Twilight Bark

I think the order/disorder way of defining evil would not work. It would not correlate all that well with our intuitive sense of what constitutes evil. How about this one: Anything that reduces our freedom from its maximum possible level. By "maximum possible" I mean a level that would allow as much freedom as possible without trampling on other individuals' freedom. I would view anyting that unnecessarily reduces my freedom as evil.

I think what she had in mind was a more thorough work, comparable to or better than "real", published dictionaries. At least that's what I had in mind.

It's not the ideal place. But it may nevertheless be the best place; I don't know. And I don't think it would take too much space. Text is pretty lean compared wih graphics. But now I am giving away somebody else's hard disk space, so I should stop here.

The urban dictionary site seems a little too anarchic, which is just fine for a slang dictionary. I think we need the discipline and stuffiness of a bunch of "editors" if it is to remain respectable. Going with the theme of this forum, each word would have two entries (Topics). One a technically "closed" one (modifiable by the editors) that gives the most recent consensus definition, examples, etc, and one for submitting opinions and proposed definitions and example sentences. As you suggest, a site dedicated to the project could be made optimal for the purpose in the "technological" sense. On the other hand, with a little work, this forum probably has enough flexibility to set up the project, and it has the advantage of already existing with a core group of participants. In any case, I would not want to impose work on anyone, as I would not be able to contribute much "labor" myself. I am just expressing a few quick thoughts.

Want to? No. Because I am a working stiff and a busy parent just barely able to keep up. Would like to have been able to? Yes. But that doesn't do much good. On the other hand, we have all the basics of such a project right here on this board. A new "Section", say "Armenian Dictionary Project" can be opened, and each word would be a separate "Topic". It would have its own set of "moderators", which would essentially be the equivalent of "editors".

With a hasty reading, I could not find any blatant misstatements outside of the mainstream view, other than the "direct ancestors of Chechens" bit. I don't think they are claiming the Urartu to be Turkish; they are just not acknowledging that they formed a big part of Armenian ancestry and culture. But then, even plainly Armenian, more recent things are left, ahem, unmentioned in Turkey. It would be a bit much to expect them to mention "the A word" on their own. I for one will be grateful enough if Turkey stops flooding archaelogically important areas under dubious "hydroelectric projects". I also hope that any "uncomfortable" archaeological finds that might support the connection of the Urartian and Armenian cultures are merely kept in a secret room somewhere rather than destroyed. Expecting any more than that at the moment would be unreasonable.

Four models: Private enterprise No money in it. Won't happen. "Benefactor" model It's time to move beyond it. State-sponsored The state institutions, rather people in them, are sponsoring only themselves at the moment. Open-source The only feasible way at the moment. If you build it they will come. Once an open source dictionary takes momentum, the "official" types, typically in shock and horror of what they feel are inaccuracies will hopefully get off their behinds and start contributing. One can only hope.

Dear Arpa, I'll try to be brief for lack of time. "Modern concept of nation" is self-evidently "modern"; we all agree on that. So it doesn't apply to any nation's historical existence before 19th century. I don't know why we should care much about whether our collective self-consciousness in August 12 of 1024 or a fine morning in Hayasa around 1350 BC resembled the 19th century european thinkers' idea of what constitutes a nation and "nationalism". Our "nationhood" and culture evolved and changed over millenia; big deal. I don't buy the self-serving definitions of european colonial culture classifying "nations", "ethnicities", and "tribes". Just as I think it is up to the individual to declare what s/he is, it is up to the particular people in question to declare and define what they are. If they declare themselves as an "ethnicity", that's what they are. If they do see themselves as a "tribe" in the derogatory sense of the word, that's what they are. If they defined themselves as a "nation" even when they lacked what the "big boys" thought as a prerequisite of "proper" nationhood, then they were a "nation". I am not going to get my definitions from those that read "Jack and the Beanstalk" to their kids as a bedtime story. Finally, the fact that our self-image is still based largely on kinship and shared values does not make it incompatible with the modern concept of "nationhood". Sorry, have to go now. Later, TB

Anonymouse, "There is some truth in it" means that we are not entirely different, but have inevitably undergone further "mixing". I don't know if that bothers you, but it doesn't bother me. As for cherrypicking "evidence", focusing on a few muslims that may have assimilated into Armenians does not all of a sudden mean that the whole concept of Armenianness lost its meaning. Such a stance reflects more a mindset that took a 180-degree turn from expecting absolute purity, coherence, and profundity from his "nation", and upon seeing that it cannot be so, rejects the whole notion, without allowing for any nuances and grayness, or a natural evolution. To suggest that Armenians existed without a collective consciousness that can be called a "nation" until 1991 or 1900 is folly. They did not, and still largely do not fit into the european notion of "nationalism", but that's a good thing. Unless you are only able to define nation narrowly with a single tyrant at the top, ruling the whole collective by himself, with a strong army and the rest. That fits the european idea of a "nation", and I feel under no obligation to follow it. And I wish you could provide any evidence for your claim that we only have traces of ancestry from 500 BC (and I would like to remind you that Yervantids are not the beginning of Armenian national coherence; it goes back to at least as early as the time of Hayasa, 1350 BC), and that people came in and went out of Armenian collective in such numbers as to render any meaningful tie to the "original" Armenians nonexistent. While I agree that it is the case for Greek and Turkish cultures because of their imperial and dominating natures, I reject the notion that the same applies to Armenians. The incentives were not there. Of course there were exceptions, but the overall flow of people was overwhelmingly from Armenians to non-Armenians, not the other way around. You can be objective without taking extreme stances. That is to say, the sign that you are on the right path is not the "discomfort" you sense from Armenians. That discomfort can be caused by false beliefs, or simply by being ill at ease with an insinuation that is illogical. If you are not following my reasoning, that means we are talking past each other, and that we better stop discussing the issue since both cases have been made as properly as time allows.

Yes, I now just shake my head and move on when hear/read "Oh we were these blond, blue-eyed people, and then ...." or variations thereof. I also agree that the question of "origin" is almost always misformed. Often, people take the anthropological route, which of course leads straight to Africa, along with the rest of humans. Ho hum. However, there is a well-posed question of Armenian "origins": when was the first time that a nation calling itself "hay" formed? I tend to associate it with Hayasa-Azzi, simply because the name fits, and it is the first time that the name by which we call ourselves is recorded. And Khorenatsi, when filtered and interpreted properly (i.e. not literally) is in fact consistent with much of independent sources. As for today's Armenians not being anything like the ancient ones, there is probably some truth in that, although "nothing like" is too strong. Culturally, we certainly transformed into an almost unrecognizable form (but then, which nation hasn't?). However, the lack of interest in dominating/subjugating the neighboring peoples and minding our own business appear to be consistent themes for much of Armenian history. And if "nothing like" is meant in ancestral terms, I have to disagree. We may be different even in our physical features for all I know (although I doubt it), but the reason is not necessarily that the original Armenians got replaced by newcomers. We certainly have undergone a "selection", in which those individuals and families more in tune with the invading imperialistic cultures opted to assimilate into them. We are what's left of that "selection", and in that sense we may be considered "different".

Dear Anonymouse, Welcome to the forum, and thanks for bringing a good intellectual level with you. A few quick comments: One can overdo in his zeal for objective self-evaluation. For example, our ancestral link to the ancient Armenians are not as weak as one might surmise from your prose. The reason is quite simple, there was not much incentive for other groups to melt into Armenians for much of our history. Armenians, on the other hand, were a constant source of "recruits" to the stronger cultures surrounding them. One possible exception is the Assyrians. Being weaker than Armenians for much of "recent" history, I believe they assimilated into Armenians in large numbers. Whether that was a "recycling" of old "recruits" is another matter. One can also overdo the reasonable urge to compare the Armenian case with others. For example, the examples you provide are not quite comparable. They are either imperialistic cultures, or a perennially diasporan one that claims and promises profound religious "rewards". All of them are much more prone to swallowing up huge numbers of people from other peoples. Armenians did absorb others, but not at that rate. As for the "national consciousness", it is hard to argue against the notion that modern nationalism is, well, modern. However, the existence of a single language (admittedly with numerous dialects), and more importantly the single name they called themselves suggest something more profound and fundamental than simply a bunch of villagers trying to get by (which, of course, they were). The political disunity (which is a misnomer since all it means is that none of the local tough-guys outfoxed or outmuscled the others for long) was an idiosyncracy on top of a single "people" that saw themselves as such (since they called themselves by the same name, and not because the local tyrant told them to, or because they adopted a religion that dictated it). Armenian national consciousness has never been "theoretical" or "abstract". It has always been rooted in kinship and shared values. That is not a cause of concern, or a surprising finding. Our "nationalism" is still not nearly as "abstract" as the European kind. And it is all the more sensible because of it. Sorry if my quick thoughts did not come across as very well organized. I never have time these days.

Hmm, how can we put that in a corporate context though?

Azat, come on, we are joking. Bad humor still belongs in the Humor section, does it not?

* Reading 20 minutes of Ara Baliozian a day makes you as deep and well-rounded as you'll ever need to be. * You are the most valuable employee, unlike the other idiots

Thanks for your agreement, but the lack of viability has nothing to do with any ratios. It is as simple as a tree cut off from its soil and roots. As for your hostility towards "eastern" Armenian(s), I cannot relate to it all, and find it both repugnant and dishonorable. Cultural suicide is your personal choice. However, calling it an "honorable death" is delusional. You should be aware of that and make your choices accordingly.

A few quick thoughts: As painful as it is to "western armenian" speakers, it is time to face the reality that "western armenian" has no future. It has no future for the obvious practical reason of being cut off from its land. And it would have no future in its current form even if the lands where it was once spoken were miraculously populated by western armenian speakers because it would create a counterproductive linguistic friction between them and the "eastern" armenians. In that highly hypothetical situation, the belated effort to take the best of the two versions (and why not, some features of Grabar/Krapar) and slowly guide the evolution of the language towards a "reconciled" form would seem more obvious. All well and good, but that's fantasy. "Western armenian" has only one function today: it allows the speakers of that dialect to teach their children a version of Armenian. Hopefully, when Armenia becomes the economic, artistic, and technological powerhouse of her region (I wish this didn't sound like a cruel joke), those children will be able to find a place there owing to their exposure to a version of Armenian, as opposed to none. I love my "western armenian" for the simple reason that it is the language I heard in my household as I grew up. However, it would be foolish of me to ignore the reality on the ground. And, I do have at least one gripe about it: it lacks a "present continuous tense", not counting the colloquial -gor suffix. But that's another topic.

????

One would be right to suspect the presence of little green oilmen if the climate change was uncharacteristically sudden, say one or two hunded years. On the other hand, if an attempt is made to equate the natural climate cycles, the shortest of which take at least thousands of years, with the possibility of artificial climate change over a hundred years, one would be right to suspect the presence of truly little people on planet earth.

Sorry, I missed this "indirect reply", since I usually check this thread when somebody other than Mr. Baliozian posts something. The little snippet Mr. Baliozian wrote has such a high concentration of misconceptions, straw-man arguments, and incoherent thoughts that I really have to push myself to address it without brushing it aside. The simple, obvious fact that the ancestors of today's Armenians have never been imperialistic has nothing to do with choosing to be losers. They did not choose to be losers. They chose to remain Armenian, and chose not to be imperialistic. Plenty of Armenians did choose to become imperialistic, by way of assimilating into the Turkish/Kurdish element. Plenty of Armenians are still making that choice by assimilating into their host cultures, and by buying into their new national mythology based on past (and sometimes present) "imperial" glory. What is the point of turning Armenians into yet another imperialistic culture, or lamenting that it has not been one? If it is the physical welfare of Armenians that is the issue, individual Armenians have always had the choice to be become imperialistic by simply assimilating into any one of the invading jerks. Look no farther than today's "imperialistic" Turks; they include millions of descendants of Armenians who did just that. All too often, when a "reform-minded" Armenian opens his mouth, what comes out is some pathetic road-map explaining "how to become more Turkish than the Turks". Well, we always had that option, hadn't we? What's the point of becoming Turkish in all but name? I readily accept that, in the "old days", becoming imperial was probably the best way for national survival, when the nation was constantly surrounded with (or often swallowed by) imperial powers. We somehow managed to squeak past total extermination despite our refusal to turn our culture into an imperialistic one. Today, however, it is both too late to take that route, and counterproductive by way of losing, yes, the "moral high ground". That we have, even if that made us "losers". If we turn away from it now, we will be losers AND pathetic, lousy thug-wannabes (much like the "geek" that wants to hang out with the "jocks"). That is not an improvement. As for a benevolent empire. The United States is the only example one can possibly conjure up in that regard. Not only is the US a glaring "exception" because of it being founded on "ideals" rather than an ethnic group or the authority of a dynasty, but its history is full of hypocrisy, genocidal campaigns, utter disregard for human dignity, unabashed expansionism, and raw jingoism. While the US has been (mostly) a force for good for much of the 20th century till now, its founding, history, geography, and size makes it one of a kind. To suggest that today's Armenia can become a benevolent empire akin to the US is too ridiculous to be funny. As for the pointless lamentation about the past, the "best" that Armenians could do in their region and circumstances was to become more or less like the Turks (without genocide), Romans, or Persians. And many did. But that brings me back to the beginning of my argument.

The shaman would deserve the prize if he invented a groundbreaking medicine. Whether he had to spend 900 million dollars in modern labs (where the process of coming up with candidates is still far from "scientific"; it is a horrifying art form), or was inpired by Manitou doesn't matter. The thinking process of a "modern" scientist is a lot more chaotic than the paper s/he eventually publishes on it would suggest. As for Damadian, he was rejected because he apparently broke every rule of decorum there is, and then invented a few more ways to irritate the establishment. Of course, the requirements for a Nobel prize does not include being nice or agreeable. It also does not impose any religious requirements. His beliefs in an area outside of the particular accomplishment under consideration should be utterly irrelevant. It's not a beauty contest, and it's not a test of overall self-consistency of one's life. It's about whether he invented or discovered something extraordinarily important for humanity. In the end, what this episode proved is that the Nobel committee shares human flaws with the rest of us and was unable (as it should have) to ignore the fact that the candidate appeared to be a wacky jerk (he may be sweet guy with a golden heart, but the "jerk" appearance was real enough). Whatever the workings of their minds had been, Damadian's manners and religious beliefs should have had zero influence in the committee members' decision. I am not saying he necessarily deserved the prize. But I am saying that those factors should not have been considered at all. Your statement lacks both logic and compassion. I wonder if there is an award for that.

I think we all have had enough with paradoxes for now. But, on the other hand, since this is a question about an action, it's not a real paradox; it can be translated into a sequence of actions, however silly they may turn out to be. The barber should simply follow his algorithm: When it is his turn, his status dictates that he should bring the razor to his face, and as soon as he starts shaving he should stop and lift the razor since his status changed. Then he should repeat this process until he collapses out of exhaustion and fatigue. .. and then the mayor comes, calls the whole thing off and says "Well, he only has himself to blame for it, doesn't he?". The schoolteacher of the village agrees to tutor the barber on basic logic and common sense, in return for a free daily shave for a year.

Upon further reflection, I am not sure the statement "Those who speak know nothing" qualifies as "false" even under binary logic. It cannot be proven to be false. And it cannot be proven to be true. We appear to have decided in this thread that what is not proven to be true must be false. I don't think that's quite right. It's a statement whose truth cannot be determined. It's either a paradox or an "indeterminate" statement. In both cases it has a complete lack of information. Those who speak know nothing --> I know nothing --> Those who speak may know something --> --> Possibility 1: The speaker of the original statement knows something (paradox) (fuzzy truth value = 0.5) --> Possibility 2: The speaker of the original statement knows nothing --> Possibility 2.1: The original statement is true by chance (truth value = 0) --> Possibility 2.2: The original statement is false by chance (truth value = 1) --> Fuzzy truth value of Possibility 2 = (0+1)/2 = 0.5 ---> Fuzzy truth value of the statement: (0.5+0.5)/2=0.5 I would like to end my contribution to this amusing thread (thanks Armat), by maintaining that it is important to distinguish falsehood from paradox, and to know why we regard something as not true (is it because we know it to be false, or is it that the statement is not justified but not necessarily false?). Failing to master those "niceties" allows us to be manipulated, or become unwitting participants in manipulation. Even if we make mistakes in our logical process, the act of striving for logical judgement already makes us less prone to manipulation.

... , that statement may or may not be true. Knowing nothing implies that he has no information. But even with no information he will be right half the time (about true-false problems). That conclusion (that the given statement is false in the strict sense) is correct, but not because of contradicting the initial assumption (which it does, and in the absence of other logical results, that would make it paradoxical, not false), but as a matter of simpler linear deduction. I have a feeling that fuzzy logic experts would find a way to make it half-right (after all the statement is false not because we know for sure that those who speak may know something, but because we have no idea if they may or not). But I won't go there.

Phew. Glad I didn't get involved in the hostilities. Also glad that the version of the ambiguous original problem I "solved" was not considered by any of the warring factions. Please leave it at that. A few quick thoughts to add: Since we are asked to choose "true" or "false" (or "other"), we are forced to start with taking the statement at face value ("true"). If the question were "I am a redhead", or any other simple assertion, the only reasonable answer would be "other" since we really don't know. But that's not in the spirit of the question. The fact that the statement was more complex does not detract from the necessity to start with the assumption that it is true. So, while it is perfectly reasonable to test two assumptions and see where they lead, the spirit of the question really dictates that we only start with assuming the statement to be true and see where it leads. The statement is true unless you prove it false. Or you may arrive at a paradox. Which brings me to the second point. A paradox does not imply that the statement is false. It implies that the statement is useless (i.e. without any usable information). In terms of fuzzy logic, something that isn't true isn't necessarily false. And in terms of binary logic, a paradox isn't false per se; it's not even false, it's nonsense. I think this point might have been overlooked here.

The statement in this poll is not exactly equivalent to the Epimenides paradox, but it is messy just like that one. Assuming a "strong" definition of a liar (always lies) I am Italian AND All Italians are liars --> I am a liar --> I am not Italian AND not all Italians are liars --> Since I am not Italian, now I may or may not have been a liar (my being a liar was based on my being Italian) AND depending on whether I lied, all Italians may OR may not be liars --> Complete lack of information truth value: 0.5 (no information) In Epimenides' paradox, the first question is not in the loop; it's a given. We know that he is Cretan. With a "strong" definition of a liar (always lies), we end up in an infinite loop in only one branch: All Cretans are liars --> I am a liar --> Not all Cretans are liars --> I may or may not be a liar (i.e. I may or may not be telling the truth about Cretans) Possibility 1: He is telling the truth about Cretans (i.e. the statement is TRUE) (go back to the beginning of the loop, which goes on forever); Possibility 2: He is lying about Cretans (go back to "Not all Cretans are liars", and it is perfectly consistent for him to be a liar and not all Cretans to be liars) and there is no loop. The statement is FALSE truth value: (0+1)/2 = 0.5 With a "weak" definition of a liar (lies often but not always), we end up with: All Cretans are liars --> I am a liar --> Not all Cretans are liars (although I might be) Possibility 1: He is telling the truth about Cretans just this time (but he tells lies often, just like all of them) --> His statement is TRUE (no loop) Possibility 2: He is lying about Cretans (Not all Cretans are liars) --> His statement is FALSE (i.e. He is a liar, but not all Cretans are) (no loop) truth value: (0+1)/2 = 0.5 Now a statement like "This statement is false" is a nice, little, clean paradox with a tight little loop. But the poll question and the Epimenides paradox are not as simple.