Buh. Anyway, my point is that it wasn't "Putin's Russia". Just like this isn't "A Jovial Cad's America" (admittedly, there are some in this country who may even argue that).
This is called "Moving the Goalposts," which is part & parcel of another logical fallacy you might Google in your spare time.
The Russia of 2005 is indeed "Putin's Russia"; just as, if A Jovial Cad was president of these United States, today's America would, for better or worse, be referred to as A Jovial Cad's America within the context of executive decisions made by moi (in this theoretical universe gone somewhat mad, mind you) that impacted the world in general and the United States in particular. And if I trotted off to a world conference in this mythical universe and, oh, I don't know, declared that the founding of the United Nations was an excrescence on the old historical blotter, many would be justified in saying "but A Jovial Cad's America enthusiastically endorsed the founding of this body in 1945!..." And they'd be right to do so: A Jovial Cad might not have been around in 1945, but his country, i.e., America, was. See how that works?
When I stated "I don't know what you're talking about" it was in the specific context of refuting the implication you were laboring mightily to make: i.e., that I had somehow implied that Putin was the responsible officer of the Russian government in 1945.
Slick trick, and nice try, but no cigar...
in the case of Fascist Italy, scummy
I called Mussolini "scummy"; and he certainly was. Fascist Italy was simply a second-rate tyranny, in the larger scale of things, and a somewhat clownish sideshow to the much more efficient evil on display up North; but it was il Deuce that I was specifically referring to as "scummy."
But this is all, as they say, academic in any event; verbal pirouette with a cipher. When the renowned curmudgeon H.L. Mencken used to get angry, squealing letters in the mail railing against some column he had written, he nearly always sent back a one-sentence reply: "Dear so-and-so: You're probably right."
It is in that spirit that I say: Dear asgromo: You're probably right.
--AJC
P.S. - Love that tag-line, BTW...*snicker*...
At your suggestion I Googled "Moving the Goalposts". I don't think I was "moving the goalposts" at all. Maybe I still don't understand what "moving the goalposts" means. Sorry. =/
Yes, the Russia of 2005 is indeed "Putin's Russia". The Russia of the 1940's was not "Putin's Russia", in that he did not make executive decisions that impacted the world in general and Russia in particular. Yes, this is the context for which I placed your statement, and I apologize if there was a misunderstanding, acknowledging that your meaning was "the country of which Putin makes executive decisions" and not "the country of which Putin makes executive decisions"... Oh, never mind, you worded this better than I'd ever bother. Let's just assume that we comprehend each other. =/
By the way, the parenthetical "admittedly..." was a joke referring to our nation's president, and that there are those who might consider him a "jovial cad". I couldn't tell whether you understood that, and as you seemed to relate to it in particular, I thought I'd just explain it in full.
So you're right, no cigar- but I suppose my attempts at it were based on a misunderstanding of what you said. I was aiming at a hallucination. =/
I never debated the scumminess of Mussolini- you needn't have brought up that point... But I do understand that you directed the characteristic at Mussolini and the country he led. Thanks for the clarification.
I suppose this wraps up our conversation, then. I've faith that we both enjoyed ourselves. I like the quotation. Honestly though, if in the spirit of Mencken you quote him, why include the quibbling? It kind of dimishes the spirit of Mencken, if you ask me. If you could ask Mencken, I wonder if he'd agree. And don't tell me you thought I was angry and squealing. Honestly, in my book that's where you enter the territory of "if you don't have something nice to say etc etc".
I like my taglines too. With the one in response to you, I was pretty obviously quoting your flowery language. With the one in response to familyop, you see I was making fun of his three successive posts. Obviously, this could be extended to include me, as I also posted three times successively. Truthfully, I doubted whether making my third post to Clemenza was really a good idea; to bring upon such ridicule might sound like easy suicide. In retrospect, I'm actually somewhat happy with it now. Besides, I don't think I was "communicating nothing" in three posts, and you didn't exactly refute that yourself. Also, the third tagline is obviously a quote from "Planet of the Apes." In clarification, it is Charlton Heston's famous concluding line, upon finding proof of exactly where he is in the form of the ruined Statue of Liberty, and the fate of his original home. In elucidation, I was merely making fun of Clemenza's rantings about destroying cities.
Your tagline I fear I don't understand in this context. I have a feeling I like where you're going with that, though.