New "evidences". How about a new translators?

Mister Tee,
Could I ask you what exactly you mean by "How about a new translators?" If I am not mistaken, when people try to reproach someone by mentioning translators, they show some disrespect to the fact that someone's native language (meaning the language of the country he/she was born in) is not English. Am I correct? That reminded me of one incident that happened to me when I lived in Ukraine before moving to USA. I traveled in Strasbourg. I wanted to ask 2 French men for directions, and I asked them in English. They looked at me with disrespect, and one of them asked the second man in English: “How do you call somebody who speaks 3 languages?”, and he answered: “Trilingual”. The first one continued: “How about someone who speaks 2 languages?”, and the second guy answered: “Bilingual”. The first guy asked again: “How about someone who speaks only one language?”, and the second one said: “An American” and they both laughed.
I smiled and patiently explained them that they were wrong: there are different representatives in each nation: someone knows several languages, geography and history of different countries, and someone doesn’t know, doesn’t want to know and is proud of it, and makes spelling mistakes in his own language – the only one he/she knows. I told them the history of their area (Strasbourg is a capital of Alsace – a region that is located in contemporary France but it used to belong to Germany as well, that is why majority of Alsace population speaks French, German and some English) and spoke to them a little in French and German. Both men immediately changed their attitude towards me. They explained me the directions, apologized to me, told me that they were ashamed of the joke and took off. Only then I realized that I never told them that I was from Ukraine and not from USA. They probably thought that I was an American because I defended the intelligence of Americans so strongly.
Please let me know what you think about this incident.
BTW: If I am not mistaken, our English teacher told us in the second grade of Ukrainian school that an indefinite article “a” is not used with nouns in plural, that is why the phrase “How about a new translators?" is not correct. Am I right? Unless of course it’s a misprint, just like on the above mentioned website.
Mister Tee, have you analyzed the content of the website that Jack mentioned here? What do you think about it?

You got caught forging signatures and gaming the VOE system. If you want to whine about your conviction in a public blog, you will be ridiculed.

Your http://www.russianchamber.com/ post is full of grammar and usage errors ("After the new evidences were discovered" should read "after new evidence was discovered"), you ought to have native English speaker proofread it before posting. In fact, you have not provided any new evidence, just innuendo.

And your letter to the OSB sounds like it was written for Pravda. It also reveals your Chamber of Commerce position to be both self-serving and harmful to the community: why allow your so called supporters to be tarred with the brush of your crimes? Your just stigmatizing those whom you pretend to serve.

Golovon,
You're done in this town. Move on. Maybe Emilie will let you sleep on her sofa.

Mister Tee,
Thank you for your comment. Also, thank you for proofreading. You can go either way in a free country – make fun of someone’s errors and misprints or contact the organization and point the errors to them, and I am sure your efforts will be appreciated.
I am not afraid of being ridiculed. There are two major types of readers – whiners and critical thinkers, with a number of people in between. Whiners are very unhappy people who don’t like the government, the economy; they don’t like their relatives because they are too greedy, their boss because he is an idiot, the rain because it is too wet, the ice because it is too slippery etc. I wouldn’t worry about being ridiculed by them because everybody understands that their opinion is lighter than emptiness. On the other hand, if a critical thinker obtains some public record materials, makes analyses of facts and evidence, comes to a different opinion than mine and points that out to me – I will only thank him for that.
You are right about the innuendo part – there are not many materials on the above mentioned website, and unfortunately not all the materials mentioned are available for public at this point. If you read the site attentively, there is enough information there for critical thinkers to analyze, come to certain conclusions, compare them with the “official” coverage of certain mainstream media companies and with my conclusions, and come up with their own opinion. Everybody can get some of the mentioned materials from the internet.
I hope that some critical thinkers will take it even to the next step and spend their time to get the trial record and other public records and newspaper articles, analyze them, and compare their findings with “official” version and my version – and their educated opinion will be very valuable to the public.
Speaking about the harm to the community… I think that the most harm to the community is done when an “official” agency makes a mistake, an “official” mainstream media creates a public opinion that supports “official” agency, and some individuals from the public agree with everything. It is understandable if the public is afraid of retaliation, just like during the communist regime, but if a certain individual from the public in a free country simply doesn’t want to make his/her own analyses and challenge the “official” version – that is when the harm to the community is done. If an “official” mistake lets criminals go free and commit more crimes – that’s when the harm to the community is done, but when an alternative media uncovers the mistake and helps bringing the justice – it’s a great service to the community.
I think that alternative media was created because some critical thinkers understood that sometimes an “official” version is not completely right.
And your letter to the OSB sounds like it was written for Pravda. I don’t know exactly what that means but hopefully you came to such conclusion after carefully reading all the information on the site and comparing all your findings with “official” and my versions. If this is the case, I would like to thank you for your comment. In future, if you could analyze the facts that were analyzed on the website and present your opinion described in details, I believe it would be more beneficial to the public.
Thank you and good luck.

V.G.

I think you are suffering more from cultural ignorance than the language barrier. In my opinion, you do yourself a disservice to pursue the "didn't do it" or "I was framed" defense.

Why? Because you were convicted of a crime by a jury who was far better informed of the nuances/facts of the case than the general public. The rest of us will assume you are guilty as charged.

More importantly, many of us think you gamed the VOE system and enabled Emilie Boyles to qualify for $145,000 that she didn't deserve. In short, you defrauded PORTLAND TAXPAYERS out of $145,000, much of which remains outstanding.

If you want to suggest that you didn't forge signatures, then say "I didn't forge signatures".

If you want to suggest that you didn't certify that each signature you gathered was accompanied with a $5.00 dollar contribution, then say "I didn't front any $5 contributions knowing that Emilie would refund them upon cashing her VOE check".

If you can't make both of the above declarations then STFU and move on.

Better yet, quit lying about what happened, admit you did it, say your sorry, and try to conduct yourself in strict compliance with the law in the future.

Americans can forgive just about any transgression when somebody is willing to show they have learned from their mistakes. We don't forgive people who maintain their innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Clearly, you're a smart guy. Your English is certainly better than my Russian. But you insult my intelligence with your straw man defense and contrived theory of your false prosecution.

Mister Tee,
Thank again for your comment.
If the issue of my guilt or innocence is insulting your intelligence and doesn't allow you to carefully examine what is described on the website - let's just drop it for now. Is there anything else in your opinion that is worth investigating or checking upon that is written there? Do you think it might be useful for the public to at least read through some of the newspaper articles and listen to the trial testimonies and compare it to what is written before denying the whole thing?

If you want to suggest that you didn't forge signatures, then say "I didn't forge signatures."

If you want to suggest that you didn't FALSELY certify that each signature you gathered was accompanied with a $5.00 dollar contribution, then say "I didn't front any $5 contributions knowing that Emilie would refund them upon cashing her VOE check."

If you can't make both of the above declarations then STFU and move on.

THIS

Jennifer,
Thank you for your comment.
I believe it would be more valuable if you could find "both of the above declarations" YOURSELF after carefully examining the website, newspaper articles and other public information.
It's a paradox but I still didn't find the opinion of critical thinkers for the following questions from the above comment: "Is there anything else in your opinion that is worth investigating or checking upon that is written there? Do you think it might be useful for the public to at least read through some of the newspaper articles and listen to the trial testimonies and compare it to what is written before denying the whole thing?"
THIS

Prince Vlad:

You've got blood on your hands and teeth, and there is a woman lying dead at your feet with puncture wounds in her neck.

We're just asking you to say you're not a vampire while the villagers sharpen a wooden stake. And you reply with a diatribe about how poorly vampires have been portrayed by the media and the church.

If you aren't willing to say "I did not violate the law", then everything else is epilogue.

Did you forge the signatures? Yes or no.

If you can't say no, then you're wasting your time here. Maybe try BlueOregon: I'm sure a more nuanced version of the Truth would play better over there.