Twilight Bark

It's not about gaining anything from vulgarities. It's about being tolerant. It's about being adventurous. It's about being tolerant about being adventurous. Like porn, you know it when you see it; you can't know from the simple presence of nudity. Likewise, if an "amot" word is vulgarity or simply a more adventurous (and succinct) way of putting something can be judged by sensible people. And if you are rather sensitive about vulgarities you had no reason to wait until this moment. You could have warned Mr. Baliozian about his vulgar language. I suppose you regard him as too big a fish to fry. Or is it that he has "poetic license"? And my aim here was not to discuss the virtues of "vulgar" words. I was trying to convey the notion that vigorous and rational debate is critically important. I also think that those who cannot sustain it should stop pretending that they are "thinkers". Nobility resides in the "spirit" and the intellect, not in words or appearances. But if I have to start from that far back to explain where I am coming from, this is even more hopeless than I thought. This hoopla was much more than what I bargained for. Good bye. You all be pleasant, nice, and non-challenging now.

Very good. Of course I know who you are talking about, and I have been aware of the danger of becoming or at least sounding like him. It's a risk I decided to take. A much bigger risk is to sacrifice intellectual rigor on the altar of pleasantries when it comes to determining some fundamentals of what it is to be Armenian.

It's past time Armenians relaxed about those terms. I had to look far and wide to find a dictionary that included the very common word "vor". It's indicative of cultural sclerosis, and a symptom of a much more serious malady. Of course the way to work on those things is not blasting the afflicted with horse manure and various other toxic material. A basic level of loyalty, affection, patience, and vision is all that's needed. Now whether we have those in enough quantity remains to be seen. I have indicated my pessimism earlier.

It would have been much easier on everyone and much faster to conclude if you discussed the point raised like a healthy, well-adjusted human being instead of excreting poison day after day as a knee-jerk reaction. What you are doing is the equivalent of masturbation at best.

You don't need to thank me when productive debate was my aim to begin with. It's not as if I am making a sacrifice. On the other hand, you are too quick to be satisfied when there was no such intent expressed by anyone else. It either means that I am implicitly accused of being the culprit, or that it would be preferred if I simply shut up and move on. One last thing: "getting along" is only useful as long as it doesn't stifle creative and provocative debate. People "got along" under totalitarian rule, and self-censored under authoritarian or chauvinistic regimes. That was not a positive thing. None of this is about a pissing contest as Mr. Baliozian would have himself and his admirers believe. It's about the importance of nuance and shade in thinking about important concepts. Failure at that paves the way to an Orwellian nightmare, often by those who profess to hate such a world. And they will be cheered on that path by "proles" that regard depth and nuance as "gibberish".

Dear ED, that's all I ask.

Then I assume you don't mind showing what you consider the starting point of "hurling of insults", and I'll see if I agree. I don't mind being proven wrong in a rational and polite manner. One snag is that our definitions of what constitutes "insult" probably differ, although I am not sure. Incidentally, you said "when the answer doesn't please you ...", and got me thinking about that. You know what kind of answer would please me? A thoughtful, intelligent one, not one that agrees with me. One that does justice to the question that I raise. A thoughtless, stock answer does not fall in that category. That indeed displeases me. But then, I don't feel entitled to be pleased by strangers. By the same token, I don't feel obligated to please rude strangers.

Thanks Nairi. I'll keep that in mind in venues where I do try to be charming, which is also called "real life". And I do try my best and mostly succeed to remain charming in the face of toxic people in real life. Look, if the guy responds dismissively or rudely, I'll respond in kind or just bugger off (which is what I usually do when I don't think the subject warrants the pain and the suffering on my part). If the guy becomes even more outrageously rude in response, that is somehow my fault? You are asking me to keep being polite in the face of abuse, but not anyone else. Nonsense.

You sound really sophisticated. I extend back to you the same "garod yev ser" you offer.

This is promising. I hope it takes off. from armenialiberty.org: "Saakashvili also announced that he and Sarkisian agreed to set up a Georgian-Armenian consortium that will seek to attract foreign funding for the construction of a mountain pass in western Georgia which he said will significantly shorten travel between Armenia and the Georgian Black Sea cost. "

You sound like you made a great "gotcha" revelation. From the very beginning I said my problem was with the fact that he slips in falsehoods into a soup of truisms. If that's your response and attitude, I have second thoughts. Personal vendetta? Personal vendetta? From the very beginning I started with a polite interjection. He first gives some vanilla platitude that does nothing to address the issue. As soon as he realizes that he's not going to make a convincing defense of the point I challenge he switches to dismissal and brushing off. When that doesn't work, he dehumanizes his critic. I am very irritated by this pseudo-intellectual, that is true. Once he reaches the end of his second phase or the beginning of the third phase of "attack", I no longer feel obligated to be polite towards him. But a "personal vendetta"? Please. Just read this exchange that attracted you here. Who is the insulter? My challenging a statement of his is not an insult under any definition. Only a fascist or a communist would confuse dissent with insult. It seems to you, however, fine for him to call me sub-human. As I said, I always start polite. However, I have little patience in the face of arrogant stupidity or vulgarity. My aim is not to be the most charming person on the planet. My purpose here is to help crystallize my thoughts through civilized but vigorous and rational discussion, and offer corrections on what I consider important falsehoods, when I have the time and the inclination. I am not here for personal gratification or affirmation. You don't say! After the completely unjustified and disgusting insults he hurled, I am fully justified to think that he is a disgusting little intellectual midget. And that goes for anyone who idolizes him. There you have it.

It raises the possibility that I am 100% right about the 10% in question. Nice to hear from you. TB

I think I'll start reading you again, Mr. Baliozian. No, you don't need to thank me. You are annoyed because you cannot defend a certain point. It has nothing to do with "contexts". As I said before, I agree with much of what you write. And then I disagree with some of what you write. Sometimes the point of disagreement is subtle but no less important than a glaring one. And sometimes you slip in a whopper in there among the usual truisms that makes one question alterior motives. But I have yet to see you defend a statement without using cliches designed and honed no doubt over the years for the garden variety simpletons. When that doesn't work, your next strategy is to turn it into a mud-throwing contest and move on. I don't mind if you ignore my critiques of your critiques. I will simply insert my corrections whenever I have the time and the inclination. I am sure you have enough admirers to get you through your day.

Garo, can you actually comprehend what you read? An anti-intellectual (and he doesn't even know it) in awe of a pseudo-intellectual. That's truly humorous. You made my day.

If the quote you attack is incorrect, it means that Armenians are uncivilized, peace-hating, bloodthirsty imperialists. Does that sound right to anyone with any semblance of objectivity? Here is a nation that, in its 3500 year history had 15 years of imperialism, during a power-vacuum due to the implosion of the Seleucid kingdom. I for one am no admirer of Tigran "the Great". I am however a fan of objective evaluation of empirical evidence history supplies. Ah, that's easy. First of all that's because what passes for "community leadership" is composed of a few well-meaning but largely clueless souls who can't even answer the simple question "what's the point of remaining Armenian". They think glorifying the few instances of "glory" of the kind standardized and valued by their host cultures as "merit" is the best way to prove our worth. Pathetic indeed, but has nothing to do with demonstrating that " Armenians are uncivilized, peace-hating, bloodthirsty imperialists". It just means we have a long way to go for real self-reflection and analysis. It just means we are too clueless about our own merits, as well as faults. Maybe we are too busy cooking and eating. Indeed. The trick is to never aspire to it. When I say "aspire", I mean "really aspire". Not to pretend to aspire to it, mind you. Not to say it would be really nice to have such power. But to really lust after it, to have a natural tendency to organize in pursuit of it, and to be willing to risk life and limb in that pursuit. That, you will find, is rather absent in Armenian history. Those individual Armenians who had those tendencies did best when they joined other people's empires and served them. Armenians collectively have only rarely coalesced in pursuit of other people's lands and wealth. Simple observation. Not propagande. Not wishful thinking. Just cool-headed observation. While I love the fact that Armenians have not been an imperial people, I dislike the corrolary of that trait. They also have not produced enough adventurers and risk-takers.