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.

Well, then. This must mean you have been right about everything you have ever written lately. One cannot think of a better and more objective criterion for infallibility.

Very subtle, dear Mr. Baliozian. Such a silly outburst is not a substitute for a rational defense of your thoughts. Quite alarming, considering that the reason for such a poisonous response was a critique of one statement, which wasn't even yours; it was borrowed. One statement out of tens of thousands! And it was not a total repudiation of it either; it was simply an elaboration over its misuse to reach an unjustified conclusion regarding the collective nature of Armenians versus what I consider superficial similarities of individuals. You couldn't tolerate even the slightest dissent, and yet you talk about tolerance. One has to conclude that you are no different from fascists or communists. You are intolerant, you use the basest and most cynical methods of propagandistic writing, and are at best after some crumbs of personal gratification. You are in this for your ego. As far as anonymity, I don't see what the actual identity has to do with anything. I didn't threaten you behind an anonymous moniker, I didn't declare that I was an important bigwig, and I didn't write anything that necessitated the disclosure of my address and phone number. If you have something intelligent to say to me, you can always use this forum, just as easily as you can apparently use this forum to say disgusting and stupid things. What is it? You want to be able to say "my pen is bigger than yours"? What other purpose would a full name and biography aim to accomplish in this particular case?

You should be the one to talk. I know my strengths and weaknesses, but this conversation had nothing to do with me. It was supposed to be a slightly philosophical discussion, but you couldn't wait to pull it down to high-school verbal bullying contest. You still can't pull yourself away from that level. It's way past time you grew up.

Bah. Of course I am accusing you of it, because it seems to be true regardless of what you have written. And in that light, one can also easily and justifiably accuse you of hypocrisy. A trait common with (but admittedly not limited to) power-seekers. Yes. I read that particular post because it was posted in a new, different thread, titled "Comment" or some such. I thought perhaps it contained something new and different from your usual output. It got reinserted into yourusual "as i see it" thread by the forum moderator. Otherwise, I don't usually bother reading teh same things over and over again. I get your drift. It's fine. It's 90% true. It's the remaining 10% that I find sometimes quite toxic. And since you cannot deal with the suggestion that you are not 100% correct (or if you are not 100% correct nobody else is either), you have never sustained a civilized exchange of ideas. Whoever traumatized you, they did a good job of making you a mirror image of themselves. Yeah.

While I dislike imperial tendencies without exception, that was not the thrust of my point. The point was that Greeks got conquered by an unsophisticated, militaristic force that couldn't even grasp what scientific thinking was about. And I have no particular sympathy towards the Greeks, especially in light of their treatment of Armenians when they had the power. Anyway, the point was that the dowfall of the Greek culture was not due to internal conflict; they always had that. And the important thing wasn't the dowfall of Greek culture per se. It was the extermination of "enlightenment" by an ignorant and simple-minded militarism. It took another 1500 years to recover from it. Who cares. Pay attention to the subject at hand. Hah. That made me laugh. Really, I am smiling as I write this. It just shows how fundamentally clueless and incapable of observation you are sometimes. Oh yes, I like contradicting, but only when I see that there is something that needs to be corrected, and nobody else is doing it. That's what critiques do. It might feel familiar to you. About tolerance. The only area where I admit I am short of tolerance is arrogant stupidity. I tolerate stupidity, if the person is nice. I tolerate arrogance if the person has some justification in being arrogant. However, the combination of the two angers me. About understanding. I don't know what you base that insult on. You have never properly listened to what I had to say as soon as you detected that I had some serious disagreements with some of what you write. And you don't seem to have read anything else that I have written here in this forum or another forum from which you stormed out (where I defended your right to express yourself by the way, and I wasn't even in the discussion at all). How on earth do you know what I understand, or cannot understand? A bunch of yes-man and sycophants? Is that what you want to be surrounded with? Is that how you want to be remembered?

We are using the word "culture" in different ways. You are using it to mean "high culture", or "original contributions to culture". I am using it in the historical, anthropological sense of representing the way of life, way of thinking, way of expressing, and the world view that come with those. In that sense, suppression simply acts as a tool to shape the course of the culture. Mind you I am not saying I like it, or that I am defending it. I am just explaining as eyes see it. Oh, about what happened to Greece. It was the bumbling imperial idiots also known as "Romans" that killed the Greek culture. There is a book titled "The forgotten revolution", that explains how Roman conquest obliterated the scientific revolution starting in the Hellenistic world in the east. They didn't even understand scientific thinking. They thought it was useless gibberish.

Indeed. If you actually read what I wrote a bit more carefully, you would realize that I said "hostility of the host culture", and NOT "hostility towards the host culture".

So have I. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. I explained the important distinction, and you come back with a simple minded monday morning team rank table. Here is news for you. All cultures use suppression. That is why they are distinct enough to be called a culture, and by a particular name. They rarely get to be distinct because they have been isolated from the rest of humanity by physical barriers. The barriers keeping them coherent as an entity are man-made and function through suppression of what's regarded as deviant. Like it, hate it, that's how it is. On the contrary, my thinking is firmly rooted in the ground, and is based on a thoughtful evaluation of observation. Sophistication and competence are confused with sophistry only by the peasants and the simpleminded. But I don't expect you to re-evaluate your self-image or anything else at your age. However, be warned that if you take a sledgehammer to the job that needs a scalpel, neither the patient nor the physician will benefit from the outcome.

This is hopelessly uninformed nonsense. The complaints above have nothing to do with billionaires. [strike 3] I withdraw from discussions with you for now, no insult intended. It's just that I don't have the patience or time. Sirov likewise, TB