You sing your own praises quite a bit, don't you!

Which is strange, because the blog is a weak one. Anyone interested in Russia already gets all the news you copy and paste onto your website (eg, through JRL, or other list-servers).

Anyway, why do you claim that you haven't tried to publicize your blog? Isn't that what all your tedious nonsense on other, better blogs is all about? Or were you really just being offensive for the sake of it?

Incidentally, your translation of Lermontov, down below, is a really bad one, as one of the comments pointed out.

I can predict that this comment will be followed by some more vitriol from the constant PMS sufferer.

Ivan:

You are a liar. This is the first time since the blog was founded that La Russophobe has sung her own praises. La Russophobe believes she is entitled to so so on such an occasion, and if you would deny her the chance for a little party you are certainly not a real Russian.

It's rather strange that you would waste your time commenting on a "weak" blog. Perhaps you are just angry that the blog is so good, because you are a russophile.

You are also mistaken in saying that all of La Russophobe's news reports have been included in the JRL. Such dishonesty and inaccurate reference to facts is typical of the idiot Russophile. Tyically, you do NO research to establish just which of the articles posted by La Russophobe have appeared in the JRL.

Moreover, if La Russophobe and the JRL have some of the same content, La Russophobe is quite flattered. She hopes to rise to the same level as the JRL one day, or even higher.

Your crude, vulgar, childish, sexist comment about PMS shows the true caliber of your intellect and the value of your opinion. Exactly what La Russophobe expects from a hardened Russophile idiot. You know La Russophobe is crushing you, so you resort to personal abuse. Very predictable and boring.

Truthophobe:

You accussed me of lying. I'd say you are rather economical with the truth yourself.

A little sample of the kind of fantasy that passes for "commentary" on this poor, widely mocked blog. Three buffooneries in one post.

1.
You wrote, above:

"You are a liar. This is the first time since the blog was founded that La Russophobe has sung her own praises."

First time? It didn't take me very long to find this, from you, in another comment on your blog:

"My blog is wildly successful, beyond what I possibly could have imagined. It has a much higher level of interest than any other similar bog has achieved."

(Note the Freudian slip.)

There is more where that came from, but I'll save your blushes and avoid humiliating you further.

2.
You wrote, above:

"You are also mistaken in saying that all of La Russophobe's news reports have been included in the JRL."

No, I'm not mistaken, because that is not what I wrote.

I wrote this:

"Anyone interested in Russia already gets all the news you copy and paste onto your website (eg, through JRL, or other list-servers)."

I understand that English is not your first language, so I'll try not to be too patronising. But the crucial bit of information is in the clause beginning "or other"....

Judging from how badly whipped you've been in other debates on your own blog, perhaps you should strive for more accuracy, and less excitement, in your reading and responses.

3.
Lastly, you ought to be a trifle more self-aware. For one who name-calls and abuses her interlocutors with such abandon, you ought to be able to take a return volley with a little more grace.

In any case, I was being generous in assuming there were temporary biological reasons for your hysterical ravings. But clearly you are like this all the time. More's the pity.

By the way, what led you to believe that I was a Russophile? Do you really believe that the list of those who consider your blog, its "translations" (lol), your rantings, etc, to be rather pathetic consists only of Russophiles?

IVAN:

1. That statement is IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION in a comment, you pathological liar. No post was published in the BLOG and the ONLY REASON that statement was made was because a READER ASKED how we feel. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

2. I said that you did not document that EVEN ONE item from this blog appeared in the JRL, much less all of them. You still have not shown that ONE SINGLE item from this Blog also appeared in the JRL. JRL is the only specific source you mentioned.

3. You didn't deny that you are a Russophile, now did you? If you are not, prove it. Cite something you published that is critical of the Putin regime.

By the way, IVANUSHKA, if you want to do something useful and you are really concerned about the mis-translation issue, you might speak to some professional Russian translators about the work they do. As the linguistic experts at Language Hat told La Russophobe:

"Virtually all Russian translations are terrible in many different ways; translating is regarded in Russia as journeyman work and very poorly paid, and it's a miracle if the basic meaning is conveyed."

They even translated Huck Finn without grammar errors, as documented by La Russophobe. So Russians are in a rather poor position to judge the quality of translation work by others. Do you have the expression in Russian "people who live in glass houses"?

Anyway, thanks to encouragement from fine folks like you who want to help La Russophobe be more even-handed towards Russia and therefore attacked her translation and its attempt to honor Russian culture, that post has been removed long ago (as a prior post explains). Try to keep up with the times!

Oh dear, you are a rather tedious one, aren't you. Really, the last thing people want when the come to a blog is to be hectored at.

Re your points:

1. Doesn't matter. You still said it.

2. You're being a pedant. But if we really must descend to your level, then, here goes. One example. Bovt's article -- also in JRL 2006-#99.

3. Why should I wish to prove anything to you? I couldn't care less whether you think I'm a Russophile or not. I was just pointing out yet more of your unique "logic".


As for the translation... I'm sad that you took it off. Why? It was soooooooo funny. Now I wish that when I'd sent around the link to friends so we could all laugh, I'd just copied and pasted it into the email instead.

I'm not Russian, by the way. So the slur that you made based on my presumed nationality was, as is usual for you, wide of the mark.

A question -- is your Russophobia part of a wider racial hatred of Slavs in general? Or is it just a prejudice against Russia?

Hmmm... one minute you are "Ivan" and the next you are "Vania"? KGB perhaps? Getting absent-minded?

1. DOES matter. I said La Russophobe had never touted itself on the blog before its birthday and that is true. If a response to a comment is the only substantiation have, you should apologize for your error.

2. ONE example is meaningless. You said ALL of the information in this Blog was availabe on the JRL. One example proves nothing. There is a great deal of material on his blog that can NOT be found on the JRL, especially La Russophobe's emphasis on race crimes in Russia, which the JRL does not focus on sufficiently, and MANY other articles cannot be found there. Just as with your first point, your comment was impulsive, not researched and based on personal animus. Shame on you, hypocrite.

3. If you read the blog carefully, you'd know why. If you don't, you have no business criticizing. I note that you COMPLETELY IGNORE what Language Hat said about Russian translation. How convenient! La Russophobe is just an amateur, but you ignore the professionals.

I congratulate you on not being Russian. But you have not disproved that you are a russophile, you ignore my challenge because you cannot meet it.

Oh dear.

Vania = diminutive of Ivan.

Really know your material, eh, Kim!

Are you really so dim? Or is this just part of the comedy that makes this place so funny?

1. As I showed you, you had previously praised yourself on the blog. I quoted from one of the comments you made. You claimed that because it was a response to a question, this somehow disqualified it. Or something like that. It was all a bit too pathetic to bother going into any further.

2. Above, I said I wouldn't be patronising, and so left unfinished what was very obvious, not wishing to spell it out for you. Evidently, you're not the sharpest of tacs, so let me explain:

I wrote: "Anyone interested in Russia already gets all the news you copy and paste onto your website (eg, through JRL, or other list-servers)."

That does not mean that all of your information is on JRL. It means, as it says, all the news you copy and paste onto your website is, for example, available through JRL or other list-servers.

Get it? (If not, google "list-server" for a definition. Things might be clearer then. Also, check out the expression "for example".)

Sigh.

What else? I didn't completely ignore what Language Hat said about Russian translations. The poverty of Russian translations is well known. I'm not entirely clear why you are expecting me to comment on the fact that you've recently discovered this. Are we to congratulate you?

The argument you made about poor translations was, however, both boring and unconvincing.

One little tip for you:

When you copy and paste better writers and better articles onto your blog, it is not a good idea to juxtapose your own rather poor writing next to it. Again, it makes you look like a fool.

Lastly: you didn't answer my question.


PS. If we beg beg beg, will you pleeeeeaaaase put the Lermontov "translation" back on the blog? It was sooooooooooo funny!

VANIA = not the same screen name as ivan, could easily be two different people, in fact, SHOULD be since why does one person need two different names.

The comments are not part of the blog. The are seen only if you look for them. I said this was the first praise in the blog. The fact that you can only find praise in the comments and not the blog shows how assinine your accusation was.

I dispute your claim that as much as 50% of the articles quoted in this blog have appeared on the JRL. Until you document to the contrary, I call you a liar.

If Russian translations are so poor, it's hardly logical to criticize someone translating Russian, now is it?

If you consider yourself a better writer than me, prove it. Let's see YOUR blog or YOUR published articles and writing awards. Until they are seen, La Russophobe will ignore your jealous, childish "tips".

No, it won't go back up, but what I will do is relate your attitude towards Westerners trying to access Russian literature to anyone who asks me whether they should read the stuff. In fact, I'll quote you, and may do so in a post on the blog, as your remarks are classic Russian xenophobia and wonderful evidence that the theme of the blog is correct. So thanks for the evidence! And Mr. Lermontov as well as most other Russian literature will constinue to be consigned to obscurity in the West. Nice job. Keep it up, and Russia itself will join them ("Zaire with permafrost" I believe Atlantic magazine called it).

michael: thanks! good question you asked MD also. i hope he will respond and clarify what he means. i must admit i didn't notice that remark about jews when i first read his comment.

all advice is appreciated; however, when someone calls La Russophobe a "racist" or insults the existence of this site, a rather strong response is called for. but i will surely bear your advice in mind.

um . . . you missed that antisemitic slur and yet your keen perception narrowed in on some site criticism? . . . and that's what calls for a strong response??

wow. I think congratulations are in order.

KP: ummm ... no. my keen perception "narrowed in" on my being called a racist because i criticize russia and on this site being called worthless. it also "narrowed in" on the sexist attribution of my attitude to PMS.

for your information, la russophobe's policy is not to censor comments unless they make a personal attack on an individual commenter/reader. however, i have asked md to respond to michael's valid point. if md fails to do so, i may remove his comment from the blog. there are many perfectly valid possible explanations for his comment; for example, he could be an arab complaining about jewish mistreatment in the occupied terrories. but even if there is a valid explanation for his questionable comment, i would ask him to restate it in a more appropriate manner.

you see, kp, unlike some commenters (you, for instance) i give md a chance to respond to a respectful question rather than instantly attacking him. some commenters (you, for instance) choose to launch instant attacks without making any attempt to explore the facts.

IVANUSHKA INTERNATIONAL:

You're right! I did forget to answer your question, which was:

"A question -- is your Russophobia part of a wider racial hatred of Slavs in general? Or is it just a prejudice against Russia?"

I reject out of hand that there is any equation between "Slavic" and "Russian." The two terms have nothing to do with each other (despite the bizarre fantasies of some Russian nationalists) and this blog is not called "Slavophobe" for that perfectly good reason.

I "hate" Russia and am "prejudiced" against it for the same reason Malcolm X "hated" and was "prejudiced" against white people: years upon years of ourageous behavior. My attitude has nothing to do with race and everything to do with actions.

For example, electing a proud KGB spy president after the KGB brought Russia to its knees, killing more Russians than Hitler and bankrupting the economy. That action had nothing to do with being Slavic and everything to do with being Russian. No other nation in Eastern Europe has done such a thing except for Belarus, a country I mostly leave to others for comment.

Your attempt to link my criticism to racism is a very sorry attempt to distract attention from the point. It won't work, no matter how hard you try. But it's fun to watch you try your neo-Soviet tactics, though.

my apologies, russo. It didn't occur to me that there were so many valid explanations to all the problems jews (and russians for that matter) were causing the world.

but since you're good at explaining things so logically, can you try another one? I thought PMS only afflicted one gender. How, then, could it have been sexist?

kp: apologies accepted.

explanation: sexism means that a person believes another person is inferior because of gender. hence, if pms causes a woman to suddenly do things which are not rational, and if only a woman can get pms, this is sexist. on the other hand, if both men and women suffered equally from pms, it wouldn't be sexist.

ask yourself this: when was the last time you heard a man attack the statements of another man based on the belief that his male hormones were clouding his judgment? if women are attacked more often than men in this regard, it is sexism.

it's a particularly narrow-minded, ignorant form of sexism since not only does the inquisitor have no basis for concluding that i am in fact experiencing pms at this moment, much less scientific proof that pms makes women irrational in regard to russia, the inquisitor hasn't even confirmed that i'm female. but this kind of ignorance is typical russophila, so it doesn't surprise me in the least.

I'm pretty sure that only women can get PMS. It sounds like, given what you wrote, that makes PMS sexist. However, perhaps the point is moot since it is probably true that both men and women suffer equally from PMS. Would you say that is the case in your household?

Given that my gender is male, I can say with some authority that we take it for granted that our judgements can from time to time be clouded based on hormone activity. Thought that was pretty much reality, not sexist. My guess is that this may not be the case in your household.

But shouldn't we really get back to a more pressing issue? I'm having trouble believing that there are "so many valid explanations" to all the problems specific nationalities are causing in the world. You have decried much more trivial things here and seem to be accepting this (rather frightening) line of thought. There isn't even the suggestion that these are alleged problems but seem to be stated (and accepted by you?) as fact.

Maybe an exploration into your ability to hate a country while not being racist would shed some light onto this perplexing discussion thread.

KP: You're a bit dim. It's not THE FACT that I have PMS, it is the allegation that this condition prevents me from thinking rationally that is sexist, because it is scientifically unfounded and imputes inferiority to women.

If you take it for granted that men are so influenced, and therefore don't see a need to mention it, then why do you see a need to mention it regarding a woman?

You are rather unfairly mischaracterizing what I said. I am NOT accepting it, I SAID I wasn't. AS SOON as the issue was raised, I AGREED with the person who raised it and requested an explanation from the speaker. If you want me to jump to a conclusion, the way you appear to have done, before giving him a chance to give that explanation, you are out of luck.

As to your last point, there are many people in the world who hate America. Yet, nobody ever accuses them of racism, because "American" is not a race, it is nationality. Therefore, it is equally impossible to accuse someone who hates Russia, as it currently exists, as "racist."

One might call such a person "nationalist" but that usually implies a preference for one's own nationality; there is very little if any such material in this blog. However, if you insist on placing labels on people even though you condemn other people for placing those labels, you may call me an American nationalist if you like. At least that would be less ignorant than calling me a racist. It would certainly be accurate to say that I love the values America was created to stand for, and hate Russia for its emphatic rejection of those values.

again, my apologies. I stand corrected.

. . . so, then, if it isn't PMS, what is the condition that sometimes prevents you from thinking rationally?

KP: "I stand corrrected" is not quite as good as "I'm sorry, I was wrong" but you're making some headway.

Ah, another fallacy. You see, that I have ever written anything irrational is merely your opinion. Now, unless you feel yourself the equal of, say, Josef Stalin, who decided for himself whta was "rational" and what wasn't, and killed all those who were "irrational," your conclusion is nothing more than your opinion (in other words, meaningless).

You might be interested to know, for example, that there are those who thought Galileo was irrational. Even today, some Americans feel it is "irrational" to teach evolution. Gandhi and M.L. King were thought wildly irrational by many. Lenin was thought as nutty as a fruitcake to suggest he could take down the Tsar.

Frankly, I think it's just as irrational as you can get to freely elect a KGB spy after the KGB has destroyed your country. So I think Russians are irrational, hence the russophobia. But that's just my opinion.

Perhaps I think you're irrational sometimes. Yet, for some reason, it never comes into my head to think your male hormones are responsible, or to lable or attack you based on your sex. Interesting factoid, isn't it? Another intersting one: if someone attacked you as irrational based on your sex, I'd be likely to defend you from such an attack even though I didn't like or respect you. Different people have different values, you see. It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

So rationality, you see, is all in the eye of the beholder. And unless you want to be labled a hypocrite and/or a totalitarian, I'd be careful about imperiously trying to decide who is rational and who isn't.

KP,
The hatred displayed on the site is calculated slander on an entire nation. There is nothing irrational about it. If there any bodily secretion that LR has in abundance, then that is bile.

REITH: Thank god that Russia has a great hero like you to defend her honor from such dastardly evil-doers as La Russophobe.

Not to pick a nit, but there is one bodily secretion La Russophobe has in greater abundance than bile: Truth.

You know, Stalin said the same things you have just said about me in referring to Isaac Babel, just before he sent him to a concentration camp. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you are quoting him verbatim. Nice memory you've got there.

MD: Your posts have been removed from the blog. If you want your posts to appear, you need to think more carefully about how you present your views and do so in a manner more consistent with the tenor of this blog.

Why for remove? I am fan for you!
I hate Russians also!

MD: It's nice that you are a fan, but the manner in which you express your ideas is ambiguous and could be seen as an attempt to advocate racism or violence. La Russophobe does not condone either one, and if you wish to advocate them you must go elsewhere to do so. If you have other ideas, try to be more careful in the way you express them. Also, you should make your points more specific and try to back them up with evidence taken from a source on the web.

Just thought I'd pop in to tell you that it's ok -- have a look here:

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:YM1VqHLDO4gJ:russophobe.blogspot.com/2006/04/la-russophobe-translates-le-lermontov.html+Russophobe+lermontov&hl=ru&gl=ru&ct=clnk&cd=1

I'm happy to say, your (unintentionally) hilarious translation is preserved by Google's wonderful cache!

I've been able to forward the link to quite a few friends and we've had a good giggle at your expense. Many thanks!

VANIA: I'm glad to be of service. And for my part, let me confirm for you that your hostile comments discouraging Western lay interest in Russian literature rather than helpfully encouraging it are preserved in our files, for use whenever anyone asks why we are Russophobes. Very convenient. Bolshoe spasibo!

They're not hostile comments discouraging Western lay interest in Russian literature...

lol.

Passing along your unreadable translation to someone -- now THAT would be discouraging Western lay interest in Russian literature.

I'm always more than happy to recommend good translations of Russian literature to anyone interested.

Alas, yours isn't any good.

But it sure is damn funny!

You are a classically ignorant neo-Soviet ape.

If you go into an American bookstore like Borders or Barnes and Nobel, you will not find a single volume of Lermontov's poetry.

If you ask 100 Americans on the street who Lermontov was, not a single one will have heard of him.

That's all because of the wonderfully successful strategy of literature and culture promotion that you and your simeon Russophile clan have pursued lo these many years.

Instead of praising the effort to bring light to Lermontov and possibly suggesting improvements, you destroy the effort, erase it, stab the baby in its cradle, further condemn Lermontov to obscurity.

In other words, you're a classic Russian fool.

If you ask 100 Americans on the street to point out France on a map, most of them probably couldn't do it. Which says more about ignorant, lazy, candy-munching, fat-assed Americans than it does about Russian literature or its "simeon" Russophile estimators. God knows they probably wouldn't know who Walt Whitman was. Meanwhile, almost everyone in Russia can recite verse upon verse of their nation's great literature.
God Bless America indeed!

OK REITH, let me ask you this: If we ask 100 Russians who Toni Morrison was, how many will be able to answer that she's one of two American women to win the Nobel Prize for literature, while Russian women have never won the prize? How many Russians will have read one of Morisson's novels?

The time when Russians could rely on their mystery in order to contend that they are someone more literary than Americans is long over. People have been to Russia and seen. Russia has just as many ignorant slobs as America does, and one of them is running the country.

Your point is so idiotic that it defies description. The more ignorant Americans are, the more help they need from Russians to appreciate Russian literature. And you can't possibly blame them for failing to appreciate Russia's point of view if, when they make a good-faith effort to show appreciation for Russian culture, they are ridiculed for their mistakes (meanwhile, of course, Russians say and do nothing about the godawful state of their own translation of foreign litature, as documented in La Russophobe).

Apparently you think that somehow America, the richest and most powerful nation on earth, has some sort of affirmative obligation to make special effort to try to understand and appreciate Russian culture, even though Russians do nothing like that themselves. Frankly, that's the kind of insane Russophile babbling that has left Russia on the verge of extinction.

Russoph,

Your translation was just bad. Full stop.

Passing that around to anyone wouldn't help win them over to Lermontov. It would -- if they had a drop of aesthetic taste in their veins -- send them running for the sick bowl.

I took apart the very first line, and gave you a little hint on what was wrong with it. As far as I remember, each line after that had at least one bad error in it.

The fact that Lermontov's poetry is not frequently translated is sad, but no reason to torture his verse with your own crudities.

But on your wider point... do you really believe that Russians are as ignorant of their own and other foreign literatures as you say?

If you do, I'd suggest that is because you don't really know many Russians. Or know much about your subject matter.

Have you ever really been there? For how long?

I suspect you once did a community college course in Russian. Then went on holiday to Smolensk ("Chego?!?" I hear someone responding when you ask them if the McDonalds has WiFi). After a another bruising encounter with the real world, you returned to your hovel in New York, desperate for revenge.

Get out more. Take a walk in the park. Talk to some real people. The internet is great -- but it's no substitute for real conversation. Fuming over your keyboard and spewing coffee at the monitor can't be good for you. All this time indoors can't be good for the complexion, either.

Thanks

Vania.

ps. The key absence of the article in some of your writing suggests that you're not a native English speaker. Let me guess, nationalist Ukrainian?

VANIA: Giving people purely negative feedback on their positive interest in Russia alienantes them and makes enemies for the country. Failing to understand this is one of the things that is destroying Russia. Your inability to grasp it makes you a classic Russian, in other words a failure.

Lermontov is totally unknown and unrespected in America, and he will stay that way on this blog thanks to you. Nice work!

Actually, I think Russians are far more ignorant than I realize. Go have a look at a Russian news kiosk sometime and see what they're reading. Even lowly America has more Nobel prizes in literature than Russia.

I lived in Russia for several years and in several different cities. Shows what your suspicions are worth.

I suspect you're just plain jealous and have nothing of substance of your own to contribute, so you just attack the work of others. You certainly have not made reference to one single achievment of your own. In that I pity you.