Jeremić wraps up mandate at helm of UNGA

And what did this career politician achieve apart from a handsome wage and a better personal CV/ Resume?

Ian, don't be a hater.

Ian is envious of Jeremy cos he's been a successful politician whereas Ian is fighting for scraps.Jealously gets you nowhere.

“And what did this career politician achieve apart from a handsome wage and a better personal CV/ Resume?
(Ian, UK, 17 September 2013 10:54)”

He stood for election, was democratically elected (despite Western opposition) and did what he was elected for ie. preside over the UNGA – isn’t this obvious?

And, in case your eyes are failing and you missed parts of this article, it was stated that “Jeremić thanked all UNGA members that have helped him carry out the agenda of the 67th Session, during which Member States adopted close to 90 written and oral decisions, and around 300 resolutions.” Seems a reasonable achievement to me. So don’t be sore about any handsome wage or better resume.

“lol @ no one being able to answer Ian's question!
(Danilo, 18 September 2013 00:15) “

Not that it was an intelligent question to begin with in my view.

Reply to (Ian, UK, 18 September 2013 14:03)

I have already given you the quote earlier, where the UNGA made decisions and passed resolutions under his presidency, and which you did not dispute. I would think that is his job to preside over debates and discussions among UN members that resulted in decisions and resolutions. Those were the results in my opinion. He is not entitled to pass the resolutions on his own. How is he a failure compared with his predecessors? Are you setting higher standards for him than his predecessors?

And what is your criteria for asserting that the War Crimes Tribunal was a “massive failure”? Was it because he might have sucked up to the West’s position but didn’t? Sounds like you are one pathetic sour puss to me!

Ian,

Tsk Tsk, young man ... Your pettiness is a sure sign of your immaturity.

If Jeremic was not a Serb - from Serbia - you would not be acting so foolish.

You would have to do one of your google searches to be able to even name any previous Presidents of the UNGA regardless of their country of origin.

You know, from your google searches, that the UN General Assembly can censure states, make recommendations and pass resolutions but it is not an action body. Jeremic accomplished what he was elected to do in his role as President of the UNGA.

That a young man(regardless of his ethnicity), at 38 years of age, from a small developing country was elected President of the UN General assembly, without the support of the US or Germany, says much about Jeremic's accomplishments.

yeah, really ian. what else do career politians accomplish? what's big baby blair or criminal cameron done for you and yours? probably same thing baby bush, or oh,oh,oh,obama did. saved you a some pence in taxes, but really sent things into the crapper.
c'mon man, you are just trying to spark something.

lol @ no one being able to answer Ian's question!

He stood for election, was democratically elected (despite Western opposition) and did what he was elected for ie. preside over the UNGA – isn’t this obvious?

And, in case your eyes are failing and you missed parts of this article, it was stated that “Jeremić thanked all UNGA members that have helped him carry out the agenda of the 67th Session, during which Member States adopted close to 90 written and oral decisions, and around 300 resolutions.” Seems a reasonable achievement to me. So don’t be sore about any handsome wage or better resume.
(lowe, 18 September 2013 12:32)

Care to give some examples?

Yes, there may have been many decisions made and many resolutions passed by the UNGA over the past year, but how much input did Jeremic have in them? The same resolutions and decisions would have happened regardless had Jeremic been UNGA President or not. So I ask, what did Jeremic achieve as UNGA President? I want specific examples. His debate on War Crimes Tribunals was a massive failure. I would like just one example of something that he achieved. What did Jeremic achieve? The answer is Sweet FA!

(lowe, 18 September 2013 15:03)

Exactly, you haven't been able to come up with any examples. Not even one.

I never said that the UNGA President is able to produce their own resolutions, however it is a very influential position and Jeremic could have used his position as UNGA President better. He could have used it to help modernise the UN and make it more Democratic but he didn't. There was some much potential he could have achieved whilst being UNGA President, but nothing came of it. He took a laissez faire approach to being UNGA President. I'm not setting higher standards for Jeremic compared to his predecessors. I'm judging him from what he set out to achieve this time last year by what he actually did achieve. He wanted to advocate Serbia's interests, has he done that? Not notably.

Following the acquittal of Generals Gotovina & Markac and of Haradinaj, Jeremic used his position as UNGA President to organise a debate on War Crimes Tribunals with the intention of making out that they'd been unfair towards Serbia and Serbs, this never happened; instead the debate was more focused on the general use and importance of War Crimes Tribunals, the Rwanda Genocide and the Israel-Palestine conflict. It did not go as Jeremic has planned.

Reply to (Ian, UK, 18 September 2013 16:59)

Well, I think you really need to have your eyes checked. I already pointed to you in my 2 replies the work he had done (decisions and resolutions passed) expected of a UNGA president.

And how presumptuous you are! What are YOUR credentials that make you qualified to judge a UNGA President? Are YOU a recognized authority on UN debates? Do YOU have a vote in the UNGA? I would think the only ones entitled to conclude whether he failed or not are the UN members themselves who elected him to the position and he was therefore serving them. Did the majority in the UNGA pronounced him to have failed? Was there a formal poll on whether he failed? The UNGA members have not declared him a failure and yet YOU are qualified to speak on their behalf? Talk about getting too big for your boots!

For the record, I am NOT obliged to prove anything to you because I made no claim about Jeremic being a resounding success.

YOU on the other hand made a specific claim that he was a MASSIVE failure and so the onus is on YOU to provide OBJECTIVE proof! And you FAILED to do so. Your “proof” turned out to be no more than your opinion about a debate – your PERSONAL opinion does NOT amount to OBJECTIVE proof because you are NOT qualified to speak for the UNGA members in the first place. Objectively he would have failed if a majority of his electorate (the UNGA members) said so. But they have not done so. And not merely because YOU said so!

Reply to (Ian, UK, 19 September 2013 11:24)

As I already told you, I’m under no obligation to prove anything to you because it was YOU, NOT ME, who had been making claims about Jeremic’s performance.

You now claimed that “I have never stated that Jeremic was a failure either ….” which to me CONTRADICTED what YOU wrote on 18 Sep 2013 14:03 – “His debate on War Crimes Tribunals was a massive failure.” You had not only claimed that he failed, in fact you stated that he had FAILED MASSIVELY in his debate. So what is your problem? Dishonesty? Severe amnesia?

So, contrary to what you now claimed in your latest post, you did talked earlier about Jeremic failing. And not just any faiure but a MASSIVE one too. As since you didn’t qualify that you were only expressing your opinion when you made the statement then, it therefore became a statement of fact to any reasonable reader. Which was why I asked you to prove with OBJECTIVE, credible proof, and which YOU FAILED to do so up to now. I put it to you that you are now trying to climbdown by claiming now that your statement of fact was a mere opinion. You could have done that earlier and be spared the embarrassment of being caught contradicting yourself!

Reply to (Ian, UK, 19 September 2013 14:31)

I’m not obliged to answer for the simple reason that I did not make any claim about his performance. YOU however are obligated to answer (but FAILED to do so) because you initially made a claim about his failure.

My sentence “SEEMS a reasonable achievement TO ME” clearly indicated that I was giving an OPINION. Whereas YOU were making a statement and CLAIMING IT AS A FACT when you said “His debate on War Crimes Tribunals was a massive failure.” (without qualification whatsoever that you were opining) That’s the difference between us and which you now appear desperate to fudge!

You have now repeated your earlier claim with “I stated that his war crimes debate was a failure (WHICH IT WAS)” – this was exactly what I was asking you to PROVE all along and which you FAILED to do so! I asked you what was your OBJECTIVE CRITERIA for claiming that he failed, not your mere opinion. I also asked you whether the UN members who appointed him (and thus should be the ultimate judge of his performance) had actually judged him to be a failure and, if not, are you entitled to do so for them – which you also FAILED to answer.

To borrow from your own words, the MASSIVE failure here was YOUR massive failure to differentiate between an opinion and an statement of fact. And, of course, YOUR MASSIVE FAILURE to prove YOUR claimed statement of fact, which you now belatedly tried to turn into an opinion when you couldn’t provide the proof!

To Ian UK

One more thing , you had tried to confuse things by attempting to separate Jeremic’s presidency with that war crimes tribunal debate of his – if it was HIS debate (or presided by HIM) after all, how can you possibly claim to treat his performance in that debate as being mutually exclusive from his performance as president? Especially when YOU chose that debate as the centrepiece for your criticism of him.

And regarding that particular debate of his, you would still need to show OBJECTIVE PROOF that this debate failed and NOT merely your own opinion because you made an unqualified statement of claim about its failure at least twice. And YOU FAILED to show objective proof.

You talked about the contents of this debate but since when has debate content itself been proof of failure unless a majority of the UNGA members themselves say so, which they DID NOT. So don’t be so presumptuous to consider (or at least imply) that you are fit to judge that debate on their behalf.

In short YOU FAILED to prove OBECTIVELY that the majority of the UN members judged that debate to be a failure. They should be the ultimate judge of that debate, NOT you!

To Ian UK

This is the first part of my rebuttal of your latest post.

“I've probably failed because I'm not even sure what you've asked of me, you've not really made it clear. Not really my fault. You've asked me to prove something I don't agree with.”

Probably failed? You failed period. And are apparently now trying to feign misunderstanding. Talk about desperation to be let off the hook!

“I've already stated that everything I've said is my own opinion, whether or not someone is successful at something is always going to be an opinion. A fact is something definitive, judging success is an opinion therefore not definitive.”

But your post of 18 Sep 2013 14:03 in which you wrote “His debate on War Crimes Tribunals was a massive failure.” was NOT an opinion, it was a statement of fact you were claiming. And so I asked you to provide objective proof, which you FAILED to provide.

You subsequently tried to pass this as an opinion on 19 September 2013 11:24. But then you NULLIFIED this attempt later by repeating an UNQUALIFIED statement to that effect AGAIN on 19 September 2013 14:31 “I stated that his war crimes debate was a failure (which it was) …” I put it to you that you meant this point to be a claim of fact all along. At least have the decency to be honest about it.

To Ian UK

This is the 2nd part of my rebuttal point-for-point

“I have already stated that I never claimed that Jeremic "failed" at being UNGA President. I have only stated that he hasn't achieved anything notable. If you disagree then please give an example to prove me wrong. But you can't! “

Well, you talked about the “massive failure” of that debate of his and, by extension, his ability as UNGA president. And how many times do I need to tell you that the onus is on YOU, not me, to provide the proof to substantiate YOUR claim? YOU made the claim, so YOU provide the proof, NOT me or someone else.

“UNGA Members do not judge whether a UNGA President has been a failure or not ... I've said why his the War Crimes Debate which he organised was a failure, ...... In that sense it was a failure for Jeremic because he didn't get the outcome he expected despite being the one behind the debate.”

Of course the members did not pass judgment on him and declared him or his debate a failure. Which is why it was presumptuous of YOU to presume that you know better than them and proceed to pass judgment for them!

The contents of the debate is immaterial as long as the stakeholders (UNGA members) themselves did not consider these as failure. You also FAILED to show why you are entitled or qualified to pronounce judgment about the failure of the contents.

Officially that debate did not fail because the UNGA members did not state that it had failed.

To Ian UK

The final part of my rebuttal of your last post

“The massive failure here is your misunderstanding of basic English and your mus-interpreting of what I've said.
(Ian, UK, 19 September 2013 23:40)”

True, English ain’t my mother tongue. But one does not need to be an expert in the English language to see the contradictions in your posts that I have already pointed out to you.

You, who like to advertise “UK” in your pen name, of all people, ought to be crystal clear about the difference between a personal opinion (like when words such as “seems like …” were used by me) and a statement of fact (like when you stated twice WITHOUT any qualification whatsoever that Jeremic and/or his debate failed) which is a definite claim which has to be proven if proof is requested.

The massive failure was YOUR failure to prove your claim period. Because you can’t.

"yes. well. then even stranger that no one can answer this "stupid" question but attacks Ian instead
(Danilo, 18 September 2013 20:14)"

why should it be strange? The appropriate thing in my opinion would be to point out the stupidity of his question. Which I did. And of course he deserves to be attacked if he is unable to prove his point, however much it breaks your heart.

Ia there an Albanian politician who has the credibility and credentials for the
position of president of the UNGA I don't think so

What has Vuk Jeremic achieved?

At 38 years of age ... a graduate of both Cambridge and Harvard, Minister of Foreign Affairs of his country, and President of UN General Assembly.

The man has achieved far more than any of you who judge him here.

What has Vuk Jeremic achieved?

At 38 years of age ... a graduate of both Cambridge and Harvard, Minister of Foreign Affairs of his country, and President of UN General Assembly.

The man has achieved far more than any of you who judge him here.
(Roger7, 19 September 2013 14:01)

No one is disputing that.

I want to know what he achieved in his capacity as UNGA President. Can you answer that?

On the world-wide web...

Ian
http://www.kosovo-news.com/author/ian/

and Danilo
http://serbia-sucks.blogspot.com/2011/02/first-post.html
"This blog will be my therapy. I'm a North American of Serbian roots currently living in Serbia due to a unique employment situation.
I hate it. I think it's the worst place on earth."

Your misunderstanding of basic english.
Ian

Anyone reading your exchange with Law can see who lacks the skills of basic english and that is you.Your mastery of english is GCSE level at best and i wonder how you've managed to obtain employment.Your first posting on this article confirms your opinion about Jeremy and the rest of your exchanges confirms your pettyness.

BTW You're not a match for Law or some other very good psters on this site

"I find this rather ironic considering it is coming from someone with a third world education.
(Ian, UK, 24 September 2013 12:28) "

I seldom cut into a debate between 2 posters but couldn't resist this one!

So what has your own education done for you? Not very much, it would seem. So much for "first world education", whatever that is.

Not that it was an intelligent question to begin with in my view.
(lowe, 18 September 2013 12:35)

yes. well. then even stranger that no one can answer this "stupid" question but attacks Ian instead

(lowe, 18 September 2013 22:22)

So you're still unable to produce a single example? Instead you just stated that resolutions were passed whilst he was UNGA President. Well of course that happened, but what input did Jeremic have in them?

I never said that you'reobliged to prove anything to me, I'm just saying that you're unable to produce an example of something that Jeremic achieved as UNGA President. You're only able to come up with what the UNGA members achieved.

I have never claimed to be a recognised authority qualified to judge the UNGA President. I'm just a civilian with opinions, that is why I'm posting them on the comments page of a news site. I have never claimed to be able to speak on the behalf of the UNGA Assembly, I think it is rather ludicrous to imply that I have done so. I have never stated that Jeremic was a failure either, I've just stated that he didn't achieve anything notable.

I don't need to be a recognised authority to question what Jeremic achieved in his role as UNGA President. My opinions are my own, I'm entitled to them as you are entitled to yours.

So I ask once again for just one specific example of something which Jeremic achieved in his capacity as UNGA President. I'm not asking for something which the UNGA achieved, I'm asking for something which Jeremic achieved. Of course you're not obliged to answer, but if you don't produce an example; I'll just consider you unable to answer.

(Roger7, 19 September 2013 16:31)

Well can you give me an example old man?

@ lowe

I've probably failed because I'm not even sure what you've asked of me, you've not really made it clear. Not really my fault. You've asked me to prove something I don't agree with.

I've already stated that everything I've said is my own opinion, whether or not someone is successful at something is always going to be an opinion. A fact is something definitive, judging success is an opinion therefore not definitive.

I have already stated that I never claimed that Jeremic "failed" at being UNGA President. I have only stated that he hasn't achieved anything notable. If you disagree then please give an example to prove me wrong. But you can't!

UNGA Members do not judge whether a UNGA President has been a failure or not. But like I've said, I never claimed Jeremic to be a failure.

I've said why his the War Crimes Debate which he organised was a failure, he organised it with the intention of making out that Serbia and Serbs had been unfairly treated by the ICTY after the aquittal of the Croat Generals; but that was never the outcome of the debate. It was the ICTY which provoked Jeremic to organise the debate with the acquittals last year, however the acquittals barely featured in the debate as Jeremic had hoped. In that sense it was a failure for Jeremic because he didn't get the outcome he expected despite being the one behind the debate.

The massive failure here is your misunderstanding of basic English and your mus-interpreting of what I've said.

To (Ian, UK, 20 September 2013 14:27)



Oh please! You had stated earlier at least twice that his debate was a massive failure PERIOD – WITHOUT any qualification whatsoever -- so your statement applied to all and sundry in general and NOT only to him as you are now trying to claim as you backtrack against the wall. You really take the cake for being twisting and turning on your words!



Yes you had judged him by making a statement of fact about him/his debate being a massive failure. I never disputed that. What I’m asking you however is to provide OBJECTIVE PROOF (NOT your subjective personal opinion) to support this claim of yours – and which you FAILED to provide up to now

I know the difference between an opinion and a fact. YOU obviously don’t or don’t want to know.

(This is a repost as my reply wasn't published earlier)

"and Danilo
[link]
"This blog will be my therapy. I'm a North American of Serbian roots currently living in Serbia due to a unique employment situation.
I hate it. I think it's the worst place on earth."
(Roger7, 20 September 2013 20:44)"

Obviously that blog, if it is Danillo's) ain't helping him/her poor, poor, poor thing!!!!!

Maybe someone should donate the fare for him/her to move to paradise "Kosova"!!!! ...... The question however is .... do the "Kosovaris" want one more person with "Serbian roots"???? Yah, maybe to harvest those body organs!!! Ha ha ha!

Anyone reading your exchange with Law can see who lacks the skills of basic english and that is you.Your mastery of english is GCSE level at best and i wonder how you've managed to obtain employment.Your first posting on this article confirms your opinion about Jeremy and the rest of your exchanges confirms your pettyness.

BTW You're not a match for Law or some other very good psters on this site
(Gotsefromohrid, 21 September 2013 13:27)

I find this rather ironic considering it is coming from someone with a third world education.

“Repeating yourself isn't doing any you any favours.

Yes, I have said that the debate was a massive failure for Jeremic; this is my opinion.

If I want to state an opinion, it isn't requited for me to start the sentence with "In my opinion..." for it to still be considered an opinion.
(Ian, UK, 24 September 2013 12:26)”

I’m not doing myself any favors. I was trying to do YOU a favor since you appeared unable to understand simple English notwithstanding the “UK” after your name and your presumptuousness to being qualified to pass disparaging comments about other people’s ability in the language, especially when your own ability appeared questionable. But to no avail.

It is your (and everyone else’s ) right to give opinions. But unless you made it clear that you were giving an opinion, don’t blame others for not being able to read your mind and requiring you to prove what would appear to be claims to statements of fact in your posts. Which you remained unable to do so to date.

“I have said on 7 occasions it was opinion, please see my comments below.
I'm going to ignore the second half of your comment as you've tried to link together two unrelated things to make a ridiculous point.
(Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 14:21) “

You wrote it as an unqualified statement of fact in post, then said it was an opinion in another and then made the same unqualified claim again later. I have already pointed out to you those precise posts in which you changed your changed your position again and again.

I put it to you that you choose to ignore my second comment because you couldn’t refute it. You used the “ambiguities and multiple interpretations in the English language” as an excuse not to have to justify SPECIFIC (NOT ambiguous) disparaging comments that you have made as unqualified statements of fact. You have acted in a really underhand way in my opinion.

Reply to rest of post by (Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 14:27)

Whether there is a new cold war or not is immaterial. I asked you for a credible source to substantiate your definition of the three worlds in your post of 25 September 2013 11:55. And which you have not provided.

You now stated your belief (ie, opinion) that he/she is from Macedonia. Which was not the same as your earlier statement which was an unqualified claim of fact: “As for Gotsefromohrid, he is from Macedonia”. I find it so amazing that you criticize others for their lack of English proficiency and yet failed (or, more likely, refused) to see the difference between these sentences and hence your own self-contradiction.

You now stated that you were “reffering to when he/ she recieved his/her education.“ I would have thought that when he/she was receiving that education, Macedonia should have been still a Nato candidate and hence, in your books, a “first world country”. Yet you referred to his/her education as “third world”. Self-contradiction number 2 in just one post.

So you now say it is possible for a third world country to have “an amazing education system”. Which seems at odds with your earlier disparaging “I find this rather ironic considering it is coming from someone with a third world education.” Again I don’t expect you to be able or willing to see your self-contradiction number 3 here too.

Just look your self-contradictions in just your latest post alone!

(lowe, 19 September 2013 12:27)

I have clearly already acknowledged that you are not obliged to answer the question, however your refusal to answer it is due to your inability to answer it; it has nothing to do with Obligation.

"it was YOU, NOT ME, who had been making claims about Jeremic’s performance". No, you also made claims about Jeremic's performance. You stated "Seems a reasonable achievement to me". This is why I contested what you said.

My comments are not contradictory. I stated that his war crimes debate was a failure (which it was) but I never stated that his overall presidency was a failure. It would be unfair to judge his entire presidency based on one debate. He was UNGA President for an entire yeae, that debate lasted just one day.

@ lowe

I never said the debate as a whole was a failure, I said that debate was a failure for Jeremic because it didn't produce the outcome he had hoped for. I never said the debate was a failure for the UNGA members. But once again you've taken what I've said off context and gone off at a tangent. You read too much into what I've said and therefore you've misinterpretated what I've said, I can't be held accountable for that.

I'm entitled to judge him and the debate because I live in a free country and I am allowed by own opinions and my own voice.

Come back to me once you learn the difference between a fact and an opinion.

I’m not doing myself any favors. I was trying to do YOU a favor since you appeared unable to understand simple English notwithstanding the “UK” after your name and your presumptuousness to being qualified to pass disparaging comments about other people’s ability in the language, especially when your own ability appeared questionable. But to no avail.

It is your (and everyone else’s ) right to give opinions. But unless you made it clear that you were giving an opinion, don’t blame others for not being able to read your mind and requiring you to prove what would appear to be claims to statements of fact in your posts. Which you remained unable to do so to date.
(lowe, 24 September 2013 15:20)

No one else has had that problem, only you. Even after I told you that what I said was an opinion and not a fact you went off on one producing rants about facts. It is you that has a problem, not me.

You need to learn that there are always going to be ambiguities and multiple interpretations in the English language and that is what makes it such a beautiful language. You need to stop being so obsessed with absolutes. You were ever so fanatical that what I said had to be a "fact". Why MUST it be a fact?

Reply to (Ian, UK, 24 September 2013 16:07)

So now you admit that your statement was not a fact? Which would mean your claims about Jeremic was FALSE. This admission is fine by me.

And why is it a problem to want to be accurate? Maybe fine for people like you who thrive on hiding behind vagueness and confusion, but not everyone is like that and certainly not me. And you conveniently forgot (and I have already pointed this out to you) that right after you claimed that what you wrote was an opinion on 19 September 2013 11:24 , in the very next post of yours on 19 September 2013 14:31, you reverted back to making the same unqualified statement about Jeremic again. Remember, if you make a statement, the onus is squarely on YOU, not others, to be crystal clear in exactly what you mean if you can't bear being misinterpreted and criticized.

So, at the end of the day, after all your huffing and puffing, you could not provide objective proof to support your claims. Objectively therefore, your two statements about Jeremic are FALSE!

By the way, please also provide objective proof that Gotsefromohrid has a third world education. You also made this claim about him/her. And, in case you intend to claim later that this was an opinion too, your personal opinion is nowhere conclusive enough to be an objective proof. So are we witnessing another false statement from you?

(lowe, 25 September 2013 09:57)

What are you smoking? I have always said it was an opinion, why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Why is it so hard for your brain to process? Why can't you understand that?

You're an odd person. Your logic is really bizarre. I'm not going to repeat myself and try and explain myself using simplier English so that you can understand. You're not worth the effort.

As for Gotsefromohrid, he is from Macedonia. Macedonia is currently Military neutral, it is no longer a NATO Candidate.

1st World = Military alligned with the US and/ or NATO.
2nd World = Military alligned with Russian and/ or China.
3rd Wrold = Military Neutral/ NAM.

At present, Macedonia = Military Neutral and is currently a member of NAM therefore a 3rd World country.

First reply to (Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 11:55)

“What are you smoking? I have always said it was an opinion, why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Why is it so hard for your brain to process? Why can't you understand that? “

Wrong! You didn’t state that it was an opinion but claimed it as an unqualified statement of fact on 19 September 2013 11:24 and again on 19 September 2013 14:31. Be my guest and just reread what you wrote if you don't believe me or are conveniently suffering from amnesia again.

“You're an odd person. Your logic is really bizarre. I'm not going to repeat myself and try and explain myself using simplier English so that you can understand. You're not worth the effort.”

My logic is logical. Yours isn’t, actually I don't see logic in you period. You talked about the beauty of the English language when what you had done was to use it to pass damaging comments about the failure of a politician and or his debate. Nothing beautiful about it when someone’s reputation is at stake and so readers have the right to ask you for objective proof to support your claim. Which you could not substantiate.

Second reply to (Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 11:55)

Well, don’t you think you are outdated, not to mention inaccurate?

The 3 Worlds were terms used during the Cold War, which already ended with the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact bloc. I am not aware of any reliable source that defined the First World TODAY as countries being militarily aligned with NATO and USA. Please provide the source if you can and we shall see.

So where would you put affluent countries like Switzerland which is militarily neutral? Is Switzerland therefore a Third World country too together with the likes of Iran or Zimbawe? Please provide a credible source to support this implied claim.

So Macedonia, by your definition, was earlier a First World country and became a Third World country the very minute it became neutral or joined NAM? So does it therefore mean that in a split second its education system suddenly deteriorated to such an extent that you were able to pass disparaging comments about it? I didn't know that Gotsefromohrid was so young that he was still schooling when Macedonia became "Third World". Please substantiate this claim.

And how do you know that Gotsefromohrid is from Macedonia? I mean, I can also put my pen name as lowefromohrid if I want to but I don’t come from that country. I can ask you to substantiate this claim of yours too.

“See my previous comments and you will see that I have on many occasions stated that it was an opinion.
(Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 16:34)”

You only stated it was an opinion after you were asked to provide objective proof and couldn’t provide. And you just as quickly reverted that belated opinion into an unqualified claim statement again in the very next post. Talk about your repeated inconsistencies and self-contradictions!

“It was banter directed at Gotsefromohrid. Get over it you sad little obsessed man/ woman.
(Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 16:36)”

One online dictionary defined a banter as a PLAYFUL and FRIENDLY exchange of teasing remarks – I don’t think an objective reader would describe your disparaging "I find this rather ironic considering it is coming from someone with a third world education” as anything near playful or friendly. Who are you trying to kid, again?

First reply to (Ian, UK, 26 September 2013 10:35)

“How is one expected to prove an opinion? Am I supposed to reference a book entitled "2013 Opinions of Ian" as evidence? “

Sigh, you really are dense. Well, let me repeat for what seems to me the umpteenth time now. I didn’t asked you to prove an opinion, I asked you to prove a statement of fact made by you, which you couldn’t. Instead you then claimed that it was an opinion after all. I might have let that pass but in your very next post, your words “I stated that his war crimes debate was a failure (which it was)” made it a statement of fact again and NOT an opinion.

“I was being playful and friendly. I was teasing him just like he was trying to tease me. If Gotsefromohrid was offended by what I said, then he shouldn't dish out banter in the first place. If you can't take it, then don't give it! “

I don’t think he/she bantered at all going by the words that he/she used. It appeared to me that he was criticizing you period. And I put it to you that neither were you bantering either going by the words you used. At least be honest about it.

Anyway my questions to you about Macedonia and third world education were about facts that you claimed regardless of whether you were bantering or not.

Second reply to (Ian, UK, 26 September 2013 10:35)

“But let me guess, when you play, you like to play nice? How cute! You're never laddish or boisterous in case you offend someone? Soft! Feeble! Grow a pair!”

Who’s playing in the first place? I was serious when I asked you for objective proof about Jeremic and his debate that you couldn’t provide, and equally serious when I pointed out your inconsistencies and self-contradictions. If anything is feeble here, it is probably that mind of yours!

You obviously have no clue about when to be serious and when to play! Tough luck!


“I bet you're a proper boring person. I bet you're the worst person to go for a drink with. Do you have a social life? Do you have any friends? Does your mother love you? Does anyone like you? Or do you Police what everyone says? Nerd alert!”

Who said anything about wanting to drink with you? Talk about being presumptuous! As for social life and friendship, I fail to see how someone as muddle-headed, inconsistent and presumptuous as you could possibly rank high in the popularity stakes! Talk about creeps!

End of the day, you couldn’t provide any objective proof for the life of you to substantiate your claims.

Finally Vuk "over my dead body" Jeremic is coming back. I hope his adventures are prominently featured on B92. They are always a good read.

To (Ian, UK, 20 September 2013 14:27)

Oh please! You had stated earlier at least twice that his debate was a massive failure PERIOD – WITHOUT any qualification whatsoever -- so your statement applied to all and sundry in general and NOT only to him as you are now trying to claim as you backtrack against the wall. You really take the cake for being deceitful!

Yes you had judged him by making a statement of fact about him/his debate being a massive failure. I never disputed that. What I’m asking you however is to provide OBJECTIVE PROOF (NOT your subjective personal opinion) to support this claim of yours – and which you FAILED to provide up to now

I know the difference between an opinion and a fact. YOU obviously don’t or don’t want to know.

Oh please! You had stated earlier at least twice that his debate was a massive failure PERIOD – WITHOUT any qualification whatsoever -- so your statement applied to all and sundry in general and NOT only to him as you are now trying to claim as you backtrack against the wall. You really take the cake for being deceitful!

Yes you had judged him by making a statement of fact about him/his debate being a massive failure. I never disputed that. What I’m asking you however is to provide OBJECTIVE PROOF (NOT your subjective personal opinion) to support this claim of yours – and which you FAILED to provide up to now

I know the difference between an opinion and a fact. YOU obviously don’t or don’t want to know.
(lowe, 20 September 2013 20:43)

Repeating yourself isn't doing any you any favours.

Yes, I have said that the debate was a massive failure for Jeremic; this is my opinion.

If I want to state an opinion, it isn't requited for me to start the sentence with "In my opinion..." for it to still be considered an opinion.

First reply to (Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 11:55)

“What are you smoking? I have always said it was an opinion, why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Why is it so hard for your brain to process? Why can't you understand that? “

Wrong! You didn’t state that it was an opinion but claimed it as an unqualified statement of fact on 19 September 2013 11:24 and again on 19 September 2013 14:31. Be my guest and just reread what you wrote if you don't believe me or are conveniently suffering from amnesia again.

“You're an odd person. Your logic is really bizarre. I'm not going to repeat myself and try and explain myself using simplier English so that you can understand. You're not worth the effort.”

My logic is logical. Yours isn’t, actually I don't see logic in you period. You talked about the beauty of the English language when what you had done was to use it to pass damaging comments about the failure of a politician and or his debate. Nothing beautiful about it when someone’s reputation is at stake and so readers have the right to ask you for objective proof to support your claim. Which you could not substantiate.
(lowe, 25 September 2013 12:36)

I have said on 7 occasions it was opinion, please see my comments below.

I'm going to ignore the second half of your comment as you've tried to link together two unrelated things to make a ridiculous point.

(lowe, 25 September 2013 13:01)

There still is a "cold war", a new one.

I'm reffering to when he/ she recieved his/her education.

It is to my beleif that he/ she is from Macedonia as he/ she has stated so. I suppose he/ she could be lying.

It is possible to be a really rich afluent country with a an amazing education system and still be a third world country.

You wrote it as an unqualified statement of fact in post, then said it was an opinion in another and then made the same unqualified claim again later. I have already pointed out to you those precise posts in which you changed your changed your position again and again.

I put it to you that you choose to ignore my second comment because you couldn’t refute it. You used the “ambiguities and multiple interpretations in the English language” as an excuse not to have to justify SPECIFIC (NOT ambiguous) disparaging comments that you have made as unqualified statements of fact. You have acted in a really underhand way in my opinion.
(lowe, 25 September 2013 14:59)

See my previous comments and you will see that I have on many occasions stated that it was an opinion.

(lowe, 25 September 2013 15:32)

It was banter directed at Gotsefromohrid. Get over it you sad little obsessed man/ woman.

(lowe, 25 September 2013 17:27)

1: How is one expected to prove an opinion? Am I supposed to reference a book entitled "2013 Opinions of Ian" as evidence?

2: I was being playful and friendly. I was teasing him just like he was trying to tease me. If Gotsefromohrid was offended by what I said, then he shouldn't dish out banter in the first place. If you can't take it, then don't give it!

But let me guess, when you play, you like to play nice? How cute! You're never laddish or boisterous in case you offend someone? Soft! Feeble! Grow a pair!

I bet you're a proper boring person. I bet you're the worst person to go for a drink with. Do you have a social life? Do you have any friends? Does your mother love you? Does anyone like you? Or do you Police what everyone says? Nerd alert!

And what did this career politician achieve apart from a handsome wage and a better personal CV/ Resume?

Ian, don't be a hater.

Ian is envious of Jeremy cos he's been a successful politician whereas Ian is fighting for scraps.Jealously gets you nowhere.

yeah, really ian. what else do career politians accomplish? what's big baby blair or criminal cameron done for you and yours? probably same thing baby bush, or oh,oh,oh,obama did. saved you a some pence in taxes, but really sent things into the crapper.
c'mon man, you are just trying to spark something.

lol @ no one being able to answer Ian's question!

(lowe, 18 September 2013 15:03)

Exactly, you haven't been able to come up with any examples. Not even one.

I never said that the UNGA President is able to produce their own resolutions, however it is a very influential position and Jeremic could have used his position as UNGA President better. He could have used it to help modernise the UN and make it more Democratic but he didn't. There was some much potential he could have achieved whilst being UNGA President, but nothing came of it. He took a laissez faire approach to being UNGA President. I'm not setting higher standards for Jeremic compared to his predecessors. I'm judging him from what he set out to achieve this time last year by what he actually did achieve. He wanted to advocate Serbia's interests, has he done that? Not notably.

Following the acquittal of Generals Gotovina & Markac and of Haradinaj, Jeremic used his position as UNGA President to organise a debate on War Crimes Tribunals with the intention of making out that they'd been unfair towards Serbia and Serbs, this never happened; instead the debate was more focused on the general use and importance of War Crimes Tribunals, the Rwanda Genocide and the Israel-Palestine conflict. It did not go as Jeremic has planned.

@ lowe

I've probably failed because I'm not even sure what you've asked of me, you've not really made it clear. Not really my fault. You've asked me to prove something I don't agree with.

I've already stated that everything I've said is my own opinion, whether or not someone is successful at something is always going to be an opinion. A fact is something definitive, judging success is an opinion therefore not definitive.

I have already stated that I never claimed that Jeremic "failed" at being UNGA President. I have only stated that he hasn't achieved anything notable. If you disagree then please give an example to prove me wrong. But you can't!

UNGA Members do not judge whether a UNGA President has been a failure or not. But like I've said, I never claimed Jeremic to be a failure.

I've said why his the War Crimes Debate which he organised was a failure, he organised it with the intention of making out that Serbia and Serbs had been unfairly treated by the ICTY after the aquittal of the Croat Generals; but that was never the outcome of the debate. It was the ICTY which provoked Jeremic to organise the debate with the acquittals last year, however the acquittals barely featured in the debate as Jeremic had hoped. In that sense it was a failure for Jeremic because he didn't get the outcome he expected despite being the one behind the debate.

The massive failure here is your misunderstanding of basic English and your mus-interpreting of what I've said.

“And what did this career politician achieve apart from a handsome wage and a better personal CV/ Resume?
(Ian, UK, 17 September 2013 10:54)”

He stood for election, was democratically elected (despite Western opposition) and did what he was elected for ie. preside over the UNGA – isn’t this obvious?

And, in case your eyes are failing and you missed parts of this article, it was stated that “Jeremić thanked all UNGA members that have helped him carry out the agenda of the 67th Session, during which Member States adopted close to 90 written and oral decisions, and around 300 resolutions.” Seems a reasonable achievement to me. So don’t be sore about any handsome wage or better resume.

(lowe, 18 September 2013 22:22)

So you're still unable to produce a single example? Instead you just stated that resolutions were passed whilst he was UNGA President. Well of course that happened, but what input did Jeremic have in them?

I never said that you'reobliged to prove anything to me, I'm just saying that you're unable to produce an example of something that Jeremic achieved as UNGA President. You're only able to come up with what the UNGA members achieved.

I have never claimed to be a recognised authority qualified to judge the UNGA President. I'm just a civilian with opinions, that is why I'm posting them on the comments page of a news site. I have never claimed to be able to speak on the behalf of the UNGA Assembly, I think it is rather ludicrous to imply that I have done so. I have never stated that Jeremic was a failure either, I've just stated that he didn't achieve anything notable.

I don't need to be a recognised authority to question what Jeremic achieved in his role as UNGA President. My opinions are my own, I'm entitled to them as you are entitled to yours.

So I ask once again for just one specific example of something which Jeremic achieved in his capacity as UNGA President. I'm not asking for something which the UNGA achieved, I'm asking for something which Jeremic achieved. Of course you're not obliged to answer, but if you don't produce an example; I'll just consider you unable to answer.

“lol @ no one being able to answer Ian's question!
(Danilo, 18 September 2013 00:15) “

Not that it was an intelligent question to begin with in my view.

He stood for election, was democratically elected (despite Western opposition) and did what he was elected for ie. preside over the UNGA – isn’t this obvious?

And, in case your eyes are failing and you missed parts of this article, it was stated that “Jeremić thanked all UNGA members that have helped him carry out the agenda of the 67th Session, during which Member States adopted close to 90 written and oral decisions, and around 300 resolutions.” Seems a reasonable achievement to me. So don’t be sore about any handsome wage or better resume.
(lowe, 18 September 2013 12:32)

Care to give some examples?

Yes, there may have been many decisions made and many resolutions passed by the UNGA over the past year, but how much input did Jeremic have in them? The same resolutions and decisions would have happened regardless had Jeremic been UNGA President or not. So I ask, what did Jeremic achieve as UNGA President? I want specific examples. His debate on War Crimes Tribunals was a massive failure. I would like just one example of something that he achieved. What did Jeremic achieve? The answer is Sweet FA!

Reply to (Ian, UK, 18 September 2013 14:03)

I have already given you the quote earlier, where the UNGA made decisions and passed resolutions under his presidency, and which you did not dispute. I would think that is his job to preside over debates and discussions among UN members that resulted in decisions and resolutions. Those were the results in my opinion. He is not entitled to pass the resolutions on his own. How is he a failure compared with his predecessors? Are you setting higher standards for him than his predecessors?

And what is your criteria for asserting that the War Crimes Tribunal was a “massive failure”? Was it because he might have sucked up to the West’s position but didn’t? Sounds like you are one pathetic sour puss to me!

Not that it was an intelligent question to begin with in my view.
(lowe, 18 September 2013 12:35)

yes. well. then even stranger that no one can answer this "stupid" question but attacks Ian instead

Reply to (Ian, UK, 18 September 2013 16:59)

Well, I think you really need to have your eyes checked. I already pointed to you in my 2 replies the work he had done (decisions and resolutions passed) expected of a UNGA president.

And how presumptuous you are! What are YOUR credentials that make you qualified to judge a UNGA President? Are YOU a recognized authority on UN debates? Do YOU have a vote in the UNGA? I would think the only ones entitled to conclude whether he failed or not are the UN members themselves who elected him to the position and he was therefore serving them. Did the majority in the UNGA pronounced him to have failed? Was there a formal poll on whether he failed? The UNGA members have not declared him a failure and yet YOU are qualified to speak on their behalf? Talk about getting too big for your boots!

For the record, I am NOT obliged to prove anything to you because I made no claim about Jeremic being a resounding success.

YOU on the other hand made a specific claim that he was a MASSIVE failure and so the onus is on YOU to provide OBJECTIVE proof! And you FAILED to do so. Your “proof” turned out to be no more than your opinion about a debate – your PERSONAL opinion does NOT amount to OBJECTIVE proof because you are NOT qualified to speak for the UNGA members in the first place. Objectively he would have failed if a majority of his electorate (the UNGA members) said so. But they have not done so. And not merely because YOU said so!

(lowe, 19 September 2013 12:27)

I have clearly already acknowledged that you are not obliged to answer the question, however your refusal to answer it is due to your inability to answer it; it has nothing to do with Obligation.

"it was YOU, NOT ME, who had been making claims about Jeremic’s performance". No, you also made claims about Jeremic's performance. You stated "Seems a reasonable achievement to me". This is why I contested what you said.

My comments are not contradictory. I stated that his war crimes debate was a failure (which it was) but I never stated that his overall presidency was a failure. It would be unfair to judge his entire presidency based on one debate. He was UNGA President for an entire yeae, that debate lasted just one day.

What has Vuk Jeremic achieved?

At 38 years of age ... a graduate of both Cambridge and Harvard, Minister of Foreign Affairs of his country, and President of UN General Assembly.

The man has achieved far more than any of you who judge him here.
(Roger7, 19 September 2013 14:01)

No one is disputing that.

I want to know what he achieved in his capacity as UNGA President. Can you answer that?

(Roger7, 19 September 2013 16:31)

Well can you give me an example old man?

@ lowe

I never said the debate as a whole was a failure, I said that debate was a failure for Jeremic because it didn't produce the outcome he had hoped for. I never said the debate was a failure for the UNGA members. But once again you've taken what I've said off context and gone off at a tangent. You read too much into what I've said and therefore you've misinterpretated what I've said, I can't be held accountable for that.

I'm entitled to judge him and the debate because I live in a free country and I am allowed by own opinions and my own voice.

Come back to me once you learn the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Ia there an Albanian politician who has the credibility and credentials for the
position of president of the UNGA I don't think so

What has Vuk Jeremic achieved?

At 38 years of age ... a graduate of both Cambridge and Harvard, Minister of Foreign Affairs of his country, and President of UN General Assembly.

The man has achieved far more than any of you who judge him here.

Ian,

Tsk Tsk, young man ... Your pettiness is a sure sign of your immaturity.

If Jeremic was not a Serb - from Serbia - you would not be acting so foolish.

You would have to do one of your google searches to be able to even name any previous Presidents of the UNGA regardless of their country of origin.

You know, from your google searches, that the UN General Assembly can censure states, make recommendations and pass resolutions but it is not an action body. Jeremic accomplished what he was elected to do in his role as President of the UNGA.

That a young man(regardless of his ethnicity), at 38 years of age, from a small developing country was elected President of the UN General assembly, without the support of the US or Germany, says much about Jeremic's accomplishments.

Reply to (Ian, UK, 19 September 2013 14:31)

I’m not obliged to answer for the simple reason that I did not make any claim about his performance. YOU however are obligated to answer (but FAILED to do so) because you initially made a claim about his failure.

My sentence “SEEMS a reasonable achievement TO ME” clearly indicated that I was giving an OPINION. Whereas YOU were making a statement and CLAIMING IT AS A FACT when you said “His debate on War Crimes Tribunals was a massive failure.” (without qualification whatsoever that you were opining) That’s the difference between us and which you now appear desperate to fudge!

You have now repeated your earlier claim with “I stated that his war crimes debate was a failure (WHICH IT WAS)” – this was exactly what I was asking you to PROVE all along and which you FAILED to do so! I asked you what was your OBJECTIVE CRITERIA for claiming that he failed, not your mere opinion. I also asked you whether the UN members who appointed him (and thus should be the ultimate judge of his performance) had actually judged him to be a failure and, if not, are you entitled to do so for them – which you also FAILED to answer.

To borrow from your own words, the MASSIVE failure here was YOUR massive failure to differentiate between an opinion and an statement of fact. And, of course, YOUR MASSIVE FAILURE to prove YOUR claimed statement of fact, which you now belatedly tried to turn into an opinion when you couldn’t provide the proof!

To Ian UK

One more thing , you had tried to confuse things by attempting to separate Jeremic’s presidency with that war crimes tribunal debate of his – if it was HIS debate (or presided by HIM) after all, how can you possibly claim to treat his performance in that debate as being mutually exclusive from his performance as president? Especially when YOU chose that debate as the centrepiece for your criticism of him.

And regarding that particular debate of his, you would still need to show OBJECTIVE PROOF that this debate failed and NOT merely your own opinion because you made an unqualified statement of claim about its failure at least twice. And YOU FAILED to show objective proof.

You talked about the contents of this debate but since when has debate content itself been proof of failure unless a majority of the UNGA members themselves say so, which they DID NOT. So don’t be so presumptuous to consider (or at least imply) that you are fit to judge that debate on their behalf.

In short YOU FAILED to prove OBECTIVELY that the majority of the UN members judged that debate to be a failure. They should be the ultimate judge of that debate, NOT you!

"yes. well. then even stranger that no one can answer this "stupid" question but attacks Ian instead
(Danilo, 18 September 2013 20:14)"

why should it be strange? The appropriate thing in my opinion would be to point out the stupidity of his question. Which I did. And of course he deserves to be attacked if he is unable to prove his point, however much it breaks your heart.

Reply to (Ian, UK, 19 September 2013 11:24)

As I already told you, I’m under no obligation to prove anything to you because it was YOU, NOT ME, who had been making claims about Jeremic’s performance.

You now claimed that “I have never stated that Jeremic was a failure either ….” which to me CONTRADICTED what YOU wrote on 18 Sep 2013 14:03 – “His debate on War Crimes Tribunals was a massive failure.” You had not only claimed that he failed, in fact you stated that he had FAILED MASSIVELY in his debate. So what is your problem? Dishonesty? Severe amnesia?

So, contrary to what you now claimed in your latest post, you did talked earlier about Jeremic failing. And not just any faiure but a MASSIVE one too. As since you didn’t qualify that you were only expressing your opinion when you made the statement then, it therefore became a statement of fact to any reasonable reader. Which was why I asked you to prove with OBJECTIVE, credible proof, and which YOU FAILED to do so up to now. I put it to you that you are now trying to climbdown by claiming now that your statement of fact was a mere opinion. You could have done that earlier and be spared the embarrassment of being caught contradicting yourself!

Finally Vuk "over my dead body" Jeremic is coming back. I hope his adventures are prominently featured on B92. They are always a good read.

To (Ian, UK, 20 September 2013 14:27)

Oh please! You had stated earlier at least twice that his debate was a massive failure PERIOD – WITHOUT any qualification whatsoever -- so your statement applied to all and sundry in general and NOT only to him as you are now trying to claim as you backtrack against the wall. You really take the cake for being deceitful!

Yes you had judged him by making a statement of fact about him/his debate being a massive failure. I never disputed that. What I’m asking you however is to provide OBJECTIVE PROOF (NOT your subjective personal opinion) to support this claim of yours – and which you FAILED to provide up to now

I know the difference between an opinion and a fact. YOU obviously don’t or don’t want to know.

"and Danilo
[link]
"This blog will be my therapy. I'm a North American of Serbian roots currently living in Serbia due to a unique employment situation.
I hate it. I think it's the worst place on earth."
(Roger7, 20 September 2013 20:44)"

Obviously that blog, if it is Danillo's) ain't helping him/her poor, poor, poor thing!!!!!

Maybe someone should donate the fare for him/her to move to paradise "Kosova"!!!! ...... The question however is .... do the "Kosovaris" want one more person with "Serbian roots"???? Yah, maybe to harvest those body organs!!! Ha ha ha!

Oh please! You had stated earlier at least twice that his debate was a massive failure PERIOD – WITHOUT any qualification whatsoever -- so your statement applied to all and sundry in general and NOT only to him as you are now trying to claim as you backtrack against the wall. You really take the cake for being deceitful!

Yes you had judged him by making a statement of fact about him/his debate being a massive failure. I never disputed that. What I’m asking you however is to provide OBJECTIVE PROOF (NOT your subjective personal opinion) to support this claim of yours – and which you FAILED to provide up to now

I know the difference between an opinion and a fact. YOU obviously don’t or don’t want to know.
(lowe, 20 September 2013 20:43)

Repeating yourself isn't doing any you any favours.

Yes, I have said that the debate was a massive failure for Jeremic; this is my opinion.

If I want to state an opinion, it isn't requited for me to start the sentence with "In my opinion..." for it to still be considered an opinion.

Anyone reading your exchange with Law can see who lacks the skills of basic english and that is you.Your mastery of english is GCSE level at best and i wonder how you've managed to obtain employment.Your first posting on this article confirms your opinion about Jeremy and the rest of your exchanges confirms your pettyness.

BTW You're not a match for Law or some other very good psters on this site
(Gotsefromohrid, 21 September 2013 13:27)

I find this rather ironic considering it is coming from someone with a third world education.

“Repeating yourself isn't doing any you any favours.

Yes, I have said that the debate was a massive failure for Jeremic; this is my opinion.

If I want to state an opinion, it isn't requited for me to start the sentence with "In my opinion..." for it to still be considered an opinion.
(Ian, UK, 24 September 2013 12:26)”

I’m not doing myself any favors. I was trying to do YOU a favor since you appeared unable to understand simple English notwithstanding the “UK” after your name and your presumptuousness to being qualified to pass disparaging comments about other people’s ability in the language, especially when your own ability appeared questionable. But to no avail.

It is your (and everyone else’s ) right to give opinions. But unless you made it clear that you were giving an opinion, don’t blame others for not being able to read your mind and requiring you to prove what would appear to be claims to statements of fact in your posts. Which you remained unable to do so to date.

"I find this rather ironic considering it is coming from someone with a third world education.
(Ian, UK, 24 September 2013 12:28) "

I seldom cut into a debate between 2 posters but couldn't resist this one!

So what has your own education done for you? Not very much, it would seem. So much for "first world education", whatever that is.

(lowe, 25 September 2013 13:01)

There still is a "cold war", a new one.

I'm reffering to when he/ she recieved his/her education.

It is to my beleif that he/ she is from Macedonia as he/ she has stated so. I suppose he/ she could be lying.

It is possible to be a really rich afluent country with a an amazing education system and still be a third world country.

You wrote it as an unqualified statement of fact in post, then said it was an opinion in another and then made the same unqualified claim again later. I have already pointed out to you those precise posts in which you changed your changed your position again and again.

I put it to you that you choose to ignore my second comment because you couldn’t refute it. You used the “ambiguities and multiple interpretations in the English language” as an excuse not to have to justify SPECIFIC (NOT ambiguous) disparaging comments that you have made as unqualified statements of fact. You have acted in a really underhand way in my opinion.
(lowe, 25 September 2013 14:59)

See my previous comments and you will see that I have on many occasions stated that it was an opinion.

(lowe, 25 September 2013 15:32)

It was banter directed at Gotsefromohrid. Get over it you sad little obsessed man/ woman.

(lowe, 25 September 2013 17:27)

1: How is one expected to prove an opinion? Am I supposed to reference a book entitled "2013 Opinions of Ian" as evidence?

2: I was being playful and friendly. I was teasing him just like he was trying to tease me. If Gotsefromohrid was offended by what I said, then he shouldn't dish out banter in the first place. If you can't take it, then don't give it!

But let me guess, when you play, you like to play nice? How cute! You're never laddish or boisterous in case you offend someone? Soft! Feeble! Grow a pair!

I bet you're a proper boring person. I bet you're the worst person to go for a drink with. Do you have a social life? Do you have any friends? Does your mother love you? Does anyone like you? Or do you Police what everyone says? Nerd alert!

To Ian UK

This is the first part of my rebuttal of your latest post.

“I've probably failed because I'm not even sure what you've asked of me, you've not really made it clear. Not really my fault. You've asked me to prove something I don't agree with.”

Probably failed? You failed period. And are apparently now trying to feign misunderstanding. Talk about desperation to be let off the hook!

“I've already stated that everything I've said is my own opinion, whether or not someone is successful at something is always going to be an opinion. A fact is something definitive, judging success is an opinion therefore not definitive.”

But your post of 18 Sep 2013 14:03 in which you wrote “His debate on War Crimes Tribunals was a massive failure.” was NOT an opinion, it was a statement of fact you were claiming. And so I asked you to provide objective proof, which you FAILED to provide.

You subsequently tried to pass this as an opinion on 19 September 2013 11:24. But then you NULLIFIED this attempt later by repeating an UNQUALIFIED statement to that effect AGAIN on 19 September 2013 14:31 “I stated that his war crimes debate was a failure (which it was) …” I put it to you that you meant this point to be a claim of fact all along. At least have the decency to be honest about it.

To Ian UK

This is the 2nd part of my rebuttal point-for-point

“I have already stated that I never claimed that Jeremic "failed" at being UNGA President. I have only stated that he hasn't achieved anything notable. If you disagree then please give an example to prove me wrong. But you can't! “

Well, you talked about the “massive failure” of that debate of his and, by extension, his ability as UNGA president. And how many times do I need to tell you that the onus is on YOU, not me, to provide the proof to substantiate YOUR claim? YOU made the claim, so YOU provide the proof, NOT me or someone else.

“UNGA Members do not judge whether a UNGA President has been a failure or not ... I've said why his the War Crimes Debate which he organised was a failure, ...... In that sense it was a failure for Jeremic because he didn't get the outcome he expected despite being the one behind the debate.”

Of course the members did not pass judgment on him and declared him or his debate a failure. Which is why it was presumptuous of YOU to presume that you know better than them and proceed to pass judgment for them!

The contents of the debate is immaterial as long as the stakeholders (UNGA members) themselves did not consider these as failure. You also FAILED to show why you are entitled or qualified to pronounce judgment about the failure of the contents.

Officially that debate did not fail because the UNGA members did not state that it had failed.

To Ian UK

The final part of my rebuttal of your last post

“The massive failure here is your misunderstanding of basic English and your mus-interpreting of what I've said.
(Ian, UK, 19 September 2013 23:40)”

True, English ain’t my mother tongue. But one does not need to be an expert in the English language to see the contradictions in your posts that I have already pointed out to you.

You, who like to advertise “UK” in your pen name, of all people, ought to be crystal clear about the difference between a personal opinion (like when words such as “seems like …” were used by me) and a statement of fact (like when you stated twice WITHOUT any qualification whatsoever that Jeremic and/or his debate failed) which is a definite claim which has to be proven if proof is requested.

The massive failure was YOUR failure to prove your claim period. Because you can’t.

On the world-wide web...

Ian
http://www.kosovo-news.com/author/ian/

and Danilo
http://serbia-sucks.blogspot.com/2011/02/first-post.html
"This blog will be my therapy. I'm a North American of Serbian roots currently living in Serbia due to a unique employment situation.
I hate it. I think it's the worst place on earth."

To (Ian, UK, 20 September 2013 14:27)



Oh please! You had stated earlier at least twice that his debate was a massive failure PERIOD – WITHOUT any qualification whatsoever -- so your statement applied to all and sundry in general and NOT only to him as you are now trying to claim as you backtrack against the wall. You really take the cake for being twisting and turning on your words!



Yes you had judged him by making a statement of fact about him/his debate being a massive failure. I never disputed that. What I’m asking you however is to provide OBJECTIVE PROOF (NOT your subjective personal opinion) to support this claim of yours – and which you FAILED to provide up to now

I know the difference between an opinion and a fact. YOU obviously don’t or don’t want to know.

(This is a repost as my reply wasn't published earlier)

Your misunderstanding of basic english.
Ian

Anyone reading your exchange with Law can see who lacks the skills of basic english and that is you.Your mastery of english is GCSE level at best and i wonder how you've managed to obtain employment.Your first posting on this article confirms your opinion about Jeremy and the rest of your exchanges confirms your pettyness.

BTW You're not a match for Law or some other very good psters on this site

I’m not doing myself any favors. I was trying to do YOU a favor since you appeared unable to understand simple English notwithstanding the “UK” after your name and your presumptuousness to being qualified to pass disparaging comments about other people’s ability in the language, especially when your own ability appeared questionable. But to no avail.

It is your (and everyone else’s ) right to give opinions. But unless you made it clear that you were giving an opinion, don’t blame others for not being able to read your mind and requiring you to prove what would appear to be claims to statements of fact in your posts. Which you remained unable to do so to date.
(lowe, 24 September 2013 15:20)

No one else has had that problem, only you. Even after I told you that what I said was an opinion and not a fact you went off on one producing rants about facts. It is you that has a problem, not me.

You need to learn that there are always going to be ambiguities and multiple interpretations in the English language and that is what makes it such a beautiful language. You need to stop being so obsessed with absolutes. You were ever so fanatical that what I said had to be a "fact". Why MUST it be a fact?

Reply to (Ian, UK, 24 September 2013 16:07)

So now you admit that your statement was not a fact? Which would mean your claims about Jeremic was FALSE. This admission is fine by me.

And why is it a problem to want to be accurate? Maybe fine for people like you who thrive on hiding behind vagueness and confusion, but not everyone is like that and certainly not me. And you conveniently forgot (and I have already pointed this out to you) that right after you claimed that what you wrote was an opinion on 19 September 2013 11:24 , in the very next post of yours on 19 September 2013 14:31, you reverted back to making the same unqualified statement about Jeremic again. Remember, if you make a statement, the onus is squarely on YOU, not others, to be crystal clear in exactly what you mean if you can't bear being misinterpreted and criticized.

So, at the end of the day, after all your huffing and puffing, you could not provide objective proof to support your claims. Objectively therefore, your two statements about Jeremic are FALSE!

By the way, please also provide objective proof that Gotsefromohrid has a third world education. You also made this claim about him/her. And, in case you intend to claim later that this was an opinion too, your personal opinion is nowhere conclusive enough to be an objective proof. So are we witnessing another false statement from you?

(lowe, 25 September 2013 09:57)

What are you smoking? I have always said it was an opinion, why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Why is it so hard for your brain to process? Why can't you understand that?

You're an odd person. Your logic is really bizarre. I'm not going to repeat myself and try and explain myself using simplier English so that you can understand. You're not worth the effort.

As for Gotsefromohrid, he is from Macedonia. Macedonia is currently Military neutral, it is no longer a NATO Candidate.

1st World = Military alligned with the US and/ or NATO.
2nd World = Military alligned with Russian and/ or China.
3rd Wrold = Military Neutral/ NAM.

At present, Macedonia = Military Neutral and is currently a member of NAM therefore a 3rd World country.

First reply to (Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 11:55)

“What are you smoking? I have always said it was an opinion, why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Why is it so hard for your brain to process? Why can't you understand that? “

Wrong! You didn’t state that it was an opinion but claimed it as an unqualified statement of fact on 19 September 2013 11:24 and again on 19 September 2013 14:31. Be my guest and just reread what you wrote if you don't believe me or are conveniently suffering from amnesia again.

“You're an odd person. Your logic is really bizarre. I'm not going to repeat myself and try and explain myself using simplier English so that you can understand. You're not worth the effort.”

My logic is logical. Yours isn’t, actually I don't see logic in you period. You talked about the beauty of the English language when what you had done was to use it to pass damaging comments about the failure of a politician and or his debate. Nothing beautiful about it when someone’s reputation is at stake and so readers have the right to ask you for objective proof to support your claim. Which you could not substantiate.

Second reply to (Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 11:55)

Well, don’t you think you are outdated, not to mention inaccurate?

The 3 Worlds were terms used during the Cold War, which already ended with the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact bloc. I am not aware of any reliable source that defined the First World TODAY as countries being militarily aligned with NATO and USA. Please provide the source if you can and we shall see.

So where would you put affluent countries like Switzerland which is militarily neutral? Is Switzerland therefore a Third World country too together with the likes of Iran or Zimbawe? Please provide a credible source to support this implied claim.

So Macedonia, by your definition, was earlier a First World country and became a Third World country the very minute it became neutral or joined NAM? So does it therefore mean that in a split second its education system suddenly deteriorated to such an extent that you were able to pass disparaging comments about it? I didn't know that Gotsefromohrid was so young that he was still schooling when Macedonia became "Third World". Please substantiate this claim.

And how do you know that Gotsefromohrid is from Macedonia? I mean, I can also put my pen name as lowefromohrid if I want to but I don’t come from that country. I can ask you to substantiate this claim of yours too.

First reply to (Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 11:55)

“What are you smoking? I have always said it was an opinion, why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Why is it so hard for your brain to process? Why can't you understand that? “

Wrong! You didn’t state that it was an opinion but claimed it as an unqualified statement of fact on 19 September 2013 11:24 and again on 19 September 2013 14:31. Be my guest and just reread what you wrote if you don't believe me or are conveniently suffering from amnesia again.

“You're an odd person. Your logic is really bizarre. I'm not going to repeat myself and try and explain myself using simplier English so that you can understand. You're not worth the effort.”

My logic is logical. Yours isn’t, actually I don't see logic in you period. You talked about the beauty of the English language when what you had done was to use it to pass damaging comments about the failure of a politician and or his debate. Nothing beautiful about it when someone’s reputation is at stake and so readers have the right to ask you for objective proof to support your claim. Which you could not substantiate.
(lowe, 25 September 2013 12:36)

I have said on 7 occasions it was opinion, please see my comments below.

I'm going to ignore the second half of your comment as you've tried to link together two unrelated things to make a ridiculous point.

“I have said on 7 occasions it was opinion, please see my comments below.
I'm going to ignore the second half of your comment as you've tried to link together two unrelated things to make a ridiculous point.
(Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 14:21) “

You wrote it as an unqualified statement of fact in post, then said it was an opinion in another and then made the same unqualified claim again later. I have already pointed out to you those precise posts in which you changed your changed your position again and again.

I put it to you that you choose to ignore my second comment because you couldn’t refute it. You used the “ambiguities and multiple interpretations in the English language” as an excuse not to have to justify SPECIFIC (NOT ambiguous) disparaging comments that you have made as unqualified statements of fact. You have acted in a really underhand way in my opinion.

Reply to rest of post by (Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 14:27)

Whether there is a new cold war or not is immaterial. I asked you for a credible source to substantiate your definition of the three worlds in your post of 25 September 2013 11:55. And which you have not provided.

You now stated your belief (ie, opinion) that he/she is from Macedonia. Which was not the same as your earlier statement which was an unqualified claim of fact: “As for Gotsefromohrid, he is from Macedonia”. I find it so amazing that you criticize others for their lack of English proficiency and yet failed (or, more likely, refused) to see the difference between these sentences and hence your own self-contradiction.

You now stated that you were “reffering to when he/ she recieved his/her education.“ I would have thought that when he/she was receiving that education, Macedonia should have been still a Nato candidate and hence, in your books, a “first world country”. Yet you referred to his/her education as “third world”. Self-contradiction number 2 in just one post.

So you now say it is possible for a third world country to have “an amazing education system”. Which seems at odds with your earlier disparaging “I find this rather ironic considering it is coming from someone with a third world education.” Again I don’t expect you to be able or willing to see your self-contradiction number 3 here too.

Just look your self-contradictions in just your latest post alone!

“See my previous comments and you will see that I have on many occasions stated that it was an opinion.
(Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 16:34)”

You only stated it was an opinion after you were asked to provide objective proof and couldn’t provide. And you just as quickly reverted that belated opinion into an unqualified claim statement again in the very next post. Talk about your repeated inconsistencies and self-contradictions!

“It was banter directed at Gotsefromohrid. Get over it you sad little obsessed man/ woman.
(Ian, UK, 25 September 2013 16:36)”

One online dictionary defined a banter as a PLAYFUL and FRIENDLY exchange of teasing remarks – I don’t think an objective reader would describe your disparaging "I find this rather ironic considering it is coming from someone with a third world education” as anything near playful or friendly. Who are you trying to kid, again?

First reply to (Ian, UK, 26 September 2013 10:35)

“How is one expected to prove an opinion? Am I supposed to reference a book entitled "2013 Opinions of Ian" as evidence? “

Sigh, you really are dense. Well, let me repeat for what seems to me the umpteenth time now. I didn’t asked you to prove an opinion, I asked you to prove a statement of fact made by you, which you couldn’t. Instead you then claimed that it was an opinion after all. I might have let that pass but in your very next post, your words “I stated that his war crimes debate was a failure (which it was)” made it a statement of fact again and NOT an opinion.

“I was being playful and friendly. I was teasing him just like he was trying to tease me. If Gotsefromohrid was offended by what I said, then he shouldn't dish out banter in the first place. If you can't take it, then don't give it! “

I don’t think he/she bantered at all going by the words that he/she used. It appeared to me that he was criticizing you period. And I put it to you that neither were you bantering either going by the words you used. At least be honest about it.

Anyway my questions to you about Macedonia and third world education were about facts that you claimed regardless of whether you were bantering or not.

Second reply to (Ian, UK, 26 September 2013 10:35)

“But let me guess, when you play, you like to play nice? How cute! You're never laddish or boisterous in case you offend someone? Soft! Feeble! Grow a pair!”

Who’s playing in the first place? I was serious when I asked you for objective proof about Jeremic and his debate that you couldn’t provide, and equally serious when I pointed out your inconsistencies and self-contradictions. If anything is feeble here, it is probably that mind of yours!

You obviously have no clue about when to be serious and when to play! Tough luck!


“I bet you're a proper boring person. I bet you're the worst person to go for a drink with. Do you have a social life? Do you have any friends? Does your mother love you? Does anyone like you? Or do you Police what everyone says? Nerd alert!”

Who said anything about wanting to drink with you? Talk about being presumptuous! As for social life and friendship, I fail to see how someone as muddle-headed, inconsistent and presumptuous as you could possibly rank high in the popularity stakes! Talk about creeps!

End of the day, you couldn’t provide any objective proof for the life of you to substantiate your claims.