Thread: Алексей Анатольевич Навальный (Blogger Alexei Navalny)

Originally Posted by Doomer

Let's start from the beginning
here is my post which created the discussion
"If one would analyse his actions one would ask a question to oneself: does he really fight against corruption or he's fighting against government and Russian values?"
The only part which caught your eye was Russian values, that's strange but that's fine

You see, when I saw a word "analyze" I jumped. Wow! Someone else wants to analyze! I would really appreciate the analysis. So, in order to come to terms I started from the most obvious one - the term "Russian values" which seemed strange to me. Then the conversation drifted away to the Olympic mascot.

Originally Posted by Doomer

"If one would analyse his actions one would ask a question to oneself: does he really fight against corruption"

Yay! Let's analyze his actions. Your phrase implied that you have done that analysis, so would you be kind enough to share it?

Originally Posted by Doomer

I also posted the video about it and I also explained my thoughts (on the first page) about the way he delivers information to readers in ЖЖ

Right, and as those were tested for strength (by jnllll and me), you seemed to give up on both, did I get you right?

Originally Posted by Doomer

Now let's see you point of view

http://masterrussian.net/f16/%D0%B0%...73/#post226671

Start reading from: "Navalniy had done some practical work [...]"

Originally Posted by Doomer

I already asked if you actually read "the document" he provided and you didn't replay, why so?

I actually have => http://masterrussian.net/f16/%D0%B0%...tml#post226902

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Yay! Let's analyze his actions. Your phrase implied that you have done that analysis, so would you be kind enough to share it?

I did, on the first page
Алексей Анатольевич Навальный (Blogger Alexei Navalny)

one more thing

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ну, не то, чтобы я сильно вчитывался... так, по диагонали. Что касается проверки документов, я полагаюсь на специалистов из УБЭП. Если документы не в порядке, тогда в проведении проверки было бы отказано, именно на основании неполности или сомнительности документов. А если проверку невозможно провести из-за того, что иностранные компании отказываются предоставлять свои документы, тогда именно это и должно говориться в заключении. Правильно? Проверка была проведена, и заключение гласит, что никаких нарушений не обнаружено.

you see, then people start repeating some BS w/o actually reading documents it may just become substitution of the truth

This is the link from the article you quoted about УБЭП - http://www.rbcdaily.ru/2010/01/27/finance/454822
And here is a quote from it
"Вчера на встрече консультационного совета топ-менеджеры ВТБ предоставили миноритариям решение УБЭП ГУВД г. Москвы по данным запросам, рассказал один из участников встречи. В заключении УБЭП говорится, что правоохранительные органы рассмотрели заявление г-на Навального и провели соответствующую проверку. В результате признаков состава преступления или правонарушения в действиях менеджеров банка ВТБ и «ВТБ Лизинг» не обнаружено, отчитались в УБЭП."
One guy presumably from that meeting told somebody that he saw the УБЭП conclusion and that conclusion says that there is no crime in actions of the management
1. The only thing which we have here are words from unknown person
2. That person may interpret the documents as he like if he actually saw the document
3. Let's assume that he did see it and let's assume that the document does say that
I just want to ask the big question what is the crime that Навальный found in the documents and how he can back up his words?
Because I went through those documents he posted and I've seen precisely zero evidence

BUT
here is another quote from the same link
«Поэтому решение УБЭП официальной важности не имеет», — считает Алексей Навальный.
So basically what he's saying is that УБЭП is bunch of incompetent morons who know nothing and have no authority
So step-by-step
1. He puts loads of shady documents on his site which prove nothing
2. He forces УБЭП to go through the documents
3. He gets obvious conclusion
4. And finally he says that conclusion has no authority

Sounds like: все пи***, а я Д'Артаньян

Originally Posted by Doomer

I did, on the first page

Ok, seems like we're going in circles.

Originally Posted by Doomer

I did, on the first page

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ok, seems like we're going in circles.

so this is the only thing from my whole post which is interesting to you?
I don't see how we can have a discussion about analyzing which you calling me upon

Originally Posted by Doomer

so this is the only thing from my whole post which is interesting to you?

Yes, kind of.

The Cypriot middlemen are definitely not required to purchase the 30 drilling stations from China. At least, not for that price. Navalniy was able to gather some documentation about that hoax and submitted an official request. Why do you think that is not a practical step to fight/drag attention to the corruption? I think that definitely is. Had Navalniy planned to make some political capital out of it? Definitely, yes. Had he made more political capital than he should? Maybe yes, maybe no. But, he had done some practical steps to fight the specific cases of the corruption. That is how our conversation started and in your analysis you have to address that.

Originally Posted by Doomer

I don't see how we can have a discussion about analyzing which you calling me upon

Unfortunately, what you mentioned, cannot qualify for the analysis. You were trying to proof that Navalniy had known in advance there was no corruption in that case (aka the BS, клевета, etc.), and unfortunately you haven't proved that. At least, a simple-minded crocodile like myself can't get it from your analysis. I think you missed the elephant here. The documents were satisfactory to initiate the official investigation. That's all that was required from those documents. Do you personally think the Cyprus middleman was required? Do you know what is an "offshore scheme" and what would be the best place for such artificial offshore company to get its registration? Why to skip this thing in your analysis?
=> http://www.offshore-now.com/offshores.htm

"... где не разглашается информация об учредителях, директорах компании и ее деятельности, а управление может осуществляться по Генеральной Доверенности. Этот механизм используется для налогового планирования, а также для множества других целей. "

=> Оффшор Кипр. Оффшоры и оффшорные компании на Кипре.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The Cypriot middlemen are definitely not required to purchase the 30 drilling stations from China.

says who?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Why do you think that is not a practical step to fight/drag attention to the corruption?

Because I think it is the second target and the first target is to make a public comment about "poor work" done by governmental structures

Originally Posted by Crocodile

You were trying to proof that Navalniy had known in advance there was no corruption in that case

That's incorrect
I'm trying to tell that he KNEW in advance that nothing can be proven in that case thus knew the result of investigation and knew that he will be able to pose himself as "a hero fighting corruption while government don't want to do anything"

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The documents were satisfactory to initiate the official investigation.

That's again, incorrect
The only thing which need to be done to start an investigation is an application. There is no need to provide ANY other documents

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Do you personally think the Cyprus middleman was required?

IDK but my thinking about it will not prove or analyze anything, does it?

Maybe it was the trace of corruption in this case but I'm repeating again, look what he's doing - HE'S TARGET IS NOT A CORRUPTION

Originally Posted by Doomer

says who?

Clusseter Ltd.

Originally Posted by Doomer

1. Because I think it is the second target and the first target is to make a public comment about "poor work" done by governmental structures
2. Maybe it was the trace of corruption in this case but I'm repeating again, look what he's doing - HE'S TARGET IS NOT A CORRUPTION
3. I'm trying to tell that he KNEW in advance that nothing can be proven in that case thus knew the result of investigation and knew that he will be able to pose himself as "a hero fighting corruption while government don't want to do anything"

To be honest, I'm not sure we can find out what his real goals are, that might also be a tough job for his psychoanalyst, and definitely not a source for the factual analysis. Who knows? Perhaps, he initially wanted to impress his girlfriend and then by saying A he was dragged into saying B. From where we stand, the job of finding out his so-called 'real goals' can only be pure speculation.

Originally Posted by Doomer

The only thing which need to be done to start an investigation is an application. There is no need to provide ANY other documents

Really?!!! If I submit a request to investigate why Putin is doing this and that, my application will be rejected right away for the reason of incompleteness, because it has to have a MERIT which has to be factually supported. Hence the enclosed documentation.

Originally Posted by Doomer

IDK but my thinking about it will not prove or analyze anything, does it?

The analysis is first and foremost a cognitive process. Your thinking is a requirement.

Originally Posted by Doomer

Sounds like: все пи***, а я Д'Артаньян

Снова создаётся впечатление, что вы вместо кошки хотите увидеть в бочке что-то другое.
Это ведь то самое другое (то есть отличное от вашего) мнение Навального, о существовании которого [мнения] вы говорили следующее

Свободное мнение это всегда хорошо
Особенно когда есть разные взгляды на одно и тоже

И странно теперь слышать как вы отзываетесь об этом мнении подобным образом

Originally Posted by Doomer

Sounds like: все пи***, а я Д'Артаньян

Originally Posted by jnllll

И странно теперь слышать как вы отзываетесь об этом мнении подобным образом

это не мнение, мнение это когда никто не идет в правоохранительные органы
а когда идет, то такое мнение называется, в данном конкретном случае, бездоказательное обвинение или клевета