That's still the same misrepresentation, mhaze.

Again, I've never claimed Thucydides "had an agenda" in the sense of manipulating events to push a cause. I've consistently distinguished between what he records and what follows in the narrative. That's interpretation, not mind-reading.

Nothing you've written identifies a sentence where I said Thucydides was dishonest, biased, or pushing a program. You've repeatedly asserted that such a claim exists, but you still haven't quoted it.

You've also already acknowledged that Thucydides does not endorse the Melian logic. That was the core point from the outset. Everything since has been you reframing that distinction as "agenda vs neutrality" and then arguing against the reframing.

If you think I've misunderstood the text, the remedy is simple: quote where my interpretation contradicts it.

Absent that, repeating "you don't understand Thucydides" isn't support for a claim, it's just credential-based dismissal.

I've made my position clear and supported it with quotes and context. I'm not interested in relabelling it again to fit a strawman.

By the way, I'm glad you decided to return. Despite credentials, you clearly still have much to learn.

CM,

It's all getting too hard. I think that we are on the edge of an abyss to nowhere. I am glad that I was born when I was and have seen the best of Australia and Australians.

mhaze,

I was the one who said Ukraine was changing a language law than banned the Russian language in the Russian-speaking eastern regions, you said Segei Lavrov was a liar.
There's no squirming out of it mhaze.

There was a regional language law in 2012, when Yanukovych was still in power, after the Maidan Yatsenyuk planned to repeal that law, 'this was all the controversy you and I got into' He relented from repealing that law at the time, and that's why I was looking back trying to find this 2014 law that Lavrov had been referring to, but never found it.

They eventually repealed the regional language law later.

Why don't you go dig up both our original posts.
I would, but I already know I'm right and your not worth arguing with because you never concede anything, even when your wrong.

Find the one where you called Lavrov a liar and where you ascertain all the controversy was made up.

Discussions with you are pointless and go around and around in circles... for years.
I got off that stupid merry go round and I'm not planning on getting back on.

Here ya go AC....

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10081#345740

______________________________________________________________________

"Nothing you've written identifies a sentence where I said Thucydides was dishonest, biased, or pushing a program. You've repeatedly asserted that such a claim exists, but you still haven't quoted it."

Still rewriting the thread. I've never suggested you said Thukydides was dishonest or all the other rubbish you now claim. You're just making this up to try to hide your embarrassment at being caught out.

""Thucydides wasn't endorsing Athenian logic, he was documenting imperial arrogance on the road to ruin. It's a warning, not a defence."

It wasn't a warning. It wasn't a defence. It wasn't documenting imperial arrogance. It was just record ing history. You now know that. The end.

mhaze,

You're still collapsing two different claims. Is it any wonder why you can't provide a quote trail?

Saying a passage functions as a warning in the narrative is not the same as saying the author set out with a "warning agenda", nor does it imply dishonesty or bias. It's a claim about interpretation, not motive.

I've never said Thucydides was anything other than a recorder of events and speeches as he understood them. I've said that the context and consequences he records matter for how those speeches are read. That's standard historical interpretation, not revision.

You're free to disagree with that reading. But calling it "rewriting history" doesn't engage with it, it just relabels it.

If your position is simply that Thucydides records Athenian arguments without endorsing them, then we agree. If you think the surrounding narrative has no interpretive significance at all, then say so and explain why.

Otherwise, repeating "it's just recording history" doesn't refute anything I've said.

How freaking dumb can you be?
To go out of your way to find a post where you did say Lavrov was a liar.

Google? Did Yatsenyuk relent of revoking the regional language law in 2014

AI Overview
Yes, then-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk "relented" in the sense that he publicly stated the attempt to repeal the regional language law had been a mistake and confirmed the law would remain in force.
Here's what happened:

On February 23, 2014, the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada) voted to repeal the 2012 "Kivalov-Kolesnichenko" law, which granted regional language status to minority languages (including Russian) in areas where they comprised over 10% of the population.
The move sparked significant outrage, particularly in the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine, and was used by Russia as a pretext for its actions in Crimea and the Donbas.
Amidst this political crisis and a push for national unity, Yatsenyuk acknowledged that scrapping the law had been an "incorrect step" and emphasized that protecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was a priority.
Crucially, the acting President Oleksandr Turchynov refused to sign the repeal bill into law, stating he would wait until a replacement law was drafted to accommodate all ethnic groups' interests.
Because Turchynov did not sign or veto the repeal, the 2012 language law technically remained in effect.

Yatsenyuk later reiterated in April 2014 that the law would not be abolished and that no one would limit the use of the Russian language, in an effort to calm the situation in the eastern regions. The law remained in force until it was finally ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in February 2018.

* And one might argue, this had nothing to do with the rights of ethnic Russians in the Donbass, but more about Ukraine's need to adhere to laws from Brussels in order to join the EU.