Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Research concludes the Maidan Square snipers were anti-government militants. [View all]randome
(34,845 posts)51. Drink deep, drink often.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
115 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Research concludes the Maidan Square snipers were anti-government militants. [View all]
another_liberal
Jan 2016
OP
You could have found a better researched "article" from counterpunch couldn't you?
snooper2
Jan 2016
#75
You illustrate the point I made earlier about "attack the messenger" responses.
leveymg
Jan 2016
#20
The academic who led this investigation is employed by the University of Ottawa . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#31
The difference here that most western news sources aren't wholly created, owned and operated
GGJohn
Jan 2016
#43
Which is not the same as Sputnik News or RT, both of whom were created by the Kremlin
GGJohn
Jan 2016
#52
The study proved what its author has been preaching for months. How convenient.
pampango
Jan 2016
#28
This otherwise unimpeachable investigation refutes what you choose to believe . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#29
Because I have yet to see anything remotely like actual criticism of this study . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#42
Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association
leveymg
Jan 2016
#99
It does not 'refute' what I believe; it 'proves' what the author chooses to believe.
pampango
Jan 2016
#37
Just an example why you should be careful when a russian news-source quotes someone:
DetlefK
Jan 2016
#30
Not-self published. Presented at a major conference, and posted by The Netherlands Post Online.
leveymg
Jan 2016
#100
It's the most thorough study of its kind that I have seen. If there's something better, please link
leveymg
Jan 2016
#101
Both versions are 79 pages (excepting the face page) and have 343 footnotes. How do they differ?
leveymg
Jan 2016
#110
I see. I had read the 2014-versions the 2015-version mentions on its title-page.
DetlefK
Jan 2016
#113
You are free to do what you want. But, I think you have fundamentally misread it.
leveymg
Jan 2016
#115
Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association
leveymg
Jan 2016
#94
I am not about to get into an argument about "peer review" and such . . .
another_liberal
Jan 2016
#104
Limiting data and analysis selection to publication which inherently validate your own conclusions
LanternWaste
Jan 2016
#109