As mentioned in yesterday’s post I’d left 2 comments at Saker’s regarding a specific claim made by Alexander Mercouris in his latest article-Yesterday's post: Alexander Mercouris-Enshrinement of Russian/Turkish Ceasefire at UN ?
The claim made by Mercouris boils down to this: The Russian/Turkish ceasefire enshrined at the UN.
The fact that the ceasefire accord was neither endorsed, nor recognized, guarantees it was not enshrined (made sacred) at the UN.The first response to my comment came from Veritas (I'm unfamiliar with this moniker and am bolding the relevent text)
If Veritas would have bothered to actually read what I had posted in my comment:
One example below:“The resolution’s final text dropped an endorsement of the Syria cease-fire agreement reached Thursday, simply taking note of it….”
Veritas would have realized I had already pointed out that the UN "took note of the documents"
But did not endorse the ceasefire. Veritas posted a link to the UN as proof of my error, but, Veritas actually further verified my position and invalidated Mr Mercouris.Larchmonter 445 then digs the hole deeper
Larchmonter445 on January 04, 2017 · at 12:35 am UTC
Well done, Veritas.
Facts really help the discussions.
Many folks fail to dig for facts.
Of course, ideology hates facts. But rational thinking consumes it and requires it.
Again, thanks. Saved me the search.Too bad the facts went right over Larchmonter's head...
My response to Veritas:
Penny on January 04, 2017 · at 12:54 am UTC “taking note of the documents”
is not an endorsement or an enshrinement of the ceasefire agreements in the passed resolution
from your own quoted information: ” Also in the Russian-drafted resolution, the 15-member Council “takes note of” the documents issued by Russia and Turkey about the agreements the two countries have brokered” Taking note of the documents = acknowledging the presence of said documents It is not an endorsement or an enshrinement of the agreement!
Read what is written, not what you may wish to believe is there-
Where is it written the Security Council accept and endorse the ceasefire agreement?
– It’s up to you to prove your claim, alongside Mercouris and Garrie, and all you have done is bolster mine-
Dig up the endorsement.
As for relying on my blog? I do all my own research and writing and have no reason not to rely on my own work!
Yes, Veritas and another V, resorted to ad hominem attacks against me. As for Larchmonter's patently irrelevent statement???? What can I say
Relying on my blog- ooooohhh.. Including this gem from 'vot tak;
vot tak on January 04, 2017 · at 2:47 am UTC
I used to visit the pennyforyourthoughts site, but came to realise it was professional disinfo, and stopped. No sense just handing them the data they are phishing for, let ’em work for it. :D
If one will notice, they post their adverts here when the israeli-americans are in a crisis of some sort or another. Otherwise, they stay away.Thanks too gallier for pointing out the absurdity :) gallier2 on January 04, 2017 · at 9:41 am UTC
“C’est celui qui qui dit qui est” or to accuse Penny of Usraeli disinfo is outrageously funny. It only shows, either your own projections (accuse others of your own sins) or your ignorance, i.e. that you haven’t followed Penny’s blog.I've left additional comments which have not been allowed through yet...??As soon as they are I will put them here:
A response to Gallier- regarding vot tak's adhominem attack
A response to joaopft on January 04, 2017 · at 12:15 pm UTC
11:00 am est update: Penny on January 04, 2017 · at 2:11 pm UTC
“Taking Note of ” simply means to acknowledge the existence of: to record
Therefore ““taking note of the documents”
is a simple acknowledgement of the existence of said documents- and it is no more then that-
It is not an endorsement and enshrinement or anything even close to that.
Mercouris is mistaken. re "taking note of " and what it means
The UN 'took note of the documents' means they acknowledge the documents exist- and it doesn't mean anything else. Taking note of documents does not endorse or enshrine them- Let me give you all an example?Harkening back to the Copenhagen Accord: Here is a Q&A on some of the most important legal questions surrounding the Copenhagen Accord.
#2- But didn’t the COP “adopt” the Copenhagen Accord at COP-15?No. The COP “took note” of the Copenhagen Accord.
#3: What does it mean for the UNFCCC to “take note” of the Copenhagen Accord?“Taking note” of the Accord is a way for UNFCCC parties to formally acknowledge its existence. To quote UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer, it “is a way of recognizing that something is there, but not going so far as to associate yourself with it.”
Taking note is a legal concept- It recognizes but does not endorse. Not does it enshrine.
"Taking note of documents" Therefore only recognizes the presence of said documents..
If and when my comments are allowed at Saker's I will add them to the post
Meanwhile I look forward to someone supporting the claims of Mercouris, Garrie and the trolls at Sakers- Valid support- Thanks in advanceFinally: james@wpcJanuary 4, 2017 at 4:07 AM
Thanks Gallier for the info and your comment over there - well said!. Saker's has long attracted the smoother higher pay-grade troll. But still I think they think that their superior attitude is all that is needed to win any argument. The Dunning-Kruger Effect
is in full bloom there
Penny's counter was a knockdown. Dunning- Kruger it must be!UPDATE January 05/2017-4:28 pm estLarchmonter 445 who has yet to find a hole that cannot be dug deeper responded to me:Below is our exchange, which I have read, noted and am actually enshrining here at the blog!
Larchmonter445 on January 04, 2017 · at 6:00 pm UTC
The UNSC legal language on most of their Resolutions use the term “taking
note of”, or “takes note of”, and thereafter delineates the topic of the Resolution.
Use a search engine and look up any of the most famous Resolutions and you will see the terminology.
It means they have examined, discussed, and are citing the heart of the issue.
Thus, it is central to the purpose of the Resolution.
Penny on January 05, 2017 · at 2:33 pm UTC
Larchmonter: I understand clearly the meaning of “take note of”
Your obfuscation isn’t clarifying, rather it’s muddying- You’re noting that it’s a term commonly used means absolutely nothing- And it certainly does not mean it’s been examined or discussed.
That’s your opinion, but, it isn’t based in reality.
I clarified the issue with an example at my blog
“The UN ‘took note of the documents’ means they acknowledge the documents exist- and it doesn’t mean anything else.
Taking note of documents does not endorse or enshrine them- Let me give you all an example?
Harkening back to the Copenhagen Accord:
Here is a Q&A on some of the most important legal questions surrounding the Copenhagen Accord.
#2- But didn’t the COP “adopt” the Copenhagen Accord at COP-15?
No. The COP “took note” of the Copenhagen Accord.
#3: What does it mean for the UNFCCC to “take note” of the Copenhagen Accord?
“Taking note” of the Accord is a way for UNFCCC parties to formally acknowledge its existence. To quote UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer, it “is a way of recognizing that something is there, but not going so far as to associate yourself with it.”
Taking note is a legal concept- It recognizes but does not endorse. Not does it enshrine.
“Taking note of documents” therefore only recognizes the presence of said documents.. http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.ca/2017/01/take2-alexander-mercouris-enshrinement.html
And it does nothing more.. Wishful thinking aside
Larchmonter445 on January 05, 2017 · at 5:24 pm UTC
Penny, you suffer circular logic. No one can help you.
Stop vilifying everyone for your lack of intellectual honesty.
You don’t understand some things. And your arguments which otherwise might carry some validity remain flawed.
Repetition is not a winning tact.
The UNSC backs the ceasefire with its action.
It backs Minsk 2, also.
Take note of history and reality.
Penny on January 05, 2017 · at 6:40 pm UTC
Larchmonter 445: You do know this is not about me, right? Why must you make it about me?
That tells me much about you and your abilities to comprehend and discuss.
Getting back to the issue, which is the error made by Mercouris- Regarding the legal definition of “taking note of the documents” The fact that the ceasefire was NOT endorsed etc.,
Lets discuss that issue, if you are capable of doing so without further muddying the water. So far it’s clear you are incapable of anything but obfuscation but I’ll give it yet another try except I’ll make it very simple for you…
If you cannot stay on point by discussing the actual matter which is the use of a legal term “Taking note of the Documents” and the error by Mercouris in claiming anything what so ever was ‘enshrined’ at the UNSC – don’t bother responding at all.
Simple enough I would say. And I wash my hands of the whole discussion- Not once were the points I brought forward addressed. It was a series of personal attacks. One after the other. All done with the intention to obfuscate and distract. Not once was any information put forward to demonstrate that the ceasefire had actually been "enshrined" let alone endorsed, because it was never was.Larchmonter 445 - truly gets circular reasoning because it's engaged in abundantly by this individual... Along with appeal to authority.