm sure people would buy them. But Kosovo doesn't have an economy and doesn't produce anything worth to mention. So what else to buy? More expensive products from the EU?

"True "heroes", defenders of nothing."
(USA United States of Albania, 13 January 2012 17:32)

What should they defend? Politicians in Serbia are smart enough to know (unlike their counterparts in Pristina) that Kosovo is currently a demilitarized protectorate under temporary UN administration.

"Because the N. Kosovo Serbs complained that they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.

(icj1, 14 January 2012 05:37)"

I can't find any article about the N Kosovo Serbs' complaints. Can you provide the source(s) to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter because of the freedom of movement issue? Since you made your statement as a generalization of the N Kosovo Serbs, your source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only.

Strange that he didn't mention if his gang will stone Serbian cars again or not.
(Comm. Parrisson, 13 January 2012 10:51)

No, they will just use Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs like their Serbs brothers :)
----------

Then why all the hullaobaloo when roadblocks were set up in the north?
(lowe, 13 January 2012 13:47)

Because the N. Kosovo Serbs complained that they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.
----------

The Vetvendosje protesters should block roads from Albania to Kosovo province to make it symmetrical.
(aaayyy, 13 January 2012 15:51)

Why, are Serbs planning to block roads with Albania ?
----------

Serbia has/had army only NATO could barely defeat.
So think before you post.
(dd, 13 January 2012 18:19)

Barely ? NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat. So think before you post.

The ridiculous position of the west to declare kosovo a country before it was even functional was totally insane. They don't produce anything. Nothing is done there. There was thing called standards before status that was totally dropped. UK US FRance Germany all are about creating fake countries for weird reasons.

“Wow, you were delayed a little bit - probably too many posts to moderate, but thanks for finally establishing the criteria of evidence :)

I have three friends of mine who are N. Kosovo Serbs who said that to me (so that's more than 2 that you needed). Let me know if you need their noterized statements :) as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are indeed Serbs from N. Kosovo (LOL).

In addition, these three friends of mine are supported by thousands of N. Kosovo Serbs whose representative said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.
(icj1, 15 January 2012 22:11)”

End of the day, you haven’t got a pot to pee in when it came to providing evidence to support your statement. For someone who likes to hold others to their exact words, you have fallen pathetically short of your own standards.

And now you claiming that some hitherto unidentified “representative” of the N Kosovo Serbs said “a couple of months ago” that N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things. So what is the name and appointment of this “representative” and can you provide proof about the actual date and contents of what he/she purportedly said?

Of course, all of us should know by now your penchant for making bizarre statements that you couldn’t substantiate even though you expect others to substantiate their statements – you just proved my point once more by repeating that moderator claim yet again, and thereby making yourself a laughing stock in the process in the eyes of B92’s moderators!

One more thing, icj1. You mentioned to a poster that:

"NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat. So think before you post.
(icj1, 14 January 2012 05:37)"

Can you explain how there was "no losses" by Nato when its Stealth fighter was shot down? I should think that this fighter would be on a combat mission rather than, say, a pleasure aerial sightseeing trip.

“Who told you I did not have the proof on hand already ?! I did (and still do) already have the notarized statements of my 3 Serb friends from Kosovo and their birth certificates. So you again made a false statement when you say that “your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement”. Show me the evidence that my proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that I made my statement. “

Well, you have been unable to show us your proof up to now. My proof is precisely in your inability to provide the evidence up to now – and I dare you to prove me wrong by showing us your evidence! If anyone was making false statements, it was YOU and I will prove it now! On 18 January, you wrote “You still did not say where I failed your rules of evidence that the “source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only”. I provided 3.” Your statement that “I provided 3” is FALSE because you have NOT provided any up to now!



“Absolutely I have them as you correctly understood from your brilliant and elaborated linguistic analysis which was wrong. "Notarized" in "noterized statement" is an adjective not a verb in past tense - "notarized" in "notarized a statement" would be a verb in past tense. But anyway.... Unfortunately you changed the criteria. So there is no point for me to provide you evidence that we know already that will not satisfy your new evidence criteria – unless, of course, you changed mind and withdraw your new evidence criteria of 17 January 2012 02:55. The offer I made to you was for the evidence criteria you established on 15 January 2012 05:38. “

My criterion is, in my opinion, is basically the same whether you are talking about 15 January or 17 January. In both posts, I basically asked you to PROVIDE the sources to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter. And you have not provided any evidence up to now!
You were unable to provide up to now the notarized statements and birth certificates or the identity and appointment of the representative and what he/she said. As I told you already, you could easily set up a blog and put all these there.

“Well, dear, if you do some research in the b92 website, you’ll discover that that representative is the Zvecan mayor. “

Neither I nor the other posters are obliged to do any research for you. As you were the one who made the claim about this representative, the onus is on YOU to provide the details when requested. So you have made a start at long last. Can you now provide us his/her name and evidence that he/she “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”

“Sure, but you are not a judge :) and I’m not a lawyer.”

So what? Asking me to “just read” a website is not providing the evidence that I ask for. And now can you show me where did I claim to be a judge and you to be a lawyer????? You can check your Merriam-Webster for the meaning of the word “If” which I started that sentence of mine with.



“It was the Zvecan mayor, representative of thousands of Kosovo Serbs, who said “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to security & freedom of movement”. So you just made again a false statement that I am “UNABLE to provide the identify of this representative and, furthermore, prove what he/she purportedly said”.

Well, you have only identified the mayor NOW (21 January) and, moreover, have still NOT provided the evidence up date that he said “a couple of months ago” that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to security & freedom of movement”. Hence MY statement of 18 January was TRUE when I made it on that day and still is true today!

One more thing, Zvecan is only ONE area in N Kosovo. So while the mayor may represent the Serbs in Zvecan, how you do know that he/she also represents the Serbs in the OTHER parts of N Kosovo? Please provide the evidence to support your position that this representative is officially entitled to represent and speak on behalf of the N Kosovo Serbs outside of Zvecan.

“You get to wrong conclusions dear because you don’t do research :)
(icj1, 21 January 2012 21:01)”

As I said, I’m not obliged to do your research for you and the onus is on YOU to do any necessary research to come up with the evidence to support your claims.

To summarize, up to today you have:

1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.

On last thing, you offered on 16 January that “if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided.” I shall hold you to your offer. So, just for argument’s sake, even had any rule been changed, you are still REQUIRED to provide the additional evidence as per your offer!

“You may be correct on that. But it does not prove that I *DIDN’T” have them at the time when I made the statement, as you said. There is a difference between “DON’T” and “DIDN’T” “

Well, in that case you didn’t have your evidence then and now. And of course I maintain that I am correct. Ironically for you, in a way that you never expected, YOUR FAILURE to show us your evidence online is my proof that you didn’t and don’t have them. And as I already told you, until you produce your evidence, there is no way for you to counter that my statement (that you don’t or didn’t have the evidence) is false and so my statement remained true today.

“That’s not what you said in your original requirements on 15 January 2012 05:38. I remind you of your words “can you provide the source(s) to back your statement” which I did. Are you changing the requirements now for a fourth time :) ?! “

Well, your online Merriam-Webster’s definition of “provide” is “to supply or make available (something wanted or needed)”. It also stated that the synonyms for “provide” include “deliver” and “hand over”.

So, tell me, how did merely claiming to have 3 N Kosovo Serb friends amounted to MAKING AVAILABLE to me or other readers ONLINE (since this is an online forum, evidence would have to be made available online) when none of us could verify their identities and whether the contents of their purported statements satisfied my requirement which was what I WANTED and NEEDED???? How is merely claiming to have 3 N Kosovo Serb friends possibly DELIVERING or “HANDING OVER” the evidence online for readers’ inspection??????? I think you must be such a disappointment to your hallowed Merriam-Webster!

“Well, initially you said “Can you provide the source(s) to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter because of the freedom of movement issue? Since you made your statement as a generalization of the N Kosovo Serbs, your source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s)”.
Then you asked for “evidence” in addition to “sources”. You added the sentence “You also need to show that they live in N Kosovo during the time of the roadblocks”. You also added the sentence “but must clearly show that they represent the views of the general K-Serb population of N Kosovo”. “

I still do not see how my 15 January and 17 January posts are materially different. You cannot possibly provide evidence without providing the sources that contained those evidence too can you? To me, if anything, my 17 January post was a further clarification of my 15 January requirements and not anything materially additional.

Anyway, as you already offered on 16 January “if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided.” So even if, for arguments sakes, we were to accept that there was some change in my 17 January requirement, you are still required to provide the evidence for both 15 January and 17 January – any further requirements in my 17 January AND subsequent posts would be treated as acceptance of your 16 January offer which I would suggest to you that you now ruefully regretted making.


“Sure, as long as you clarify what you require… In almost every post you are changing mind :) “

Of course I would need to clarify whenever I come across a poster who was unable to provide the requested proof and instead gave excuses to try to get off the hook. And when you made new claims in follow up posts, naturally I would be curious enough to ask for their proof too. And then the onus would then be on you to provide the proof to support your subsequent claims too!

“But that’s publicly known dear, it’s in B92’s website.
[link] “

Well, providing B92’s main page link is not providing us the evidence containing the date and contents of Dragisa Milovic’s words as we do not see it online when we access B92’s main page, much less be able to inspect its contents to determine its relevance. The onus is on YOU to bring us to the exact page containing the required proof. And I put it to you that you are unable to do so.

“Well, I still don’t understand what’s the problem with indentifying the mayor on 21 January compared to, say, 10 January or 31 January ?1”

Because you had only identified the mayor on 21 January, your statement of 20 January to me objecting to my 18 January statement about your failure to produce the proof was groundless. My 18 January statement was true when I wrote it. Moreover it remained true today because you have still not provided evidence that the mayor said those things a couple of months ago and that what was said represented the views of the N Kosovo Serb population.

Once again to summarized your list of failures since you referred to them:
1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.


“1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discuss based on new criteria; “

You offered to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your purported N Kosovo Serb friends on 16 January and I merely accepted your offer – the contents of which have not materialized online to date. It is not my fault if you made new offers to provide proof that you could not show.

“2. Done; the rest is new evidence requirements; clear up your thoughts, agree with yourself what exactly you need and then we can discuss about evidence for other things. “

You merely named the Zvecan mayor but remained unable to prove what he/she actually said and that he/she is officially appointed to represent and speak on behalf of N Kosovo Serbs, including those outside Zvecan. So not done!

"3. Done; [link]; "

Again just stating B92’s link to its main page is not providing evidence about what the Zvecan mayor said and whether it represented the positions of the N Kosovo Serbs, and much less whether this mayor is officially entitled to represent and speak on behalf of those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan. So not done!

"4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :) "

You have utterly failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am moderator period.

"5. Done – three sources were provided on 15 January 2012 22:11 (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends); "

You didn’t provide the 3 sources, you merely claimed that you have them. I think you failed dismally by Merriam-Webster’s definition of “provide” as per my earlier explanation above. So not done!

“6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war. “

Your statement was FALSE because it did not exclude any material loss suffered by Nato. Your sentence simply read “NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat.”, which included ALL kinds of losses and not just human ones.

“I’m not specifying new conditions. I’m just asking which of your evidence criteria are in force now (they’ve change 4 or 5 times) so I can help you with the appropriate evidence to ensure your satisfaction :) “

Then, just for arguments sakes, if you interpreted that I had changed them “4 or 5 times”, you would be required to provide the so called “additional” proof each and every time in your follow up replies. After all you offered to do this of your own free will on 16 January. It is not my fault if you are unable to provide for them in your very next post each time, and hence find yourself with a backlog of unfulfilled obligations! Arrange your proof online according to the dates of my so called “new” criteria (which you claimed) and then we will see.


“As I said, I’m trying to ensure your satisfaction, that’s why I’m asking you to clarify your thoughts about the evidence criteria to make sure that you remain satisfied. Your satisfaction is my only concern :)
(icj1, 28 January 2012 17:01)”

Well you have been unable to provide any proof online up to know that satisfied my requirements. And merely claiming that you have evidence or providing a link to a website’s main page is not providing anything specific for readers’ evaluation as far as material evidence online is concerned. And I put it to you that you are not able to do so!

“I did not say that. Show what evidence you have that I did not have the evidence then, otherwise your statement is false.”

As I already told you, my statement remains true until it could be shown to be false – the only way to counter my statement would be for you to produce your evidence – which you couldn’t, and so my statement remains true! The omission on your part is ironically my evidence! Too bad if the joke's on you!


“Sure, you can maintain whatever you want. However you still did not show any evidence to prove that I did not have the evidence “then”. “

I already told you – your action (or rather, the lack of it), is my evidence then AND now!


“Sure, and I supplied or made available to you what you wanted or needed, i.e. the sources.”

Wrong! You merely said you have your sources but did not make them available to me and other readers online because we were not able to inspect the identities of your sources and the contents of their evidence to evaluate whether they meet my requirements! You have thus failed to DELIVER, MAKE AVAILABLE and HAND OVER your proof for me to evaluate them and assess whether they are what I WANTED and NEEDED – all these being in line with Merriam-Webster’s specifications about the word “provide”. Thus your As I already indicated to you, you must be such a disappointment to your precious Merriam-Webster!


“Well, “sources” and “evidence” are two different things, and are not materially the same. You can again use the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary to be reminded about their definitions. Not to mention that you doubled the length of your requirements.”

Sources contain the evidence if they are reliable sources – how can you have one without the other???? . Anyway you are obliged to provide BOTH the sources and evidence since you stated on 15 January that “I have three friends of mine who are N. Kosovo Serbs who said that to me (so that's more than 2 that you needed). Let me know if you need their noterized statements :) as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are indeed Serbs from N. Kosovo (LOL).” It is clear that you offered to provide BOTH the sources (your 3 friends) and the evidence (their statements and birth certificates! And you have so far failed to meet your obligations!


“I’m not regretting anything. I’m just asking you to make up your mind about the requirements as you have changed them several times to the point I’m not even sure what they are now. So, what are your current evidence requirements ? Spell them out and we move on from there.”

Well, if you really believed that I have changed my requirements in my subsequent posts, then, as I already told you, you are required to address every so called additional requirements in these posts to my satisfaction. After all, you have bounded yourself to do this on 16 January! And which you have failed to provide the material evidences up to now but only more excuses instead!

“Oh, you want the exact sub-page and link (LOL). Just state so and your wish can be immediately satisfied:
[link]”

So you finally (after 2 long weeks) coughed out the evidence. Too bad that it only showed what the mayor said. Your evidence does not show that he is entitled to represent and speak on behalf of those N Kosovo Serbs outside of Zvecan and so your obligation remains unfulfilled even now!

“Don’t understand the logic or lack thereof. The fact that I identified the mayor on 21 January, it does not mean that he was not the mayor on 20 or 18 or whatever January :) “

The fact that you identified him only on 21 January makes my statement of 18 January that you have not provided the evidence correct when I made it! And my statement remains correct to this day as you have still not shown that the mayor is officially appointed to speak on behalf of those N Kosovo Serbs outside of Zvecan!


“1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discuss based on new criteria once you make up your mind; “

I am not required to come to any new agreement with you. You, on the other hand, are required to provide your proofs and have failed to discharge your obligations! You offered on 15 January to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates and have failed to make them available to readers online up to today!

“2. Done; the rest is new evidence requirements; clear up your thoughts, agree with yourself what exactly you need and then we can discuss about evidence for other things. “

Merely repeating your answer from your previous post ain’t gonna help you! If anything, it only reinforces your inability to prove that the mayor is officially appointed to represent and speak on behalf of N Kosovo Serbs, including those outside Zvecan. So, as I already told you, not done!

"3. Done [link]"

Finally done but only after 2 long weeks – not impressive timing at all. I think all this while from the time I first made the request you must have been scurrying high and low for the evidence, ha ha ha! Unfortunately for you, No. 2 and 3 are part of your obligations regarding the mayor. You have still not shown that he is officially entitled to represent and speak on behalf of the N Kosovo Serbs from the other municipalities!

“4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :) “

Again futilely resoting to repeating your claim instead of showing proof that I am a B92 moderator, thereby making your statement FALSE!

“5. Done – three sources were provided on 15 January 2012 22:11 (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends); “

You merely said that you have the sources. As I mentioned above in relation to your precious Merriam-Webster , you did not and could not provide them as they remained not handed over and available online for readers’ inspection up to today! So not done at all!

“6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war. “

You are so pathetic. But it is useless for you to deny that your statement “NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat.” refers to ALL possible kinds of losses, including the stealth fighter! So that statement of yours is FALSE!

So to summarize, the following are still outstanding from you!
1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to prove that the Zvecan mayor is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan and is entitled to speak on their behalf.
3. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
4. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses

“Sure, as soon as you clarify what your requirements are. “

I already told you. Based on your 16 January’s offer, you are obliged to go through every single one of my posts and address all those so called new requirements there one by one if you think there are indeed new requirements. It is not my fault if you found yourself with a backlog of work to do because of your failure to provide the proofs that I require in a timely manner each time!

“Of course, because you still haven’t agreed with yourself what you actually want.
(icj1, 29 January 2012 15:42)”

I do know what I want -- and I put it to you that you do know what I want too – but you remained unable to provide them all to my satisfaction – and had to resort to pathetic excuses instead!

One action leads to the next. That said, this group does have a point when it comes to the one sided - trade embargo being imposed by Serbia. It is not fair for Serbia to try and strangle and disrupt the Kosovan economy at every turn.
(Joe, 13 January 2012 17:38)

What about one-sided-declared independence?

I remember before UDI declaration Albanians boasted they were not of Serbia embargo, having many world's powerful countries with developed economy on their side.

LOL trust me, the Kosovan economy doesn't need Serbia to strangle it. They do a great job strangling themselves :)
(Balkan Anthropologist, 13 January 2012 19:41)

Kosovan economy? Which Kosovan economy? The scrap metal exports are blocked by Serbia? :)

Mate, Serbia is not the only country that produces something in the Balkans !
(icj1, 15 January 2012 04:38)

Does icj1 know what 'competitive' means? Null points for not even addressing the issue correctly.

Barely ? NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat. So think before you post.
(icj1, 14 January 2012 05:37)

Nope, they shot down an invisible stealth plane and damaged others. NATO did not win unconditionally either. NATO claimed to have destroyed hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces. They found 14. What do you think the Kumanovo agreement was all about? You should think before posting old propaganda that only fools repeat wilynily.

“That’s true dear. I haven’t got a pot to pee in when it came to providing evidence to support my statement. What I’ve got is 3 friends of mine, who are as knowledgeable as sj’s Malaysian friend, who are N. Kosovo Serbs and stated what I said. That satisfies your evidence requirements (read your prior post). I went even further; I offered to provide you their notarized statements as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are of pure Serb blood (LOL). “

Your pathetic attempts at wisecracks can’t alter the fact that you are not able to provide the proof to support your statement. And your SECOND sentence is your admission of your inability to do so and thus I rest my case on this.

By the way, to take you up on your offer to provide so called notarized statements and birth certs, please do so. Of course, you will also have to do more than just show that they are Serb. You also need to show that they live in N Kosovo during the time of the roadblocks. These statements also must not be merely their self-opinions (as I specified) but must clearly show that they represent the views of the general K-Serb population of N Kosovo that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement”. You can easily set up a blog, scan their “notarized statements” and post these on your blog, give us the URL of your blog and then we shall see.

“Of course, everybody knows that the representative of thousands of Serbs said, I quote, “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement” about a couple of months ago.”

Then you should be able to name the representative, his/her appointment and cite evidence to prove that he/she really said that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement” about a couple of months ago.” So far you have evaded my request for this info.

“I did substantiate my statement per your rules of evidence :) – if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided. And thanks for discussing with the other B92 moderators about their opinion about me !”

Trying to twist and turn my words no doubt. And no, you didn’t substantiate your statement for the simple reason that you were unable to do so – as I mentioned previously, you haven’t got a pot to pee in when it comes to evidence to back what you wrote! And yes, I think the moderators of B92 must be tickled pink by your ridiculous statements by now!

“You still did not say where I failed your rules of evidence that the “source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only”. I provided 3 (LOL). “


But you have NOT even provided the sources and their contents yet! Your failure was in your inability up to now to provide ANY proof! You should already have the written proof on hand when you first made your statements – instead of now running apparently after your sources to provide the proof. Bottom line is that your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement, thereby making your statement FALSE!


“Absolutely; however please send me first a signed statement on your side that the above are the rules of evidence, just to make sure that you don’t change them again and then I’ll send you the evidence per those written requirements :). “

As I did not offer to give you any signed statement, so I am not obliged to give you one now. You on the other hand had stated that “I offered to provide you their notarized statements as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are of pure Serb blood” and so I am now holding you to YOUR offer. You are obliged to honor your offer without anything extra from me! Moreover you used the word “notarized” in the past tense which means that you claimed that you already have the statements on hand – which you have been unable to show us up to now!

“Dear, just read the B92 website… You still are doubting that a representative of thousands of Serbs said the above ?! “

It was you who claimed that this representative existed and said those things that you alleged. So the onus is squarely on YOU to provide the precise details about this representative’s identity and proof of what he/she said.

If you are a lawyer by profession and you tell the judge to “just read” a website when asked to provide your evidence, I dare say that you might just get into legal hot soup! End of the day, I put it to you that you are UNABLE to provide the identify of this representative and, furthermore, prove what he/she purportedly said!


“Absolutely, as I said before I never claimed and, indeed, I have not got a pot to pee in. What I’ve got is the evidence I mentioned above.
(icj1, 18 January 2012 04:52)”

And your so called evidence remained unproduced to date and hence, I would put it to you, to be non-existent! As I stated already, the onus is on YOU, and not me or other readers, to produce the evidence to support your case.

“Well that does not proof your statement that “your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement”. I don’t have to show that your statement is wrong; you have to show that it is correct. So where is your evidence that my proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that I made my statement ? Your statement “My proof is precisely in your inability to provide the evidence up to now” can, at the maximum, show that the proof does not exist now, not that it did not exist AT THE TIME that I made my statement :) “

I already told you. Your failure to provide your evidence is my proof that you don’t have them. Until you produce the proof, you are unable to show that you have them and therefore unable to prove that my statement was wrong and so my statement remains true. Of course you are always welcome to prove me wrong by showing us your evidence and letting us see whether the contents satisfy my evidence requirements of you. And I dare you to do so!


“But I did provide the 3 sources - my 3 North Kosovo Serb friends, which is more than 2 that you required. So, you did not prove anything again (LOL). “

Merely claiming that you have 3 N Kosovo Serb friends is not the same as producing the evidence. To produce your evidence, you would have to make available to us for inspection the contents of the evidence – your so called notarized statements, what were written on these notarized statements and the birth certificates. You haven’t produced these on B92 to date.


“Well, they are not the same, dear. Go and read your posts again, because it appears you have forgotten them already :) “

I reread them and they are materially the same to me. Please show us how they are materially different. This pathetic argument of yours will still not let you off the hook since you stated on 16 January that you can provide additional evidence when required – so any so called change in rules of evidence (your claim) would require you to provide 2 sets of evidence – one to satisfy 15 January and one to satisfy 17 January. Don’t worry about overwork however, my 17 January post isn’t materially different from the requirements in my 15 January post.


“You don’t know the name of the mayor ?! That’s very easy to find, dear - Dragisa Milovic”

You still have not shown us evidence that this Dragisa Milovic said “a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.” Please produce the evidence (eg. A relevant URL link) containing the date and contents of his/her words so that we can assess the validity of your evidence.


“That’s why I said “Sure, but you are not a judge :) and I’m not a lawyer.” so the things that were said after the “if” do not apply. “

Still doesn’t alter the fact that you are unable to provide the evidence and telling me to “just read” a website only highlighted your failure to provide the evidence.

“Why, what’s the problem with identifying the mayor on 21 January ?!”

Because on 20 January you objected to my statement of 18 January that you were unable to provide the representative’s identity and the evidence of what he/she said. My statement of 18 January was in response to your earlier posts in which you failed to produce the proof. Moreover, while you finally identified the mayor on 21 January, you still did NOT produce evidence that the mayor said those words a couple of months ago and so my statement of 18 January remained true then and now.

“You just asked that be more than 2 N. Kosovo Serbs, dear. I not only provided you what 3 of my N. Kosovo Serb friends said, by also what thousands of them think (as expressed by their representative). But for some reason you keep changing the evidence criteria again (LOL). “

Well, on 15 January you claimed that “In addition, these three friends of mine are supported by thousands of N. Kosovo Serbs whose representative said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.” I merely asked you on 16 January to substantiate this claim of yours with evidence about the actual date and contents of what this the representative purportedly said. And you failed to do so up to now.

In your post of 21 January, you finally revealed the identity of this representative. As this info was not provided by you earlier on 16 January, naturally I wouldn’t know about it then —I don’t have the benefit of a fortune teller that I recalled that you said you have at your disposal in a previous post. So naturally with your new info, I became interested to know how Zvecan’s mayor is officially appointed to represent and speak on behalf of those N Kosovo Serbs outside of Zvecan.

I am now reproducing my summary of 22 January here to aid readers when I rebut your points below:

You have:
1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.


“1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discusse based on new criteria; “

Well you claimed to have the birth certificates and notarized statements that accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement. I didn’t force you to make this claim. You decided to make the claim on your own free will and I merely asked you to substantiate it, which you could not to date.

“3. Done (see B92’s website); “

I noticed that you did not refute my point 2. I put it to you that you are unable to do so.

As for point 3 -- not done! Merely asking readers to read from B92 is not providing your evidence. The onus is on you to bring the contents of your evidence for readers’ evaluation. To date you failed to produce proof about what the mayor purportedly said a couple of months ago and that what he/she said represented the views of N Kosovo Serbs, including those outside Zvecan. So, on the contrary, point 3 not done – far from done!

“4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :) “

Its only “obvious” to your own mind. And I remain right about your inability to prove that I am a B92 moderator – which I am not for the benefit of any readers that chanced upon your absurd claims!

“5. Done – three sources were provided (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends); “

Not done! How do we know that these sources exist? Just because you claimed that they exist? Providing proof requires you to identify them, show us birth certificates and contents of their notarized statements for readers’ evaluation. And you failed miserably on this! So far from done!

“6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war. “

Your stated on 14 January to the poster dd that “ NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat. So think before you post.” You did not specify that you were referring only to human losses. So your statement included any material loss as well, thereby making it a false statement! It is ironical that you do not follow your own advice to dd to think before you post!

“Ok, but we need to agree first that your initial evidence criteria were wrong and definitively establish the new evidence criteria. At this point you’ve changed them twice and I’m no longer sure what’s in force and what exactly your criteria are :)
(icj1, 22 January 2012 17:53)”

You stated on 16 January that you can provide additional evidence when needed and you did not specify new conditions then. So I am not obliged to agree on anything new with you now. It is also pathetic how you try to overcome your inability to produce your required evidence on B92 by alleging that I changed the criteria. You should know (because you were posting here for some years now) that it is common practice for readers here to ask for proof whenever a poster makes new claims in subsequent posts. You have required readers to provide you with evidence before yourself when they followed up on their earlier posts. So, for example, when you made the claim about having your so called Serb friends’ birth certificates and notarized statements that can prove your case, naturally I would be curious enough in a subsequent post to ask to loom at the evidence which would vindicate this claim of yours – and which remained unproduced by you to date.

They will block Serbia,couse Serbia is blocking Kosova,since 1913.They will do now and foreve,till Serbia will recognise us,as we recognise it.
(USA(ALBANIA), 13 January 2012 20:39)

I do not understand this comment what so ever. What have they been blocking since 1913? Serebia does recognize Kosovo, as part of Serbia like it always has been. What do the albanians in Kosovo expext for us to just give up our land? WHy would we ever do that. I just cant understand how this seems right to anybody, that actually understands what the history of Kosovo is.

If there would be products from Kosovo with competitive prices, I'm sure people would buy them. But Kosovo doesn't have an economy and doesn't produce anything worth to mention. So what else to buy? More expensive products from the EU?
(Analyst, 14 January 2012 09:00)

Mate, Serbia is not the only country that produces something in the Balkans !

I can't find any article about the N Kosovo Serbs' complaints. Can you provide the source(s) to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter because of the freedom of movement issue? Since you made your statement as a generalization of the N Kosovo Serbs, your source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only.
(lowe, 15 January 2012 05:38)

Wow, you were delayed a little bit - probably too many posts to moderate, but thanks for finally establishing the criteria of evidence :)

I have three friends of mine who are N. Kosovo Serbs who said that to me (so that's more than 2 that you needed). Let me know if you need their noterized statements :) as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are indeed Serbs from N. Kosovo (LOL).

In addition, these three friends of mine are supported by thousands of N. Kosovo Serbs whose representative said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.

End of the day, you haven’t got a pot to pee in when it came to providing evidence to support your statement. For someone who likes to hold others to their exact words, you have fallen pathetically short of your own standards.
(lowe, 16 January 2012 03:14)

That’s true dear. I haven’t got a pot to pee in when it came to providing evidence to support my statement. What I’ve got is 3 friends of mine, who are as knowledgeable as sj’s Malaysian friend, who are N. Kosovo Serbs and stated what I said. That satisfies your evidence requirements (read your prior post). I went even further; I offered to provide you their notarized statements as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are of pure Serb blood (LOL).
----------

And now you claiming that some hitherto unidentified “representative” of the N Kosovo Serbs said “a couple of months ago” that N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things. So what is the name and appointment of this “representative” and can you provide proof about the actual date and contents of what he/she purportedly said?
(lowe, 16 January 2012 03:14)

Of course, everybody knows that the representative of thousands of Serbs said, I quote, “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement” about a couple of months ago.
----------

Of course, all of us should know by now your penchant for making bizarre statements that you couldn’t substantiate even though you expect others to substantiate their statements – you just proved my point once more by repeating that moderator claim yet again, and thereby making yourself a laughing stock in the process in the eyes of B92’s moderators!
(lowe, 16 January 2012 03:14)

I did substantiate my statement per your rules of evidence :) – if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided. And thanks for discussing with the other B92 moderators about their opinion about me !

Your pathetic attempts at wisecracks can’t alter the fact that you are not able to provide the proof to support your statement. And your SECOND sentence is your admission of your inability to do so and thus I rest my case on this.
(lowe, 17 January 2012 02:55)

You still did not say where I failed your rules of evidence that the “source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only”. I provided 3 (LOL).
----------

By the way, to take you up on your offer to provide so called notarized statements and birth certs, please do so. Of course, you will also have to do more than just show that they are Serb. You also need to show that they live in N Kosovo during the time of the roadblocks. These statements also must not be merely their self-opinions (as I specified) but must clearly show that they represent the views of the general K-Serb population of N Kosovo that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement”. You can easily set up a blog, scan their “notarized statements” and post these on your blog, give us the URL of your blog and then we shall see.
(lowe, 17 January 2012 02:55)

Absolutely; however please send me first a signed statement on your side that the above are the rules of evidence, just to make sure that you don’t change them again and then I’ll send you the evidence per those written requirements :).
----------

Then you should be able to name the representative, his/her appointment and cite evidence to prove that he/she really said that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement” about a couple of months ago.” So far you have evaded my request for this info.
(lowe, 17 January 2012 02:55)

Dear, just read the B92 website… You still are doubting that a representative of thousands of Serbs said the above ?!
----------

Trying to twist and turn my words no doubt. And no, you didn’t substantiate your statement for the simple reason that you were unable to do so – as I mentioned previously, you haven’t got a pot to pee in when it comes to evidence to back what you wrote! And yes, I think the moderators of B92 must be tickled pink by your ridiculous statements by now!
(lowe, 17 January 2012 02:55)

Absolutely, as I said before I never claimed and, indeed, I have not got a pot to pee in. What I’ve got is the evidence I mentioned above.
----------

Does icj1 know what 'competitive' means? Null points for not even addressing the issue correctly.
(Blind as a Bat, 15 January 2012 19:20)

I don’t know, but I checked the Merriam-Webster English dictionary and “competitive” means “relating to, characterized by, or based on competition”. Not sure though what “competitive” means in Serbian, Albanian or other languages.
----------

Nope, they shot down an invisible stealth plane and damaged others. NATO did not win unconditionally either. NATO claimed to have destroyed hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces. They found 14. What do you think the Kumanovo agreement was all about? You should think before posting old propaganda that only fools repeat wilynily.
(YAWN!, 15 January 2012 19:25)

Ok, thanks for confirming they didn’t lose anybody and the Serbian Army left Kosovo as required by the Kumanovo agreement. And yes I fully agree that you should think before posting old propaganda that only fools repeat wilynily.

But you have NOT even provided the sources and their contents yet! Your failure was in your inability up to now to provide ANY proof! You should already have the written proof on hand when you first made your statements – instead of now running apparently after your sources to provide the proof. Bottom line is that your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement, thereby making your statement FALSE!
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

Who told you I did not have the proof on hand already ?! I did (and still do) already have the notarized statements of my 3 Serb friends from Kosovo and their birth certificates. So you again made a false statement when you say that “your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement”. Show me the evidence that my proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that I made my statement.
----------

As I did not offer to give you any signed statement, so I am not obliged to give you one now. You on the other hand had stated that “I offered to provide you their notarized statements as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are of pure Serb blood” and so I am now holding you to YOUR offer. You are obliged to honor your offer without anything extra from me! Moreover you used the word “notarized” in the past tense which means that you claimed that you already have the statements on hand – which you have been unable to show us up to now!
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

Absolutely I have them as you correctly understood from your brilliant and elaborated linguistic analysis which was wrong. "Notarized" in "noterized statement" is an adjective not a verb in past tense - "notarized" in "notarized a statement" would be a verb in past tense. But anyway.... Unfortunately you changed the criteria. So there is no point for me to provide you evidence that we know already that will not satisfy your new evidence criteria – unless, of course, you changed mind and withdraw your new evidence criteria of 17 January 2012 02:55. The offer I made to you was for the evidence criteria you established on 15 January 2012 05:38.
----------

It was you who claimed that this representative existed and said those things that you alleged. So the onus is squarely on YOU to provide the precise details about this representative’s identity and proof of what he/she said.
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

Well, dear, if you do some research in the b92 website, you’ll discover that that representative is the Zvecan mayor.
----------

If you are a lawyer by profession and you tell the judge to “just read” a website when asked to provide your evidence, I dare say that you might just get into legal hot soup!
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

Sure, but you are not a judge :) and I’m not a lawyer.
---------

End of the day, I put it to you that you are UNABLE to provide the identify of this representative and, furthermore, prove what he/she purportedly said!
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

It was the Zvecan mayor, representative of thousands of Kosovo Serbs, who said “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to security & freedom of movement”. So you just made again a false statement that I am “UNABLE to provide the identify of this representative and, furthermore, prove what he/she purportedly said”.
----------

And your so called evidence remained unproduced to date and hence, I would put it to you, to be non-existent! As I stated already, the onus is on YOU, and not me or other readers, to produce the evidence to support your case.
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

You get to wrong conclusions dear because you don’t do research :)

Well, you have been unable to show us your proof up to now. My proof is precisely in your inability to provide the evidence up to now – and I dare you to prove me wrong by showing us your evidence!
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

Well that does not proof your statement that “your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement”. I don’t have to show that your statement is wrong; you have to show that it is correct. So where is your evidence that my proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that I made my statement ? Your statement “My proof is precisely in your inability to provide the evidence up to now” can, at the maximum, show that the proof does not exist now, not that it did not exist AT THE TIME that I made my statement :)
----------

If anyone was making false statements, it was YOU and I will prove it now! On 18 January, you wrote “You still did not say where I failed your rules of evidence that the “source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only”. I provided 3.” Your statement that “I provided 3” is FALSE because you have NOT provided any up to now!
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

But I did provide the 3 sources - my 3 North Kosovo Serb friends, which is more than 2 that you required. So, you did not prove anything again (LOL).
----------

My criterion is, in my opinion, is basically the same whether you are talking about 15 January or 17 January. In both posts, I basically asked you to PROVIDE the sources to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter. And you have not provided any evidence up to now!
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

Well, they are not the same, dear. Go and read your posts again, because it appears you have forgotten them already :)
----------

Neither I nor the other posters are obliged to do any research for you. As you were the one who made the claim about this representative, the onus is on YOU to provide the details when requested. So you have made a start at long last. Can you now provide us his/her name and evidence that he/she “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

You don’t know the name of the mayor ?! That’s very easy to find, dear - Dragisa Milovic
----------

So what? Asking me to “just read” a website is not providing the evidence that I ask for. And now can you show me where did I claim to be a judge and you to be a lawyer????? You can check your Merriam-Webster for the meaning of the word “If” which I started that sentence of mine with.
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

That’s why I said “Sure, but you are not a judge :) and I’m not a lawyer.” so the things that were said after the “if” do not apply.
----------

Well, you have only identified the mayor NOW (21 January) and, moreover, have still NOT provided the evidence up date that he said “a couple of months ago” that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to security & freedom of movement”. Hence MY statement of 18 January was TRUE when I made it on that day and still is true today!
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

Why, what’s the problem with identifying the mayor on 21 January ?!
----------

One more thing, Zvecan is only ONE area in N Kosovo. So while the mayor may represent the Serbs in Zvecan, how you do know that he/she also represents the Serbs in the OTHER parts of N Kosovo? Please provide the evidence to support your position that this representative is officially entitled to represent and speak on behalf of the N Kosovo Serbs outside of Zvecan.
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

You just asked that be more than 2 N. Kosovo Serbs, dear. I not only provided you what 3 of my N. Kosovo Serb friends said, by also what thousands of them think (as expressed by their representative). But for some reason you keep changing the evidence criteria again (LOL).
----------

To summarize, up to today you have:
1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discusse based on new criteria;

2. Done

3. Done (see B92’s website);

4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :)

5. Done – three sources were provided (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends);

6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war.
----------

On last thing, you offered on 16 January that “if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided.” I shall hold you to your offer. So, just for argument’s sake, even had any rule been changed, you are still REQUIRED to provide the additional evidence as per your offer!
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

Ok, but we need to agree first that your initial evidence criteria were wrong and definitively establish the new evidence criteria. At this point you’ve changed them twice and I’m no longer sure what’s in force and what exactly your criteria are :)

I already told you. Your failure to provide your evidence is my proof that you don’t have them.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

You may be correct on that. But it does not prove that I *DIDN’T” have them at the time when I made the statement, as you said. There is a difference between “DON’T” and “DIDN’T”
----------

Merely claiming that you have 3 N Kosovo Serb friends is not the same as producing the evidence.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

That’s not what you said in your original requirements on 15 January 2012 05:38. I remind you of your words “can you provide the source(s) to back your statement” which I did. Are you changing the requirements now for a fourth time :) ?!
----------

I reread them and they are materially the same to me. Please show us how they are materially different.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

Well, initially you said “Can you provide the source(s) to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter because of the freedom of movement issue? Since you made your statement as a generalization of the N Kosovo Serbs, your source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s)”.

Then you asked for “evidence” in addition to “sources”. You added the sentence “You also need to show that they live in N Kosovo during the time of the roadblocks”. You also added the sentence “but must clearly show that they represent the views of the general K-Serb population of N Kosovo”.
----------

This pathetic argument of yours will still not let you off the hook since you stated on 16 January that you can provide additional evidence when required
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

Sure, as long as you clarify what you require… In almost every post you are changing mind :)
----------

You still have not shown us evidence that this Dragisa Milovic said “a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.” Please produce the evidence (eg. A relevant URL link) containing the date and contents of his/her words so that we can assess the validity of your evidence.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

But that’s publicly known dear, it’s in B92’s website.
www.b92.net
----------

Because on 20 January you objected to my statement of 18 January that you were unable to provide the representative’s identity and the evidence of what he/she said. My statement of 18 January was in response to your earlier posts in which you failed to produce the proof. Moreover, while you finally identified the mayor on 21 January, you still did NOT produce evidence that the mayor said those words a couple of months ago and so my statement of 18 January remained true then and now.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

Well, I still don’t understand what’s the problem with indentifying the mayor on 21 January compared to, say, 10 January or 31 January ?1
----------

1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discuss based on new criteria;

2. Done; the rest is new evidence requirements; clear up your thoughts, agree with yourself what exactly you need and then we can discuss about evidence for other things.

3. Done; www.b92.net;

4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :)

5. Done – three sources were provided on 15 January 2012 22:11 (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends);

6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war.
----------

You stated on 16 January that you can provide additional evidence when needed and you did not specify new conditions then. So I am not obliged to agree on anything new with you now.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

I’m not specifying new conditions. I’m just asking which of your evidence criteria are in force now (they’ve change 4 or 5 times) so I can help you with the appropriate evidence to ensure your satisfaction :)
----------

It is also pathetic how you try to overcome your inability to produce your required evidence on B92 by alleging that I changed the criteria. You should know (because you were posting here for some years now) that it is common practice for readers here to ask for proof whenever a poster makes new claims in subsequent posts. You have required readers to provide you with evidence before yourself when they followed up on their earlier posts. So, for example, when you made the claim about having your so called Serb friends’ birth certificates and notarized statements that can prove your case, naturally I would be curious enough in a subsequent post to ask to loom at the evidence which would vindicate this claim of yours – and which remained unproduced by you to date.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

As I said, I’m trying to ensure your satisfaction, that’s why I’m asking you to clarify your thoughts about the evidence criteria to make sure that you remain satisfied. Your satisfaction is my only concern :)

Well, in that case you didn’t have your evidence then and now.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

I did not say that. Show what evidence you have that I did not have the evidence then, otherwise your statement is false.
----------

And of course I maintain that I am correct.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Sure, you can maintain whatever you want. However you still did not show any evidence to prove that I did not have the evidence “then”.
----------

Well, your online Merriam-Webster’s definition of “provide” is “to supply or make available (something wanted or needed)”. It also stated that the synonyms for “provide” include “deliver” and “hand over”.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Sure, and I supplied or made available to you what you wanted or needed, i.e. the sources.
----------

I still do not see how my 15 January and 17 January posts are materially different.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Well, “sources” and “evidence” are two different things, and are not materially the same. You can again use the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary to be reminded about their definitions. Not to mention that you doubled the length of your requirements.
----------

Anyway, as you already offered on 16 January “if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided.” So even if, for arguments sakes, we were to accept that there was some change in my 17 January requirement, you are still required to provide the evidence for both 15 January and 17 January – any further requirements in my 17 January AND subsequent posts would be treated as acceptance of your 16 January offer which I would suggest to you that you now ruefully regretted making.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

I’m not regretting anything. I’m just asking you to make up your mind about the requirements as you have changed them several times to the point I’m not even sure what they are now. So, what are your current evidence requirements ? Spell them out and we move on from there.
----------

Well, providing B92’s main page link is not providing us the evidence containing the date and contents of Dragisa Milovic’s words as we do not see it online when we access B92’s main page, much less be able to inspect its contents to determine its relevance. The onus is on YOU to bring us to the exact page containing the required proof. And I put it to you that you are unable to do so.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Oh, you want the exact sub-page and link (LOL). Just state so and your wish can be immediately satisfied:
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=11&dd=24&nav_id=77474
----------

Because you had only identified the mayor on 21 January, your statement of 20 January to me objecting to my 18 January statement about your failure to produce the proof was groundless. My 18 January statement was true when I wrote it. Moreover it remained true today because you have still not provided evidence that the mayor said those things a couple of months ago and that what was said represented the views of the N Kosovo Serb population.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Don’t understand the logic or lack thereof. The fact that I identified the mayor on 21 January, it does not mean that he was not the mayor on 20 or 18 or whatever January :)
----------

Once again to summarized your list of failures since you referred to them:
1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discuss based on new criteria once you make up your mind;

2. Done; the rest is new evidence requirements; clear up your thoughts, agree with yourself what exactly you need and then we can discuss about evidence for other things.

3. Done http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=11&dd=24&nav_id=77474

4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :)

5. Done – three sources were provided on 15 January 2012 22:11 (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends);

6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war.
----------

Then, just for arguments sakes, if you interpreted that I had changed them “4 or 5 times”, you would be required to provide the so called “additional” proof each and every time in your follow up replies.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Sure, as soon as you clarify what your requirements are.
----------

Well you have been unable to provide any proof online up to know that satisfied my requirements. And merely claiming that you have evidence or providing a link to a website’s main page is not providing anything specific for readers’ evaluation as far as material evidence online is concerned. And I put it to you that you are not able to do so!
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Of course, because you still haven’t agreed with yourself what you actually want.

How could the police agree with blocking Serbian goods from entering Kosovo?

How stupid. The goods have most likely been ordered by Albanian shop vendors and this will surely affect Albanians more than Serbians. We've been paid for the goods so we don't really care all that much.

Vetevendosje is a pathetic group of uneducated & unemployed losers who aren't brave enough to stand on the real 'front line' so they act like they are hardcore by harassing innocent Serbs living in Kosovo.

How easily we could crush pathetic movements like this if Germany, US & Austria weren't partially controlling our homeland.

Its only fair this way. If K-Serbs in the North can block roads, than so can the Vetvendosje protesters.

I feel sorry for my family and all the Serbs that have to live in this hell hole with these guys.

trizo
your a hypocrite hiding behind words and emails, where were you when the kosovo serbs demonstrated on the kosovo border and needed support. I bet you supported the likes of arkan and milosovic the cleansing of kosovo of its people and the idea behind it. you are so lucky my friend you have no idea what you are talking about when you have c.n.n footage. you should have been there to see first hand the suffering and sensless deaths of both serbs and albanians, mentaly, physically, spiritually. I have an idea that all serbs meet albanians who have suffered and speak to them of there loss and sufferring and albanians meet serbs and listen to there stories of loss and suffering and the destructive nature of an idea a land that belongs to both people and not to either

@ Ozzi,

Yes I can criticize Vetevendosje behind emails, of course when I read that they want to prevent Serb trucks carrying Serbian goods from entering and the KPS agree on this 'deal'.

How pathetic of you to assume I supported Arkan & Milosevic.

I never wanted to cleanse anyone from Kosovo but anyone who has hatred towards Serbs and anyone who makes a Serbs' life hard to live in peace, then yes I will battle them.

You clearly don't respect the fact that Serbs were once a majority of Kosovo and hundreds of thousands have left as living conditions became intolerable as well as forced evacuation.

All throughout Serbia you meet Serbs from Kosovo who ran to get away from the black hole that the K.Albanians have turned it into.

When the Vetevendosje make pathetic statements like the one they just did, and the president of Albania + Kosovo condemns their statements... it's pretty idiotic of you to criticize me for making a criticism.

So ignorant of you to just make such outlandish assumptions. Go back to reading comic books.

This is good. Let the world see what little multi-ethnic angels theEU/US are backing. Wonder if KFOR will come and use their tear gas to break up the Albanian protesters, like they did the Serbs at their barricades? I think not - and there lies the problem - they are not neutral.

Looks like these eejits are at it again, harassing the police and ordinary citizens going about their daily business. It's straight out of a Monty Python sketch.

Send in the clowns.

That's true Kenny, but the difference is that Pristina is imposing customs officers at administrative crossings. That is the difference, and you know it. But fine, let the world see how well the Serbs and Albanians can co-exist in the multi-ethnic land of Kosova. IMHO, they Never will - nor do they want to.

Thaci's orders are received and will be followed. He fools nobody save the limited.

And their objective is...? Your guess is as good as mine. It sounds to me a tit for tat action, one without substance. Sort of a 'Rebel without a Cause' action if you like.
Albanians and Serbs need to understand that compromises need to be made on both sides if Albanian self declared independence is going to succeed.
Letting Serbian goods into Kosovo is one such compromise which ultimately benefits everyone.
The way I see things is that this Kosovo story is likely to drag on for years and years. Our children's children (both Albanian and Serb) will exchange anecdotes among themselves on how stubborn and pathetic our grandfathers & mothers were, on how this conflict with much unnecessary suffering could have been settled years ago with friendly gestures and bilateral beneficial agreements instead of a bitter exchange of rhetoric, rape, pillage and bullets as happened in the past and surely will happen again if no solutions are found.

Fight fire with fire! Good job Albanians! Its about time you give the Serbs a taste of their own medicine. And what is the Government of Serbia going to do about it? Issue a "strong protest" as usual, a whole lot of nothing. This is going to really show the Serbs that their government has absolutely no control over anything. When the Serbs set up barricades KFOR blasted them with water and tear gas to disperse and even fired rubber bullets at them when they were attacked by the Vaselinovic gang. Whats Serbia going to do? Where is the Serbian military and police? Isn't it the military's constitutional duty to fight for "their" land? You guys need a new military when they are scared to fight.

"He said activists would block only the road used to bring in Serbian goods but that they would not impede free movement of citizens, and noted they would stay put until they achieved their objective."

Strange that he didn't mention if his gang will stone Serbian cars again or not.

USA - United dilusions of Albanians

Serbia has/had army only NATO could barely defeat.

Only some showed up and all Albanians run to forest and to Albania and further crying for help.

So think before you post.

"However, the activists of the radical ethnic Albanian group will block one lane at each crossing in order to stop trucks with Serbian goods from entering Kosovo and the police will not prevent them from doing this, the Kosovo police said in a release late Thursday."

So it is not against "Kosova"'s laws to block trucks from Serbia since the police do not prevent this? Then why all the hullaobaloo when roadblocks were set up in the north?

And EULEX, KFOR, Merkel, Pristina & Co. who all went ballisticl over the roadblocks in the north now seem so, so, so serenely silent ..... double standards are we?

"You guys need a new military when they are scared to fight."
(USA United States of Albania, 13 January 2012 16:11)

Serbia has an army, unlike some self-proclaimed state in the neighborhood :)

They will block Serbia,couse Serbia is blocking Kosova,since 1913.They will do now and foreve,till Serbia will recognise us,as we recognise it.

One action leads to the next. That said, this group does have a point when it comes to the one sided - trade embargo being imposed by Serbia. It is not fair for Serbia to try and strangle and disrupt the Kosovan economy at every turn.
(Joe, 13 January 2012 17:38)

What about one-sided-declared independence?

I remember before UDI declaration Albanians boasted they were not of Serbia embargo, having many world's powerful countries with developed economy on their side.

"Wonder if KFOR will come and use their tear gas to break up the Albanian protesters, like they did the Serbs at their barricades?
(winston, 13 January 2012 11:04)

In case these 'peaceful protesters' will block KFOR and EULEX vehicles, KFOR will surely act.

Its only fair this way. If K-Serbs in the North can block roads, than so can the Vetvendosje protesters.
(Kenny, 13 January 2012 10:58)

The Vetvendosje protesters should block roads from Albania to Kosovo province to make it symmetrical.

Fight fire with fire! Good job Albanians! Its about time you give the Serbs a taste of their own medicine. And what is the Government of Serbia going to do about it? Issue a "strong protest" as usual, a whole lot of nothing. This is going to really show the Serbs that their government has absolutely no control over anything. When the Serbs set up barricades KFOR blasted them with water and tear gas to disperse and even fired rubber bullets at them when they were attacked by the Vaselinovic gang. Whats Serbia going to do? Where is the Serbian military and police? Isn't it the military's constitutional duty to fight for "their" land? You guys need a new military when they are scared to fight.
(USA United States of Albania, 13 January 2012 16:11)

Hey weren't you one of the clowns yelling how stupid the Serbs' idea of blocking roads was? Now you are cheering the Albanians for it? You see the hypocrisy? You and you're fellow clowns claimed how stupid the Serbs would be to block roads when winter comes. Now the are not blocking roads and your goofy relatives are there freezing. Do any of you use logic?

One action leads to the next. That said, this group does have a point when it comes to the one sided - trade embargo being imposed by Serbia. It is not fair for Serbia to try and strangle and disrupt the Kosovan economy at every turn.
(Joe, 13 January 2012 17:38)

What about one-sided-declared independence?

I remember before UDI declaration Albanians boasted they were not AFRAID of Serbia embargo, having many world's powerful countries with developed economy on their side.

The 14 Jan blocking will just unvail the K-Albanians political immaturity and deep inferiority over Serbs. I'm sorry to say this but it is true.

Serbian goods should be baned from every single Kosovar by simply refusing to buy them. No. Kosovars LOVE them. Simply can't give up of them. They need to finiance the Serbian economic recovery so hopefully Serbs can finish the unfinished job of the 1999. Kurti simply unable to explain the simple thing to his countrymans: have a bit of dignity; decided to block the roads. It is act of desperation infront of the imense stupidity of the Kosovars.

You are dumb as no one nearby you. face it. You finance the one that wants your state to dissapear. And you are fierce in defending that. Sometime I simply want to say: ok I wish you get what you deserve.

"True "heroes", defenders of nothing."
(USA United States of Albania, 13 January 2012 17:32)

What should they defend? Politicians in Serbia are smart enough to know (unlike their counterparts in Pristina) that Kosovo is currently a demilitarized protectorate under temporary UN administration.

LOL as I predicted, they can only "partially" block roads because in reality they don't have enough supporters to do this. Kurti even went as far as asking people in Albania for help and no one listened. Ok, have your demonstration, but he really should learn from the Serbs in the north how to properly resist.

It is not fair for Serbia to try and strangle and disrupt the Kosovan economy at every turn.
(Joe, 13 January 2012 17:38)

LOL trust me, the Kosovan economy doesn't need Serbia to strangle it. They do a great job strangling themselves :)

This is a lie. They will block the entire road, not partially.

"You guys need a new military when they are scared to fight."
(USA United States of Albania, 13 January 2012 16:11)

Serbia has an army, unlike some self-proclaimed state in the neighborhood :)
(Comm. Parrisson, 13 January 2012 16:56)

How many times does this need to be spelled out? Yes, Serbia has an army......that does nothing. Bravo! They've accomplished....nothing. True "heroes", defenders of nothing.

One action leads to the next. That said, this group does have a point when it comes to the one sided - trade embargo being imposed by Serbia. It is not fair for Serbia to try and strangle and disrupt the Kosovan economy at every turn.

"No more Serbs in Prishtina - no more Albanians in Belgrade."

As if we cared! Send the traitors back, we'll see who will regret it the most.

LOL trust me, the Kosovan economy doesn't need Serbia to strangle it. They do a great job strangling themselves :)
(Balkan Anthropologist, 13 January 2012 19:41)

Such a cheap shot.

Strange that he didn't mention if his gang will stone Serbian cars again or not.
(Comm. Parrisson, 13 January 2012 10:51)

No, they will just use Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs like their Serbs brothers :)
----------

Then why all the hullaobaloo when roadblocks were set up in the north?
(lowe, 13 January 2012 13:47)

Because the N. Kosovo Serbs complained that they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.
----------

The Vetvendosje protesters should block roads from Albania to Kosovo province to make it symmetrical.
(aaayyy, 13 January 2012 15:51)

Why, are Serbs planning to block roads with Albania ?
----------

Serbia has/had army only NATO could barely defeat.
So think before you post.
(dd, 13 January 2012 18:19)

Barely ? NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat. So think before you post.

They will block Serbia,couse Serbia is blocking Kosova,since 1913.They will do now and foreve,till Serbia will recognise us,as we recognise it.
(USA(ALBANIA), 13 January 2012 20:39)

I do not understand this comment what so ever. What have they been blocking since 1913? Serebia does recognize Kosovo, as part of Serbia like it always has been. What do the albanians in Kosovo expext for us to just give up our land? WHy would we ever do that. I just cant understand how this seems right to anybody, that actually understands what the history of Kosovo is.

LOL trust me, the Kosovan economy doesn't need Serbia to strangle it. They do a great job strangling themselves :)
(Balkan Anthropologist, 13 January 2012 19:41)

Kosovan economy? Which Kosovan economy? The scrap metal exports are blocked by Serbia? :)

Concerning reciprocity: reciprocity could work like that:

No more Serbs in Prishtina - no more Albanians in Belgrade.

If there would be products from Kosovo with competitive prices, I'm sure people would buy them. But Kosovo doesn't have an economy and doesn't produce anything worth to mention. So what else to buy? More expensive products from the EU?
(Analyst, 14 January 2012 09:00)

Mate, Serbia is not the only country that produces something in the Balkans !

Mate, Serbia is not the only country that produces something in the Balkans !
(icj1, 15 January 2012 04:38)

Does icj1 know what 'competitive' means? Null points for not even addressing the issue correctly.

I can't find any article about the N Kosovo Serbs' complaints. Can you provide the source(s) to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter because of the freedom of movement issue? Since you made your statement as a generalization of the N Kosovo Serbs, your source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only.
(lowe, 15 January 2012 05:38)

Wow, you were delayed a little bit - probably too many posts to moderate, but thanks for finally establishing the criteria of evidence :)

I have three friends of mine who are N. Kosovo Serbs who said that to me (so that's more than 2 that you needed). Let me know if you need their noterized statements :) as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are indeed Serbs from N. Kosovo (LOL).

In addition, these three friends of mine are supported by thousands of N. Kosovo Serbs whose representative said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.

End of the day, you haven’t got a pot to pee in when it came to providing evidence to support your statement. For someone who likes to hold others to their exact words, you have fallen pathetically short of your own standards.
(lowe, 16 January 2012 03:14)

That’s true dear. I haven’t got a pot to pee in when it came to providing evidence to support my statement. What I’ve got is 3 friends of mine, who are as knowledgeable as sj’s Malaysian friend, who are N. Kosovo Serbs and stated what I said. That satisfies your evidence requirements (read your prior post). I went even further; I offered to provide you their notarized statements as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are of pure Serb blood (LOL).
----------

And now you claiming that some hitherto unidentified “representative” of the N Kosovo Serbs said “a couple of months ago” that N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things. So what is the name and appointment of this “representative” and can you provide proof about the actual date and contents of what he/she purportedly said?
(lowe, 16 January 2012 03:14)

Of course, everybody knows that the representative of thousands of Serbs said, I quote, “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement” about a couple of months ago.
----------

Of course, all of us should know by now your penchant for making bizarre statements that you couldn’t substantiate even though you expect others to substantiate their statements – you just proved my point once more by repeating that moderator claim yet again, and thereby making yourself a laughing stock in the process in the eyes of B92’s moderators!
(lowe, 16 January 2012 03:14)

I did substantiate my statement per your rules of evidence :) – if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided. And thanks for discussing with the other B92 moderators about their opinion about me !

Well, in that case you didn’t have your evidence then and now.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

I did not say that. Show what evidence you have that I did not have the evidence then, otherwise your statement is false.
----------

And of course I maintain that I am correct.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Sure, you can maintain whatever you want. However you still did not show any evidence to prove that I did not have the evidence “then”.
----------

Well, your online Merriam-Webster’s definition of “provide” is “to supply or make available (something wanted or needed)”. It also stated that the synonyms for “provide” include “deliver” and “hand over”.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Sure, and I supplied or made available to you what you wanted or needed, i.e. the sources.
----------

I still do not see how my 15 January and 17 January posts are materially different.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Well, “sources” and “evidence” are two different things, and are not materially the same. You can again use the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary to be reminded about their definitions. Not to mention that you doubled the length of your requirements.
----------

Anyway, as you already offered on 16 January “if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided.” So even if, for arguments sakes, we were to accept that there was some change in my 17 January requirement, you are still required to provide the evidence for both 15 January and 17 January – any further requirements in my 17 January AND subsequent posts would be treated as acceptance of your 16 January offer which I would suggest to you that you now ruefully regretted making.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

I’m not regretting anything. I’m just asking you to make up your mind about the requirements as you have changed them several times to the point I’m not even sure what they are now. So, what are your current evidence requirements ? Spell them out and we move on from there.
----------

Well, providing B92’s main page link is not providing us the evidence containing the date and contents of Dragisa Milovic’s words as we do not see it online when we access B92’s main page, much less be able to inspect its contents to determine its relevance. The onus is on YOU to bring us to the exact page containing the required proof. And I put it to you that you are unable to do so.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Oh, you want the exact sub-page and link (LOL). Just state so and your wish can be immediately satisfied:
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=11&dd=24&nav_id=77474
----------

Because you had only identified the mayor on 21 January, your statement of 20 January to me objecting to my 18 January statement about your failure to produce the proof was groundless. My 18 January statement was true when I wrote it. Moreover it remained true today because you have still not provided evidence that the mayor said those things a couple of months ago and that what was said represented the views of the N Kosovo Serb population.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Don’t understand the logic or lack thereof. The fact that I identified the mayor on 21 January, it does not mean that he was not the mayor on 20 or 18 or whatever January :)
----------

Once again to summarized your list of failures since you referred to them:
1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discuss based on new criteria once you make up your mind;

2. Done; the rest is new evidence requirements; clear up your thoughts, agree with yourself what exactly you need and then we can discuss about evidence for other things.

3. Done http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=11&dd=24&nav_id=77474

4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :)

5. Done – three sources were provided on 15 January 2012 22:11 (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends);

6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war.
----------

Then, just for arguments sakes, if you interpreted that I had changed them “4 or 5 times”, you would be required to provide the so called “additional” proof each and every time in your follow up replies.
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Sure, as soon as you clarify what your requirements are.
----------

Well you have been unable to provide any proof online up to know that satisfied my requirements. And merely claiming that you have evidence or providing a link to a website’s main page is not providing anything specific for readers’ evaluation as far as material evidence online is concerned. And I put it to you that you are not able to do so!
(lowe, 29 January 2012 02:44)

Of course, because you still haven’t agreed with yourself what you actually want.

Your pathetic attempts at wisecracks can’t alter the fact that you are not able to provide the proof to support your statement. And your SECOND sentence is your admission of your inability to do so and thus I rest my case on this.
(lowe, 17 January 2012 02:55)

You still did not say where I failed your rules of evidence that the “source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only”. I provided 3 (LOL).
----------

By the way, to take you up on your offer to provide so called notarized statements and birth certs, please do so. Of course, you will also have to do more than just show that they are Serb. You also need to show that they live in N Kosovo during the time of the roadblocks. These statements also must not be merely their self-opinions (as I specified) but must clearly show that they represent the views of the general K-Serb population of N Kosovo that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement”. You can easily set up a blog, scan their “notarized statements” and post these on your blog, give us the URL of your blog and then we shall see.
(lowe, 17 January 2012 02:55)

Absolutely; however please send me first a signed statement on your side that the above are the rules of evidence, just to make sure that you don’t change them again and then I’ll send you the evidence per those written requirements :).
----------

Then you should be able to name the representative, his/her appointment and cite evidence to prove that he/she really said that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement” about a couple of months ago.” So far you have evaded my request for this info.
(lowe, 17 January 2012 02:55)

Dear, just read the B92 website… You still are doubting that a representative of thousands of Serbs said the above ?!
----------

Trying to twist and turn my words no doubt. And no, you didn’t substantiate your statement for the simple reason that you were unable to do so – as I mentioned previously, you haven’t got a pot to pee in when it comes to evidence to back what you wrote! And yes, I think the moderators of B92 must be tickled pink by your ridiculous statements by now!
(lowe, 17 January 2012 02:55)

Absolutely, as I said before I never claimed and, indeed, I have not got a pot to pee in. What I’ve got is the evidence I mentioned above.
----------

Does icj1 know what 'competitive' means? Null points for not even addressing the issue correctly.
(Blind as a Bat, 15 January 2012 19:20)

I don’t know, but I checked the Merriam-Webster English dictionary and “competitive” means “relating to, characterized by, or based on competition”. Not sure though what “competitive” means in Serbian, Albanian or other languages.
----------

Nope, they shot down an invisible stealth plane and damaged others. NATO did not win unconditionally either. NATO claimed to have destroyed hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces. They found 14. What do you think the Kumanovo agreement was all about? You should think before posting old propaganda that only fools repeat wilynily.
(YAWN!, 15 January 2012 19:25)

Ok, thanks for confirming they didn’t lose anybody and the Serbian Army left Kosovo as required by the Kumanovo agreement. And yes I fully agree that you should think before posting old propaganda that only fools repeat wilynily.

But you have NOT even provided the sources and their contents yet! Your failure was in your inability up to now to provide ANY proof! You should already have the written proof on hand when you first made your statements – instead of now running apparently after your sources to provide the proof. Bottom line is that your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement, thereby making your statement FALSE!
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

Who told you I did not have the proof on hand already ?! I did (and still do) already have the notarized statements of my 3 Serb friends from Kosovo and their birth certificates. So you again made a false statement when you say that “your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement”. Show me the evidence that my proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that I made my statement.
----------

As I did not offer to give you any signed statement, so I am not obliged to give you one now. You on the other hand had stated that “I offered to provide you their notarized statements as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are of pure Serb blood” and so I am now holding you to YOUR offer. You are obliged to honor your offer without anything extra from me! Moreover you used the word “notarized” in the past tense which means that you claimed that you already have the statements on hand – which you have been unable to show us up to now!
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

Absolutely I have them as you correctly understood from your brilliant and elaborated linguistic analysis which was wrong. "Notarized" in "noterized statement" is an adjective not a verb in past tense - "notarized" in "notarized a statement" would be a verb in past tense. But anyway.... Unfortunately you changed the criteria. So there is no point for me to provide you evidence that we know already that will not satisfy your new evidence criteria – unless, of course, you changed mind and withdraw your new evidence criteria of 17 January 2012 02:55. The offer I made to you was for the evidence criteria you established on 15 January 2012 05:38.
----------

It was you who claimed that this representative existed and said those things that you alleged. So the onus is squarely on YOU to provide the precise details about this representative’s identity and proof of what he/she said.
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

Well, dear, if you do some research in the b92 website, you’ll discover that that representative is the Zvecan mayor.
----------

If you are a lawyer by profession and you tell the judge to “just read” a website when asked to provide your evidence, I dare say that you might just get into legal hot soup!
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

Sure, but you are not a judge :) and I’m not a lawyer.
---------

End of the day, I put it to you that you are UNABLE to provide the identify of this representative and, furthermore, prove what he/she purportedly said!
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

It was the Zvecan mayor, representative of thousands of Kosovo Serbs, who said “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to security & freedom of movement”. So you just made again a false statement that I am “UNABLE to provide the identify of this representative and, furthermore, prove what he/she purportedly said”.
----------

And your so called evidence remained unproduced to date and hence, I would put it to you, to be non-existent! As I stated already, the onus is on YOU, and not me or other readers, to produce the evidence to support your case.
(lowe, 18 January 2012 12:10)

You get to wrong conclusions dear because you don’t do research :)

Well, you have been unable to show us your proof up to now. My proof is precisely in your inability to provide the evidence up to now – and I dare you to prove me wrong by showing us your evidence!
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

Well that does not proof your statement that “your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement”. I don’t have to show that your statement is wrong; you have to show that it is correct. So where is your evidence that my proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that I made my statement ? Your statement “My proof is precisely in your inability to provide the evidence up to now” can, at the maximum, show that the proof does not exist now, not that it did not exist AT THE TIME that I made my statement :)
----------

If anyone was making false statements, it was YOU and I will prove it now! On 18 January, you wrote “You still did not say where I failed your rules of evidence that the “source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only”. I provided 3.” Your statement that “I provided 3” is FALSE because you have NOT provided any up to now!
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

But I did provide the 3 sources - my 3 North Kosovo Serb friends, which is more than 2 that you required. So, you did not prove anything again (LOL).
----------

My criterion is, in my opinion, is basically the same whether you are talking about 15 January or 17 January. In both posts, I basically asked you to PROVIDE the sources to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter. And you have not provided any evidence up to now!
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

Well, they are not the same, dear. Go and read your posts again, because it appears you have forgotten them already :)
----------

Neither I nor the other posters are obliged to do any research for you. As you were the one who made the claim about this representative, the onus is on YOU to provide the details when requested. So you have made a start at long last. Can you now provide us his/her name and evidence that he/she “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

You don’t know the name of the mayor ?! That’s very easy to find, dear - Dragisa Milovic
----------

So what? Asking me to “just read” a website is not providing the evidence that I ask for. And now can you show me where did I claim to be a judge and you to be a lawyer????? You can check your Merriam-Webster for the meaning of the word “If” which I started that sentence of mine with.
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

That’s why I said “Sure, but you are not a judge :) and I’m not a lawyer.” so the things that were said after the “if” do not apply.
----------

Well, you have only identified the mayor NOW (21 January) and, moreover, have still NOT provided the evidence up date that he said “a couple of months ago” that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to security & freedom of movement”. Hence MY statement of 18 January was TRUE when I made it on that day and still is true today!
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

Why, what’s the problem with identifying the mayor on 21 January ?!
----------

One more thing, Zvecan is only ONE area in N Kosovo. So while the mayor may represent the Serbs in Zvecan, how you do know that he/she also represents the Serbs in the OTHER parts of N Kosovo? Please provide the evidence to support your position that this representative is officially entitled to represent and speak on behalf of the N Kosovo Serbs outside of Zvecan.
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

You just asked that be more than 2 N. Kosovo Serbs, dear. I not only provided you what 3 of my N. Kosovo Serb friends said, by also what thousands of them think (as expressed by their representative). But for some reason you keep changing the evidence criteria again (LOL).
----------

To summarize, up to today you have:
1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discusse based on new criteria;

2. Done

3. Done (see B92’s website);

4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :)

5. Done – three sources were provided (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends);

6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war.
----------

On last thing, you offered on 16 January that “if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided.” I shall hold you to your offer. So, just for argument’s sake, even had any rule been changed, you are still REQUIRED to provide the additional evidence as per your offer!
(lowe, 22 January 2012 06:57)

Ok, but we need to agree first that your initial evidence criteria were wrong and definitively establish the new evidence criteria. At this point you’ve changed them twice and I’m no longer sure what’s in force and what exactly your criteria are :)

I already told you. Your failure to provide your evidence is my proof that you don’t have them.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

You may be correct on that. But it does not prove that I *DIDN’T” have them at the time when I made the statement, as you said. There is a difference between “DON’T” and “DIDN’T”
----------

Merely claiming that you have 3 N Kosovo Serb friends is not the same as producing the evidence.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

That’s not what you said in your original requirements on 15 January 2012 05:38. I remind you of your words “can you provide the source(s) to back your statement” which I did. Are you changing the requirements now for a fourth time :) ?!
----------

I reread them and they are materially the same to me. Please show us how they are materially different.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

Well, initially you said “Can you provide the source(s) to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter because of the freedom of movement issue? Since you made your statement as a generalization of the N Kosovo Serbs, your source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s)”.

Then you asked for “evidence” in addition to “sources”. You added the sentence “You also need to show that they live in N Kosovo during the time of the roadblocks”. You also added the sentence “but must clearly show that they represent the views of the general K-Serb population of N Kosovo”.
----------

This pathetic argument of yours will still not let you off the hook since you stated on 16 January that you can provide additional evidence when required
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

Sure, as long as you clarify what you require… In almost every post you are changing mind :)
----------

You still have not shown us evidence that this Dragisa Milovic said “a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.” Please produce the evidence (eg. A relevant URL link) containing the date and contents of his/her words so that we can assess the validity of your evidence.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

But that’s publicly known dear, it’s in B92’s website.
www.b92.net
----------

Because on 20 January you objected to my statement of 18 January that you were unable to provide the representative’s identity and the evidence of what he/she said. My statement of 18 January was in response to your earlier posts in which you failed to produce the proof. Moreover, while you finally identified the mayor on 21 January, you still did NOT produce evidence that the mayor said those words a couple of months ago and so my statement of 18 January remained true then and now.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

Well, I still don’t understand what’s the problem with indentifying the mayor on 21 January compared to, say, 10 January or 31 January ?1
----------

1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discuss based on new criteria;

2. Done; the rest is new evidence requirements; clear up your thoughts, agree with yourself what exactly you need and then we can discuss about evidence for other things.

3. Done; www.b92.net;

4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :)

5. Done – three sources were provided on 15 January 2012 22:11 (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends);

6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war.
----------

You stated on 16 January that you can provide additional evidence when needed and you did not specify new conditions then. So I am not obliged to agree on anything new with you now.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

I’m not specifying new conditions. I’m just asking which of your evidence criteria are in force now (they’ve change 4 or 5 times) so I can help you with the appropriate evidence to ensure your satisfaction :)
----------

It is also pathetic how you try to overcome your inability to produce your required evidence on B92 by alleging that I changed the criteria. You should know (because you were posting here for some years now) that it is common practice for readers here to ask for proof whenever a poster makes new claims in subsequent posts. You have required readers to provide you with evidence before yourself when they followed up on their earlier posts. So, for example, when you made the claim about having your so called Serb friends’ birth certificates and notarized statements that can prove your case, naturally I would be curious enough in a subsequent post to ask to loom at the evidence which would vindicate this claim of yours – and which remained unproduced by you to date.
(lowe, 23 January 2012 02:36)

As I said, I’m trying to ensure your satisfaction, that’s why I’m asking you to clarify your thoughts about the evidence criteria to make sure that you remain satisfied. Your satisfaction is my only concern :)

Trizo,
"who aren't brave enough to stand on the real 'front line' "
We're you brave enough to be on the "front line"? Can't mean anything but the war. Considering the venom you spew, I'm sure you attitude is self explanatory on your thoughts of a war from a place far far away. I've seen it yet I preach reconciliation, no academy awards here no matter what you say or how you say it, it won't bring back the dead, and doesn't bring people closer and doesn't obsolve the guilt. Kosovo was always a black except under the ottomans.
Did you go to support the Serbs in the north? Did you go support them in war? Did you "battle them" Albanians are a forgiving race. I see Serbs and Albanians together al the time
Serbian land what Albanian stuff you smoking? The land belongs to the people of Kosovo! Which includes Albanians and always has. Why would a famous Serbian painter paint a picture of Serbian migration that would include Albanians
Google paja jovanovic Serbian migration. And explain the story of Serbian knights and priests leading orthofox Albanians out of Kosovo? Strange is it not? Where are the serbians? Or are the Albanians considered Serbian coz they were orthodox and some still are orthodox?

Serbian goods should be baned from every single Kosovar by simply refusing to buy them. No. Kosovars LOVE them. Simply can't give up of them. .... It is act of desperation infront of the imense stupidity of the Kosovars.
(ben, 13 January 2012 17:39)

If there would be products from Kosovo with competitive prices, I'm sure people would buy them. But Kosovo doesn't have an economy and doesn't produce anything worth to mention. So what else to buy? More expensive products from the EU?

The ridiculous position of the west to declare kosovo a country before it was even functional was totally insane. They don't produce anything. Nothing is done there. There was thing called standards before status that was totally dropped. UK US FRance Germany all are about creating fake countries for weird reasons.

"Because the N. Kosovo Serbs complained that they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.

(icj1, 14 January 2012 05:37)"

I can't find any article about the N Kosovo Serbs' complaints. Can you provide the source(s) to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter because of the freedom of movement issue? Since you made your statement as a generalization of the N Kosovo Serbs, your source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only.

Barely ? NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat. So think before you post.
(icj1, 14 January 2012 05:37)

Nope, they shot down an invisible stealth plane and damaged others. NATO did not win unconditionally either. NATO claimed to have destroyed hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces. They found 14. What do you think the Kumanovo agreement was all about? You should think before posting old propaganda that only fools repeat wilynily.

“Wow, you were delayed a little bit - probably too many posts to moderate, but thanks for finally establishing the criteria of evidence :)

I have three friends of mine who are N. Kosovo Serbs who said that to me (so that's more than 2 that you needed). Let me know if you need their noterized statements :) as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are indeed Serbs from N. Kosovo (LOL).

In addition, these three friends of mine are supported by thousands of N. Kosovo Serbs whose representative said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.
(icj1, 15 January 2012 22:11)”

End of the day, you haven’t got a pot to pee in when it came to providing evidence to support your statement. For someone who likes to hold others to their exact words, you have fallen pathetically short of your own standards.

And now you claiming that some hitherto unidentified “representative” of the N Kosovo Serbs said “a couple of months ago” that N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things. So what is the name and appointment of this “representative” and can you provide proof about the actual date and contents of what he/she purportedly said?

Of course, all of us should know by now your penchant for making bizarre statements that you couldn’t substantiate even though you expect others to substantiate their statements – you just proved my point once more by repeating that moderator claim yet again, and thereby making yourself a laughing stock in the process in the eyes of B92’s moderators!

“That’s true dear. I haven’t got a pot to pee in when it came to providing evidence to support my statement. What I’ve got is 3 friends of mine, who are as knowledgeable as sj’s Malaysian friend, who are N. Kosovo Serbs and stated what I said. That satisfies your evidence requirements (read your prior post). I went even further; I offered to provide you their notarized statements as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are of pure Serb blood (LOL). “

Your pathetic attempts at wisecracks can’t alter the fact that you are not able to provide the proof to support your statement. And your SECOND sentence is your admission of your inability to do so and thus I rest my case on this.

By the way, to take you up on your offer to provide so called notarized statements and birth certs, please do so. Of course, you will also have to do more than just show that they are Serb. You also need to show that they live in N Kosovo during the time of the roadblocks. These statements also must not be merely their self-opinions (as I specified) but must clearly show that they represent the views of the general K-Serb population of N Kosovo that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement”. You can easily set up a blog, scan their “notarized statements” and post these on your blog, give us the URL of your blog and then we shall see.

“Of course, everybody knows that the representative of thousands of Serbs said, I quote, “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement” about a couple of months ago.”

Then you should be able to name the representative, his/her appointment and cite evidence to prove that he/she really said that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it come to security & freedom of movement” about a couple of months ago.” So far you have evaded my request for this info.

“I did substantiate my statement per your rules of evidence :) – if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided. And thanks for discussing with the other B92 moderators about their opinion about me !”

Trying to twist and turn my words no doubt. And no, you didn’t substantiate your statement for the simple reason that you were unable to do so – as I mentioned previously, you haven’t got a pot to pee in when it comes to evidence to back what you wrote! And yes, I think the moderators of B92 must be tickled pink by your ridiculous statements by now!

“You still did not say where I failed your rules of evidence that the “source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only”. I provided 3 (LOL). “


But you have NOT even provided the sources and their contents yet! Your failure was in your inability up to now to provide ANY proof! You should already have the written proof on hand when you first made your statements – instead of now running apparently after your sources to provide the proof. Bottom line is that your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement, thereby making your statement FALSE!


“Absolutely; however please send me first a signed statement on your side that the above are the rules of evidence, just to make sure that you don’t change them again and then I’ll send you the evidence per those written requirements :). “

As I did not offer to give you any signed statement, so I am not obliged to give you one now. You on the other hand had stated that “I offered to provide you their notarized statements as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are of pure Serb blood” and so I am now holding you to YOUR offer. You are obliged to honor your offer without anything extra from me! Moreover you used the word “notarized” in the past tense which means that you claimed that you already have the statements on hand – which you have been unable to show us up to now!

“Dear, just read the B92 website… You still are doubting that a representative of thousands of Serbs said the above ?! “

It was you who claimed that this representative existed and said those things that you alleged. So the onus is squarely on YOU to provide the precise details about this representative’s identity and proof of what he/she said.

If you are a lawyer by profession and you tell the judge to “just read” a website when asked to provide your evidence, I dare say that you might just get into legal hot soup! End of the day, I put it to you that you are UNABLE to provide the identify of this representative and, furthermore, prove what he/she purportedly said!


“Absolutely, as I said before I never claimed and, indeed, I have not got a pot to pee in. What I’ve got is the evidence I mentioned above.
(icj1, 18 January 2012 04:52)”

And your so called evidence remained unproduced to date and hence, I would put it to you, to be non-existent! As I stated already, the onus is on YOU, and not me or other readers, to produce the evidence to support your case.

One more thing, icj1. You mentioned to a poster that:

"NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat. So think before you post.
(icj1, 14 January 2012 05:37)"

Can you explain how there was "no losses" by Nato when its Stealth fighter was shot down? I should think that this fighter would be on a combat mission rather than, say, a pleasure aerial sightseeing trip.

“Who told you I did not have the proof on hand already ?! I did (and still do) already have the notarized statements of my 3 Serb friends from Kosovo and their birth certificates. So you again made a false statement when you say that “your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement”. Show me the evidence that my proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that I made my statement. “

Well, you have been unable to show us your proof up to now. My proof is precisely in your inability to provide the evidence up to now – and I dare you to prove me wrong by showing us your evidence! If anyone was making false statements, it was YOU and I will prove it now! On 18 January, you wrote “You still did not say where I failed your rules of evidence that the “source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s) only”. I provided 3.” Your statement that “I provided 3” is FALSE because you have NOT provided any up to now!



“Absolutely I have them as you correctly understood from your brilliant and elaborated linguistic analysis which was wrong. "Notarized" in "noterized statement" is an adjective not a verb in past tense - "notarized" in "notarized a statement" would be a verb in past tense. But anyway.... Unfortunately you changed the criteria. So there is no point for me to provide you evidence that we know already that will not satisfy your new evidence criteria – unless, of course, you changed mind and withdraw your new evidence criteria of 17 January 2012 02:55. The offer I made to you was for the evidence criteria you established on 15 January 2012 05:38. “

My criterion is, in my opinion, is basically the same whether you are talking about 15 January or 17 January. In both posts, I basically asked you to PROVIDE the sources to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter. And you have not provided any evidence up to now!
You were unable to provide up to now the notarized statements and birth certificates or the identity and appointment of the representative and what he/she said. As I told you already, you could easily set up a blog and put all these there.

“Well, dear, if you do some research in the b92 website, you’ll discover that that representative is the Zvecan mayor. “

Neither I nor the other posters are obliged to do any research for you. As you were the one who made the claim about this representative, the onus is on YOU to provide the details when requested. So you have made a start at long last. Can you now provide us his/her name and evidence that he/she “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”

“Sure, but you are not a judge :) and I’m not a lawyer.”

So what? Asking me to “just read” a website is not providing the evidence that I ask for. And now can you show me where did I claim to be a judge and you to be a lawyer????? You can check your Merriam-Webster for the meaning of the word “If” which I started that sentence of mine with.



“It was the Zvecan mayor, representative of thousands of Kosovo Serbs, who said “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to security & freedom of movement”. So you just made again a false statement that I am “UNABLE to provide the identify of this representative and, furthermore, prove what he/she purportedly said”.

Well, you have only identified the mayor NOW (21 January) and, moreover, have still NOT provided the evidence up date that he said “a couple of months ago” that “N Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to security & freedom of movement”. Hence MY statement of 18 January was TRUE when I made it on that day and still is true today!

One more thing, Zvecan is only ONE area in N Kosovo. So while the mayor may represent the Serbs in Zvecan, how you do know that he/she also represents the Serbs in the OTHER parts of N Kosovo? Please provide the evidence to support your position that this representative is officially entitled to represent and speak on behalf of the N Kosovo Serbs outside of Zvecan.

“You get to wrong conclusions dear because you don’t do research :)
(icj1, 21 January 2012 21:01)”

As I said, I’m not obliged to do your research for you and the onus is on YOU to do any necessary research to come up with the evidence to support your claims.

To summarize, up to today you have:

1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.

On last thing, you offered on 16 January that “if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided.” I shall hold you to your offer. So, just for argument’s sake, even had any rule been changed, you are still REQUIRED to provide the additional evidence as per your offer!

“Well that does not proof your statement that “your proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that you made your statement”. I don’t have to show that your statement is wrong; you have to show that it is correct. So where is your evidence that my proof was non-existent AT THE TIME that I made my statement ? Your statement “My proof is precisely in your inability to provide the evidence up to now” can, at the maximum, show that the proof does not exist now, not that it did not exist AT THE TIME that I made my statement :) “

I already told you. Your failure to provide your evidence is my proof that you don’t have them. Until you produce the proof, you are unable to show that you have them and therefore unable to prove that my statement was wrong and so my statement remains true. Of course you are always welcome to prove me wrong by showing us your evidence and letting us see whether the contents satisfy my evidence requirements of you. And I dare you to do so!


“But I did provide the 3 sources - my 3 North Kosovo Serb friends, which is more than 2 that you required. So, you did not prove anything again (LOL). “

Merely claiming that you have 3 N Kosovo Serb friends is not the same as producing the evidence. To produce your evidence, you would have to make available to us for inspection the contents of the evidence – your so called notarized statements, what were written on these notarized statements and the birth certificates. You haven’t produced these on B92 to date.


“Well, they are not the same, dear. Go and read your posts again, because it appears you have forgotten them already :) “

I reread them and they are materially the same to me. Please show us how they are materially different. This pathetic argument of yours will still not let you off the hook since you stated on 16 January that you can provide additional evidence when required – so any so called change in rules of evidence (your claim) would require you to provide 2 sets of evidence – one to satisfy 15 January and one to satisfy 17 January. Don’t worry about overwork however, my 17 January post isn’t materially different from the requirements in my 15 January post.


“You don’t know the name of the mayor ?! That’s very easy to find, dear - Dragisa Milovic”

You still have not shown us evidence that this Dragisa Milovic said “a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.” Please produce the evidence (eg. A relevant URL link) containing the date and contents of his/her words so that we can assess the validity of your evidence.


“That’s why I said “Sure, but you are not a judge :) and I’m not a lawyer.” so the things that were said after the “if” do not apply. “

Still doesn’t alter the fact that you are unable to provide the evidence and telling me to “just read” a website only highlighted your failure to provide the evidence.

“Why, what’s the problem with identifying the mayor on 21 January ?!”

Because on 20 January you objected to my statement of 18 January that you were unable to provide the representative’s identity and the evidence of what he/she said. My statement of 18 January was in response to your earlier posts in which you failed to produce the proof. Moreover, while you finally identified the mayor on 21 January, you still did NOT produce evidence that the mayor said those words a couple of months ago and so my statement of 18 January remained true then and now.

“You just asked that be more than 2 N. Kosovo Serbs, dear. I not only provided you what 3 of my N. Kosovo Serb friends said, by also what thousands of them think (as expressed by their representative). But for some reason you keep changing the evidence criteria again (LOL). “

Well, on 15 January you claimed that “In addition, these three friends of mine are supported by thousands of N. Kosovo Serbs whose representative said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.” I merely asked you on 16 January to substantiate this claim of yours with evidence about the actual date and contents of what this the representative purportedly said. And you failed to do so up to now.

In your post of 21 January, you finally revealed the identity of this representative. As this info was not provided by you earlier on 16 January, naturally I wouldn’t know about it then —I don’t have the benefit of a fortune teller that I recalled that you said you have at your disposal in a previous post. So naturally with your new info, I became interested to know how Zvecan’s mayor is officially appointed to represent and speak on behalf of those N Kosovo Serbs outside of Zvecan.

I am now reproducing my summary of 22 January here to aid readers when I rebut your points below:

You have:
1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.


“1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discusse based on new criteria; “

Well you claimed to have the birth certificates and notarized statements that accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement. I didn’t force you to make this claim. You decided to make the claim on your own free will and I merely asked you to substantiate it, which you could not to date.

“3. Done (see B92’s website); “

I noticed that you did not refute my point 2. I put it to you that you are unable to do so.

As for point 3 -- not done! Merely asking readers to read from B92 is not providing your evidence. The onus is on you to bring the contents of your evidence for readers’ evaluation. To date you failed to produce proof about what the mayor purportedly said a couple of months ago and that what he/she said represented the views of N Kosovo Serbs, including those outside Zvecan. So, on the contrary, point 3 not done – far from done!

“4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :) “

Its only “obvious” to your own mind. And I remain right about your inability to prove that I am a B92 moderator – which I am not for the benefit of any readers that chanced upon your absurd claims!

“5. Done – three sources were provided (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends); “

Not done! How do we know that these sources exist? Just because you claimed that they exist? Providing proof requires you to identify them, show us birth certificates and contents of their notarized statements for readers’ evaluation. And you failed miserably on this! So far from done!

“6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war. “

Your stated on 14 January to the poster dd that “ NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat. So think before you post.” You did not specify that you were referring only to human losses. So your statement included any material loss as well, thereby making it a false statement! It is ironical that you do not follow your own advice to dd to think before you post!

“Ok, but we need to agree first that your initial evidence criteria were wrong and definitively establish the new evidence criteria. At this point you’ve changed them twice and I’m no longer sure what’s in force and what exactly your criteria are :)
(icj1, 22 January 2012 17:53)”

You stated on 16 January that you can provide additional evidence when needed and you did not specify new conditions then. So I am not obliged to agree on anything new with you now. It is also pathetic how you try to overcome your inability to produce your required evidence on B92 by alleging that I changed the criteria. You should know (because you were posting here for some years now) that it is common practice for readers here to ask for proof whenever a poster makes new claims in subsequent posts. You have required readers to provide you with evidence before yourself when they followed up on their earlier posts. So, for example, when you made the claim about having your so called Serb friends’ birth certificates and notarized statements that can prove your case, naturally I would be curious enough in a subsequent post to ask to loom at the evidence which would vindicate this claim of yours – and which remained unproduced by you to date.

“You may be correct on that. But it does not prove that I *DIDN’T” have them at the time when I made the statement, as you said. There is a difference between “DON’T” and “DIDN’T” “

Well, in that case you didn’t have your evidence then and now. And of course I maintain that I am correct. Ironically for you, in a way that you never expected, YOUR FAILURE to show us your evidence online is my proof that you didn’t and don’t have them. And as I already told you, until you produce your evidence, there is no way for you to counter that my statement (that you don’t or didn’t have the evidence) is false and so my statement remained true today.

“That’s not what you said in your original requirements on 15 January 2012 05:38. I remind you of your words “can you provide the source(s) to back your statement” which I did. Are you changing the requirements now for a fourth time :) ?! “

Well, your online Merriam-Webster’s definition of “provide” is “to supply or make available (something wanted or needed)”. It also stated that the synonyms for “provide” include “deliver” and “hand over”.

So, tell me, how did merely claiming to have 3 N Kosovo Serb friends amounted to MAKING AVAILABLE to me or other readers ONLINE (since this is an online forum, evidence would have to be made available online) when none of us could verify their identities and whether the contents of their purported statements satisfied my requirement which was what I WANTED and NEEDED???? How is merely claiming to have 3 N Kosovo Serb friends possibly DELIVERING or “HANDING OVER” the evidence online for readers’ inspection??????? I think you must be such a disappointment to your hallowed Merriam-Webster!

“Well, initially you said “Can you provide the source(s) to back your statement that the N. Kosovo Serbs complained about their very difficult winter because of the freedom of movement issue? Since you made your statement as a generalization of the N Kosovo Serbs, your source(s) should not be merely a self-opinion from 1 or 2 N Kosovo Serb(s)”.
Then you asked for “evidence” in addition to “sources”. You added the sentence “You also need to show that they live in N Kosovo during the time of the roadblocks”. You also added the sentence “but must clearly show that they represent the views of the general K-Serb population of N Kosovo”. “

I still do not see how my 15 January and 17 January posts are materially different. You cannot possibly provide evidence without providing the sources that contained those evidence too can you? To me, if anything, my 17 January post was a further clarification of my 15 January requirements and not anything materially additional.

Anyway, as you already offered on 16 January “if you want to change the rules, please say so and additional evidence can be provided.” So even if, for arguments sakes, we were to accept that there was some change in my 17 January requirement, you are still required to provide the evidence for both 15 January and 17 January – any further requirements in my 17 January AND subsequent posts would be treated as acceptance of your 16 January offer which I would suggest to you that you now ruefully regretted making.


“Sure, as long as you clarify what you require… In almost every post you are changing mind :) “

Of course I would need to clarify whenever I come across a poster who was unable to provide the requested proof and instead gave excuses to try to get off the hook. And when you made new claims in follow up posts, naturally I would be curious enough to ask for their proof too. And then the onus would then be on you to provide the proof to support your subsequent claims too!

“But that’s publicly known dear, it’s in B92’s website.
[link] “

Well, providing B92’s main page link is not providing us the evidence containing the date and contents of Dragisa Milovic’s words as we do not see it online when we access B92’s main page, much less be able to inspect its contents to determine its relevance. The onus is on YOU to bring us to the exact page containing the required proof. And I put it to you that you are unable to do so.

“Well, I still don’t understand what’s the problem with indentifying the mayor on 21 January compared to, say, 10 January or 31 January ?1”

Because you had only identified the mayor on 21 January, your statement of 20 January to me objecting to my 18 January statement about your failure to produce the proof was groundless. My 18 January statement was true when I wrote it. Moreover it remained true today because you have still not provided evidence that the mayor said those things a couple of months ago and that what was said represented the views of the N Kosovo Serb population.

Once again to summarized your list of failures since you referred to them:
1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to provide the name of the Zvecan mayor and prove that he/she is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan.
3. Failed to show evidence that the Zvecan mayor “said a couple of months ago that N. Kosovo Serbs are facing a difficult winter when it comes to freedom of movement, among other things.”
4. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
6. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses.


“1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discuss based on new criteria; “

You offered to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your purported N Kosovo Serb friends on 16 January and I merely accepted your offer – the contents of which have not materialized online to date. It is not my fault if you made new offers to provide proof that you could not show.

“2. Done; the rest is new evidence requirements; clear up your thoughts, agree with yourself what exactly you need and then we can discuss about evidence for other things. “

You merely named the Zvecan mayor but remained unable to prove what he/she actually said and that he/she is officially appointed to represent and speak on behalf of N Kosovo Serbs, including those outside Zvecan. So not done!

"3. Done; [link]; "

Again just stating B92’s link to its main page is not providing evidence about what the Zvecan mayor said and whether it represented the positions of the N Kosovo Serbs, and much less whether this mayor is officially entitled to represent and speak on behalf of those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan. So not done!

"4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :) "

You have utterly failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am moderator period.

"5. Done – three sources were provided on 15 January 2012 22:11 (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends); "

You didn’t provide the 3 sources, you merely claimed that you have them. I think you failed dismally by Merriam-Webster’s definition of “provide” as per my earlier explanation above. So not done!

“6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war. “

Your statement was FALSE because it did not exclude any material loss suffered by Nato. Your sentence simply read “NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat.”, which included ALL kinds of losses and not just human ones.

“I’m not specifying new conditions. I’m just asking which of your evidence criteria are in force now (they’ve change 4 or 5 times) so I can help you with the appropriate evidence to ensure your satisfaction :) “

Then, just for arguments sakes, if you interpreted that I had changed them “4 or 5 times”, you would be required to provide the so called “additional” proof each and every time in your follow up replies. After all you offered to do this of your own free will on 16 January. It is not my fault if you are unable to provide for them in your very next post each time, and hence find yourself with a backlog of unfulfilled obligations! Arrange your proof online according to the dates of my so called “new” criteria (which you claimed) and then we will see.


“As I said, I’m trying to ensure your satisfaction, that’s why I’m asking you to clarify your thoughts about the evidence criteria to make sure that you remain satisfied. Your satisfaction is my only concern :)
(icj1, 28 January 2012 17:01)”

Well you have been unable to provide any proof online up to know that satisfied my requirements. And merely claiming that you have evidence or providing a link to a website’s main page is not providing anything specific for readers’ evaluation as far as material evidence online is concerned. And I put it to you that you are not able to do so!

“I did not say that. Show what evidence you have that I did not have the evidence then, otherwise your statement is false.”

As I already told you, my statement remains true until it could be shown to be false – the only way to counter my statement would be for you to produce your evidence – which you couldn’t, and so my statement remains true! The omission on your part is ironically my evidence! Too bad if the joke's on you!


“Sure, you can maintain whatever you want. However you still did not show any evidence to prove that I did not have the evidence “then”. “

I already told you – your action (or rather, the lack of it), is my evidence then AND now!


“Sure, and I supplied or made available to you what you wanted or needed, i.e. the sources.”

Wrong! You merely said you have your sources but did not make them available to me and other readers online because we were not able to inspect the identities of your sources and the contents of their evidence to evaluate whether they meet my requirements! You have thus failed to DELIVER, MAKE AVAILABLE and HAND OVER your proof for me to evaluate them and assess whether they are what I WANTED and NEEDED – all these being in line with Merriam-Webster’s specifications about the word “provide”. Thus your As I already indicated to you, you must be such a disappointment to your precious Merriam-Webster!


“Well, “sources” and “evidence” are two different things, and are not materially the same. You can again use the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary to be reminded about their definitions. Not to mention that you doubled the length of your requirements.”

Sources contain the evidence if they are reliable sources – how can you have one without the other???? . Anyway you are obliged to provide BOTH the sources and evidence since you stated on 15 January that “I have three friends of mine who are N. Kosovo Serbs who said that to me (so that's more than 2 that you needed). Let me know if you need their noterized statements :) as well as their birth certificates to prove that they are indeed Serbs from N. Kosovo (LOL).” It is clear that you offered to provide BOTH the sources (your 3 friends) and the evidence (their statements and birth certificates! And you have so far failed to meet your obligations!


“I’m not regretting anything. I’m just asking you to make up your mind about the requirements as you have changed them several times to the point I’m not even sure what they are now. So, what are your current evidence requirements ? Spell them out and we move on from there.”

Well, if you really believed that I have changed my requirements in my subsequent posts, then, as I already told you, you are required to address every so called additional requirements in these posts to my satisfaction. After all, you have bounded yourself to do this on 16 January! And which you have failed to provide the material evidences up to now but only more excuses instead!

“Oh, you want the exact sub-page and link (LOL). Just state so and your wish can be immediately satisfied:
[link]”

So you finally (after 2 long weeks) coughed out the evidence. Too bad that it only showed what the mayor said. Your evidence does not show that he is entitled to represent and speak on behalf of those N Kosovo Serbs outside of Zvecan and so your obligation remains unfulfilled even now!

“Don’t understand the logic or lack thereof. The fact that I identified the mayor on 21 January, it does not mean that he was not the mayor on 20 or 18 or whatever January :) “

The fact that you identified him only on 21 January makes my statement of 18 January that you have not provided the evidence correct when I made it! And my statement remains correct to this day as you have still not shown that the mayor is officially appointed to speak on behalf of those N Kosovo Serbs outside of Zvecan!


“1. That was not what your original evidence criteria said; withdraw that first and then we can discuss based on new criteria once you make up your mind; “

I am not required to come to any new agreement with you. You, on the other hand, are required to provide your proofs and have failed to discharge your obligations! You offered on 15 January to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates and have failed to make them available to readers online up to today!

“2. Done; the rest is new evidence requirements; clear up your thoughts, agree with yourself what exactly you need and then we can discuss about evidence for other things. “

Merely repeating your answer from your previous post ain’t gonna help you! If anything, it only reinforces your inability to prove that the mayor is officially appointed to represent and speak on behalf of N Kosovo Serbs, including those outside Zvecan. So, as I already told you, not done!

"3. Done [link]"

Finally done but only after 2 long weeks – not impressive timing at all. I think all this while from the time I first made the request you must have been scurrying high and low for the evidence, ha ha ha! Unfortunately for you, No. 2 and 3 are part of your obligations regarding the mayor. You have still not shown that he is officially entitled to represent and speak on behalf of the N Kosovo Serbs from the other municipalities!

“4. That’s obvious dear – just see your posts patern :) “

Again futilely resoting to repeating your claim instead of showing proof that I am a B92 moderator, thereby making your statement FALSE!

“5. Done – three sources were provided on 15 January 2012 22:11 (my 3 N. Kosovo Serb friends); “

You merely said that you have the sources. As I mentioned above in relation to your precious Merriam-Webster , you did not and could not provide them as they remained not handed over and available online for readers’ inspection up to today! So not done at all!

“6. The statement was true; unless, of course, you know anybody that NATO lost in combat during that war. “

You are so pathetic. But it is useless for you to deny that your statement “NATO defeated Serbia with no losses in combat.” refers to ALL possible kinds of losses, including the stealth fighter! So that statement of yours is FALSE!

So to summarize, the following are still outstanding from you!
1. Failed to provide the notarized statements and birth certificates of your so called Serb friends, and to show that they accurately represent the views of the N Kosovo Serbs that “they were facing a very difficult winter when it came to the freedom of movement, among others.”
2. Failed to prove that the Zvecan mayor is officially the representative to those N Kosovo Serbs outside Zvecan and is entitled to speak on their behalf.
3. Failed to show evidence to support your claim that I am a B92 moderator.
4. Made a false statement in your post of 18 January that you provided 3 sources when you did not.
5. Made a false statement in your post of 14 January that Nato defeated Serbia without losses

“Sure, as soon as you clarify what your requirements are. “

I already told you. Based on your 16 January’s offer, you are obliged to go through every single one of my posts and address all those so called new requirements there one by one if you think there are indeed new requirements. It is not my fault if you found yourself with a backlog of work to do because of your failure to provide the proofs that I require in a timely manner each time!

“Of course, because you still haven’t agreed with yourself what you actually want.
(icj1, 29 January 2012 15:42)”

I do know what I want -- and I put it to you that you do know what I want too – but you remained unable to provide them all to my satisfaction – and had to resort to pathetic excuses instead!