" 

 == Long answer short (or short answer long) == 

 I am only pointing here a few things, b/c I might not have otherwise the time to reply properly. Please excuse the lack of etiquette. 
 * ""if person x is presented with an option to specify his/her ethnicity and s/he answers one thing but means another, that person is an idiot""  
 ** IMHO, a too strong word, but with correct sign. However, you can not put together 3 million idiots and say all Moldovans are idiots. Moreover, if I mean I am x as a subset of y, and I am asked to choose between x and y, without given the choice ""x subset of y"", then whatever I declare, according to your criteria I would be an idiot. Now, a sufficiently educated person (read top 5% can thing thoroughly about all implications of all answers, and answer intelligently but insincerely y). The rest answer sincerely x meaning x as a subsets of y, and you call them idiots. The problem I see is not what people declare, but what you chose not to know about, or rather to ignore. For example, you know so much about people, history, and 1000 other things related to the Romanian Old Kingdom, that I couldn't believe possible for a humble human being (as opposed to a machine). On the other hand, IMHO you chose to not even bother know quite simple things about Transylvania, Bukovina or Bessarabia. The problem is, that given your encyclopedic knowledge on some things, it's surreal to see you (pretend you) don't know simple things on other things. Such as for example that your interpretation in this issue is 100% identical to communists' one, and ignores what the rest of the world (forget Romania) warns about.   
 * ""anecdotic evidence"" such as how they supposedly posed the question don't make the cut here. I also know that this kind of evidence can only hope to persuade me personally, by appealing to what I would find likely 
 ** yes, I mean to point it to you only. Have you ever been in Harghita or Covasna in the situation when each one pretends not to understand the other, while both perfectly understand everything? ) The same is during the census. The problem is who fills the paper: you or the census person. This question in Moldova was like putting in an American census a question ""George W. Bush / Barrack Obama (erase one) is a piece of s&%t"". Census official would have a strong opinion about it. So they do in Moldova. To quote Stalin: ""it doesn't matter who run the elections, it matters who counts the votes"".  
 * Because it's not reality: it's a theory, a biased theory, and I have the responsibility and intellectual honesty not to present a biased claim for a fact. The most that can and should be achieved here is a citation of reliable, non-partisan sources that question the Moldovan census results (not unionist blogorama, not personal deductions about what happened there or elsewhere) 
 ** It is a claim, but not biased. And not, please, never use my claims as facts. They are only meant to present the situation to you the way I see it. They can point you to be more careful how you understand some details, but they are not meant ever to be substituted to a sourse. However, in 2004 Moldovan Census you have (and always had) a reference that cuts the chaise. (I never cite blogorama, except when it's the author's article). The only point I am making is that caution should be taken on how the results on ethnicity and language questions are interpreted. To the issue: the best IMHO is to say both POVs whenever that is possible. IMHO, accepting communist POV is biased, even if you pretend it is not the communist POV but your own understanding. With all due respect, that would be precisely ""intellectual dishonesty"" (to know something and say the opposite, or worse, pretend not to notice).  
 * but I don't see anybody who supports Romanian patriotism going out of his/her way to subtract the troglodyte mass from the total number of Romanians.  
 ** Depends what you call patriotism. I am sure you are patriot and you do subtract them. And I hope I could be characterized likewise. The only problem is I don't see ethnicity ""troglodyte"". So, for example, as much as I dislike Vadim or the like, I cannot cound him in any other ethnicity.  
 * But hey: all ethnic identity is a construct, and constructs change as people do. 
 ** I understand your viewpoint, but there is an equally plausible opposite one: ethnic identity does not change (except when people die). 
 * One of the other things you did that irritated me was to tell Anonimu that I learned a lesson from the ""Moldovans as idiots"" example. 
 ** That was inappropriate language I used. Again, I am sincerely sorry. I was not in my ""waters"" when talking to him. 
 * And I need to point out that your last post basically admits to have willingly misinterpreted my original statement for an ulterior purpose. As you have done me the honor of noting, I'm a d