“Poor form?” Whose stylebook are you using? I would argue that it is “poor form” to present debatable conjectures as “encyclopedic knowledge.”
OK, which one of these posts (besides the Yushenko poisoning) do you even consider debatable?
Is there some contention as to who owned Crimea in 1650? 1750? 1850? 1950?
Is there some contention as to which are the largest ports in the Ukraine?
Is there some contention as to whether or not there are pipelines through the Crimea?
Is there some contention as to whether Kiev is really the wealthiest part of the Ukraine, as opposed to the Crimea?
Is there some contention as to whether or not Svoboda glorifies the Banderites? Or whether the Banderites wiped out the Poles in Western Ukraine?
Is there some contention about how far around the Sea of Azov you have to travel to go from Russian to Crimea? Or that a bridge is being built to make the trip just two miles across the straits of Kerch?
You tell me where I posted a contestible point as fact, and I’ll happily note it.
The pathetic, laughable thing is that every one of the “myths” I contradict has been presumed true by mainstream AND “conservative” authors without anyone fact-checking, let alone sourcing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/gop/3127835/posts?page=27#27
Nobody cares about any of your opinions. Therefore your points are moot.
You have made it clear on this forum that you desire to disparage others for expressing opinions. Even if they post vanity threads to debate those opinions with others you pop in (instead of just turning off the vanity posts in your settings) to tell them how much you despise vanity threads.
Your attitude and the intellectual vacuum from which it derives negates any contemplation of your input which might otherwise occur.