Tweet
FIFTY DOLLARS FOR ANTI-ARF ARTICLES
Editorial
Yerkir.am
April 01, 2006
We are often asked why we don't respond to many anti-ARF reports or
statements. If readers follow more attentively, they would find that we
respond to those, which contain certain arguments and logical criticism
or contain disagreements with the ARF's positions. With responding
to them we aim at not convincing our opponents that our positions
are right but are truing to explain and rationalize our positions.
But when we see articles that are not just critical but are built on
blatant deception, made-up 'arguments,' and gossip, we see no reason
to respond.
Why and what to react to articles whose authors know well that what
they had written is a lie, their 'arguments' are fake and the facts
distorted? What sense does it make to explain the truth to a person
who knows he is lying but is doing so because he is paid?
There is a market for articles and authors who write anti-ARF articles.
There are order-givers and order-takers. And where there is a 'demand,'
there is a 'supply,' but since the 'supply' is not in much demand,
the prices for such articles are low in the 'market.'
An anti-ARF article can be ordered to andexpert' or an 'analyst'
by only 50 dollars. This 'expert' then writes an article against
the ARF and then feels free to go and participate in a roundtable
discussion or seminar devoted to democracy, principles or human
rights. But what strikes the most is that some of those 'experts'
are really shameless. A few days ago, one such 'analyst' said, "I
have written articles against the ARF for $50; if the ARF pays me
$100 I'll stop writing against the ARF and will write against those
ordering me anti-ARF articles."
But when he was told it was disgusting, he was really surprised.
Such people are really disgusting, but more disgusting are those
who during discussions make use of the articles they have paid to
be written.
Editorial
Yerkir.am
April 01, 2006
We are often asked why we don't respond to many anti-ARF reports or
statements. If readers follow more attentively, they would find that we
respond to those, which contain certain arguments and logical criticism
or contain disagreements with the ARF's positions. With responding
to them we aim at not convincing our opponents that our positions
are right but are truing to explain and rationalize our positions.
But when we see articles that are not just critical but are built on
blatant deception, made-up 'arguments,' and gossip, we see no reason
to respond.
Why and what to react to articles whose authors know well that what
they had written is a lie, their 'arguments' are fake and the facts
distorted? What sense does it make to explain the truth to a person
who knows he is lying but is doing so because he is paid?
There is a market for articles and authors who write anti-ARF articles.
There are order-givers and order-takers. And where there is a 'demand,'
there is a 'supply,' but since the 'supply' is not in much demand,
the prices for such articles are low in the 'market.'
An anti-ARF article can be ordered to andexpert' or an 'analyst'
by only 50 dollars. This 'expert' then writes an article against
the ARF and then feels free to go and participate in a roundtable
discussion or seminar devoted to democracy, principles or human
rights. But what strikes the most is that some of those 'experts'
are really shameless. A few days ago, one such 'analyst' said, "I
have written articles against the ARF for $50; if the ARF pays me
$100 I'll stop writing against the ARF and will write against those
ordering me anti-ARF articles."
But when he was told it was disgusting, he was really surprised.
Such people are really disgusting, but more disgusting are those
who during discussions make use of the articles they have paid to
be written.