THOTH

quote:Originally posted by Accelerated: Point being - I do not buy the argument that morality only exists because of Christian teachings/dogma. This statement is entirely incorrect - IMHO. All societies/religions/peoples are possesed of moral and immoral elements (in varrying degrees - though human nature is human nature - and some obviously need more "guidance" then others and in certain societies where these definitions (laws/accepted practices/degree of social control exhibited from group to individual - often at family level and often by example) are less the norm you will see more [what may be commonly viewed as] abberrent behaviors). Obviously also there are variations in customs and what might be viewed as acceptable behavior differes somewhat from group to group (doesn't necesssarily mean that one way is right and the other wrong). Though i think there are certainly many common norms. In fact your dinking/partying would be heavily looked down upon by many who consider themselves "true" Christians (a pretty boring/sad lot really, for the most part...though not without certain virtue I admit). [ July 25, 2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

Well Accelerated - Let me just say that I am the last person to be an apologist for the Aztecs - they were a brutal abberation - IMO - a tribe forged from persecution - alien to the area where they eventually established (as basically a thocratic-military elite) - seems to me every group with similar background ends up pretty twited. (ie - Mongols etc) That being said the practice of cannabalism and killing in the name of religion are actually pretty widespread phenomonon (and as I early demonstrated existed in the Bible - and somewhat sanctioned by Jehova/Yahwe). And to furthur show that Christianity has had similar (gross) morality to the Aztec let me just mention the examples of the Inquisition, various supression of heretical sects (such as the Albegsians (sp) in France, and of course the conquest, enslavement and suppression of other cultures in Africa, Asia and the Ameicas - all done under the auspicies of the Chrisitian cross - I suspect one could easily make the argument the more have been killed in the name of Chriatianity then all the other religions of the world (in history) combined. I expect you to concede this point. Of course initially we were discudssing morals among individuals (it seemed) not overarching societies - and in this case I still maintin that most all people share very similar moralities - with certainly some cultural variations. The like of the 10 commandments and such are seen in most other societies (except maybe where they reflect the conceit of Jehova/Yahwe). You must remember that by and large - most of the (early) old testament is borrowd and summarized (with emphasis changed to reflect the self-centered Jehova/Yahwe perspective...though it was another God actually - forgot his name at the moment - begins with an "E" I think - but it will come to me) from earlier Summarian legends - other parts from Greeks, Egyptians, and others - this is well proven. I suggest you read some comparative mythology sometime Joseph Cambells books in particular. (Hero with a thousand faces, Occidental & Creative Mythologies - etc)

Oh - and Accelerated - concerning your contention about the Aztecs being unique - i came accross the following: HE SUPPORTS HUMAN SACRIFICE: Ex. 22:29-30 says, "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for 7 days, but give them to me on the 8th day." And Lev. 27:28-29 says, "Nothing that a man owns and devotes to the Lord--whether man or animal or family land--may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death." He also permitted human sacrifice according to Ezek. 20:26, which says, "I let them become defiled through their gifts--the sacrifice of every firstborn--that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord." HE ORDERS CANNIBALISM: Lev. 26:29 says, "Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughter shall ye eat." Jer. 19:9 says, "I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives." Ezek. 5:10 says, "In your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds." Isaiah 49:26 says, "I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine...." And in John 6:53-54 Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...." LOL!

Nairi - I have to disagree with you. Just because I reject someone's particular view does not proscribe any particular view that I might have - only that I do not buy into theirs. If I say that I don't believe in Santa Clause how does this proscribe a particular world view or such on my part? It only says that I understand certain things to be fairy tails or such that are not true. After that it is entirely wide open as to what I may or may not believe. Obviously we all make certain assumptions concerning the validity of the reality of what we are exposed to - so on a certain level this cannot be avoided. But to claim that one is necessarily buying into a particular belief set only because we reject a certain set of beliefs doesn't do it for me....

An interesting article on Deism writtn by one of the USA's founding fathers Thomas Pain. BTW - it is a myth that the founding fathers of the US were Christian - this is largely untrue - they were mostly Deists. (which ends up being closer to being a Daoist then a Christian - and by a long shot) http://www.deism.com/paine_essay01.htm And more on Deism http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm [ July 24, 2002, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

Just thought this might be of interest to some here - it concerns some of Albert Einstein's thinking on the nature of God, religion, etc http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/einst...tein/index.html

quote:Originally posted by nairi:we all feel the need to believe in something beyond our control so that it can give us some sense and direction. I am not afflicted with this particular shortcomming. Instead I am very accepting of the knowledge that in fact there are many things beyond my ability to know (and I have no need to invent constructs to explain such in order to satisfy my lack of proper explanation). I admit it is enjoyable/intruiging to speculate and investigate (to the extent my limited ability/perception allows) - but I do not feel the need to assume that I truly know any answers. (and its certainly not something to get anxious over - or kill someone for...etc). I know that I am unusual in this. Perhaps its because I (inately?) know some things that others do not...LOL

Nairi - Well said (as usual) However I disagree on your depiction of Atheists. Some of them (such as myself - if one would call me an Atheist - though I'm not sure that is a totally acurate description) are defined not by what they believe - but by what they reject. I think most Atheists reject the notion of this all imposing God figure (kn whatever form) - others perhaps only reject the Christian (or Judeo/Muslim/Christian) God concept and dogma associated. To reject these things is not to define any specific set of beliefs however - as much is possible outside of these two narrow concepts. I am a Daoist BTW. (at least sometimes...)

quote:Originally posted by Accelerated:I'm not really into old cars, and dont understand the obsession some harbor for them I think different people (and I mean car or car loving people) get different satisfaction out of their cars for a variety of reasons. I can see the appeal of extreme 4 wheeling - but speed and speed/manuvering etc thrill me more. I also enjoy driving on nice country or mountain roads with fresh air and nice scenery etc. And for me - my ultimate cruising car is my 64 1/2 Mustang Convertable with the 289 4 barrel. First - its just a joy to drive - lots of power when I need it - but very smooth otherwise. Its comfortable and fun (top down!) and I have a lot of history in/with the car - making it special in that regard. Also I constantly am getting compliments (& offers to buy it) - and it makes for a nice initiator for conversations with people who also appreciate cars (and you get a few nice car stories). I even enjoy working on the car (well, washing it & such - making it look fine)...and you would be amazed how it breaks the ice with people. I can drive up - park wherever I want - no one questions or bothers me - and people wil just start talking to you and be at ease - becaeus of the car. Anyway - old cars are very cool. there is history and you can admire the design and function etc. And hey - I like the new cars to - but an old car has personality...

quote:Originally posted by Sip: Note also that I think all childeren are stupid!!! Obviously then you know nothing about children. And concerning religion - etc. Someone (Accelerated?) said somthing here to the effect that the Chinese/Inca etc never dominated the world - infering that this means that there religions are somehow lesser then Christianity under which (for the most part) European civilization has spread accross the world. Well - several things here. Do we really equate power with truth? (might makes right - etc?) If so then perhaps the powerful Turks should always be considered in the right and the weak Armenians contribution to humanity should always be considred as worthless - etc. And I can just see things 2,000 years from now - when we have adopted some new religion and are looking back on planet earth from some far off solar system and someone makes this statement: "Well Christianity was certainly no good because all the Christians were able to do was dominate a world - they never took over the whole galaxy as we have." points being that in fact Aninet China, the Incas, the Sumarians etc did dominate their worlds to the extent that they were known (foot/sail/wagon etc traffic being more slow then jets etc) and , again, what kind of standard is this might makes right argument anyway. Certainly one can make many arguments concerning how christianity fueld the mercantile revolution and made possible all of the technologies and achievements of today - etc (likely a good thing - though the jury is stil out). But this doesn't mean that Christianity is true - only that its belief set allowed for an environment where humans could achieve certain things. IMO we always make the mistake of seeing ourselves as being at the end of time. The jury is still out dude - and the changes (which are becomming even more rapid) are going to lead to something that we cannot even envision. Admittedly Christianity has had a certain amount of longevity - but it is clear to me that it is (and should be) soon eclipsed and our worldview is soon to expand beyond our little planet and who knows what we may uncover. And in the meantime humans continue to evolve (even artificially), machines get faster/more capable/(and will get) more alive and the bacteria keep on feeding away...

Well, obviously, this is a very complicated issue (for any thinking/feeling Armenian). Of course we can never forget our history and how the Turks as a group (or perhaps a group, or groups of Turks) treated us (our families/people). In remembering the atrocities visited upon our kin it is of course very hard not to feel hatred toward the perpetrators - particualrly in light of the lack of contrition on the part of those who did such and a lack of any (for the most part) aknowledgement from their descendents. I am often driven to rage when I read or hear accounts of the Genocide and when I read or hear the denialists - attempting to blame Armenians for their fate or making various excuses or in just failing to show any sympathy for what obvioulsy is something that is painful to me and to asll of us. (and it seems so obvious as to what occured I think - so how could it be denied and how could someone do such and feel no guilt/shame and sympathy etc) So I too have (at times) cursed the Turks as a group in my despair and have wished them ill. At the same time I think we must realize several things. All people are individuals and not just some "group" - and they deserve to be treated as such and not just lumped into a particular category that we may say they belong to. Everyone should be given a chance to prove themselves on their own merit - without predjudice. We must also be more sophisticated in understanding the dynamics of what occured in 1915 (and in previous massacres). The point being - while certainly the Turks as a people/nation exhibited certain traits/history that perhaps increased their potential to commit such deeds - the fact is that nearly any group of people could possibly commit such acts under severely stressful circumstances such as existed in the Ottoman Empire during the early part of the 20th century. And even in condemning those who did these deeds - we must understand that the Turks living today (most all of them) played no part in the Genocide or prior massacres and that most of the denial is from ignorance and misinformation and a certain natural (but perhaps exaggerated) defensivenss (and nationalism). Being phobic/distrustful or hating of the Turkish Government (or powers behind the Government) may be another matter - considering the orchestrated denial campaign and such. But I will withold that judgement at this time. I for one was never bred to hate anyone - and I don't think that hatred is ever really a good thing - it usually destroys the hater - not the hated. And is this hatred what we, as Armenians, really want to be known for? We must ask ourselves - if we are to act as those we despise (for the terrible things they have done) or advocate acts similar to those that were perpetuated against us - what makes us any different or better? (and how can we complain that what was done to us was some terrible abberation if we advocate similar?) Obviously just being "phobic" about Turks and Turkey is a much lesser thing (but I say what I do here because I know that many posting and reading this do advocate pursuing violence against the Turks and wish to reclaim lands by cleansing them of the current [innocent] inhabitants). Even this phobia and such, though entirely understandable, is something that I think it behooves you to overcome. We cannot solve anything by standing on opposites sides of a divider and glaring at one another - refusing to communicate. Communication and understanding are required for solution to any problems/issues among two or more groups or people. And there is nothing to be gained by only acting as if Turks are not worth communicating with and are strictly just thew "enemy". Armenians and Turks have had at least 700 years of close interaction and will contiue to be (at the very least) neighbors for a long time to come. All of this interaction has not been bad (even if much of it has for various reasons...[but, we must realise that people and nations change and mature]). Like it or not - we are very much like the Turks and they like us. (I fail to buy of 0n this barbaric Turks thing - particularly if one considers that the genetic make-up of the Turks is very mixed and contains many Slav, Greek, and even Armenian components). And we will not just be able to go out and "beat" the Turks and get what we want anyway - not in any scenario where we remain a moral people - as I think slaughtering lots of innocent folks (for dubious reasons) is immoral. So we must introduce a dialogue (IMO). I have known Turkish people all of my life - beginnig in high school and from then throughout my life til the present. For many years my younger sister's best friend was a Turkish gal (and this was often a bit uncomfortable - though mostly for her family). I have Turkish friends today - I have visted Turkey - and I thouroughly enjoyed the visit and the people (though the leaving out of Armenian history/contributions did certainly anger me...though not all are ignorant, nor uncaring, etc). And I made sure to let (nearly) everyone know that I was Armenian (almost did get into one fight - but it was he who brought up the issue of Genocide/massacres and insisted on the official turkish party line that it was the Armenians who were the culprits) etc. And, in fact, I am planning to return to Turkey in the very near future - and I am anticipating a wonderful visit with great food and great things to see and do - and perhaps more then one at least slightly charged discussion of things historical and such concerning our common interests. And I am not phobic towards the Turks - or refuse to buy Turkeish products or such (though I would support specific boycotts tied to certain political issues if I thought they would increase Genocide recognition or such and had a specific purpose and hope of achieving something). Bottom line you have to live and let live and you should not place artificial constraints on such, and you shouldn't be all tied up in being negative or hateful - it does you little, if any, good - IMO. And if you bothered to see, you might be surprised over just how much like you the Turks are. I came accross this all of the time the last time I was in Turkey - people and circumstances and cultural things that remined me of my own family and Armenians and Armenian situations, etc. At the same time we must never forget our history - nor let the Turks forget it (its a matter of how to approach it though, I think).

quote:Originally posted by Sip:

Accel - Religion may be a means of expressing or codefying morals and ethics (and thus passing them on) - but by definition I would say religion does not preceede these things. Much of what we hold for morality is shared by all human religions - each basically codefying what are natural human norms (obviously with some variation - as can be expected). Please don't try to tell me now that the Chinese had no civilization. And they were not always strictly inward looking though their beliefs certainy stressed the idea of Chinese civilization as the center of all things. And I fail to see how your pont changes mine - they ruled all they cared to rule and what does it matter - if we judge civiliztion by conquest then the Turks must have been the most civilized people in history - no? Prove to me that your gospel is divine. If God created everything who created God? This idea that this being God existed forever (from the void as it were) has no substance in reality - it can not be proven in any way - only claimed. And why is it just one God - not many. And what makes this God(?) so all powerful (even if she does exist?) - again - just a claim (and by humans regarding an unseen abstraction. Sorry bub - just your word against mine....

Well Seaphan I must disagree with you concerning children being stupid. I think if you ever took the time to listen to the things children say - how they proces what they observe and expres themselves you would be of a very different opinion. Obviously - as in adults - there are differences in intelligence - but lacking the full range of adult knowledge/experience does not make them stupid - in some cases in makes them smarter as much of what most adults concentrate their (sometimes meager) intellects on is pretty banal IMO. And I would put money on my 9 year old against you in either chess or checkers. In both (but the latter in particular) he can best most adults. So if he beats you does that make you stupid? Additionally of course he exhibits tremendous creativity and some of his ideas & insights just blow me away. For this and other reasons i still think you statement is in error.

quote:Originally posted by Azat:Has anyone else noticed that all of Tooth's stories about cars and trips involve cute girls? Tooth, buddy, you have to teach me how to be like you. Those were the days - for a time (years) I had some pretty serious (daily!) action (though mostly with long time steady g/f's - I never was much for the one nighter stuff)...of course I'm married now - steady & low stress (but admittedly less exiting in many ways) quote:Originally posted by Azat:[QBBy the way, driving to Ensinada is not driving to Baja. [/QB] Yea, I know that...though we ventured south of Ensenada a bit - never much into the real Baja that you refer to - more to towns with bars/clubs, etc...LOL

quote:Originally posted by Accelerated:THOTH, I bet you also wore long hair (maybe a beard) and those funny pants that widenned from the knees to the feet . Well - no funny pants... quote:Originally posted by Accelerated:Here (and now) university life isnt as politically orientated, sure you have the occasional leftie trying to teach you Marx, but most are not taken seriously. As for university life, apparently we're going to a strip joint tonight, with a few drinks I hope it doesnt lead to me cursing my self-control tomorow morning. LOL. My friends run the gamut of political orientation (then & now). In school the left folks always tried to recruit me as I often expressed (my) very radical ideas (to most folks) - but I'm my own person and don't go for most of that crap (particualry the marxist stuff). Belive it or not many of my more lefty friends think of me as some kind of a hawk/right winger/establishment type. And of course my right wing friends think I am an unabashed lefty - got to keep them guessing...

Rubo/Arghisti - Welcome i think that you will find the discussion here more satisfying (and in general more intelectual, real, fun, etc) then on Armenian Cafe (and at least the real wackos are banned from here - you know to whom i refer i think). Look forward to your contribution

quote:Originally posted by Azat:Tooth, I drive 17 miles to work each way everyday and it takes me 1:15 each way. So I just become a zombie when I get in the car and kick in the autopilot and get home. I understand. However its not so far (perhaps) that you could consider biking to work or taking alternative transportation. I did this when in LA (and I avoided freeways regardless [during rush hour] - always able to find my way around better on the surface streets. I used to bike to work from Hollywood (Grifith Park area ...I used to live right on Normandy near Franklin) to Downtown LA (6-8 miles each way). I could get to work faster then if I was driving). Then for a while hear (near DC) I biked to work 24 miles each way (even in the winter). There were no shower facilities at work however so it was tough in the summer particualrly. I'd be biking again if it weren't for the obligations to be home to pick up kids from school & such - and I carpool with my wife now....etc Oh and if you don't have the cash for a 540 (a rather large car in my book anyway...but thats just me)....you should look at the Audi A6 2.7T - a great car. I talked my brother in law into getting one (as opposed to the Lexus or Volvos etc he was looking at) and another friend of mine has one that he has tricked out to 360 hourspower. (for real) - awsome machine (even in base form).

Perhaps why I fall in love with my cars (and cars in general) is that I have such great memories made (of really good times) when I am in them. Even in my old beat up toyotas from college days...though many of those memories concern actions/interactions with female passengers... I'll have to tell you all about my nearly flying off of Hwy 1 and into the ocean as I was driving with my g/f (with her, em...head on my lap) (after a major spin out) between Malibu & Oxnard (don't rightly remember wewre on the stretch it occured - just that it was while going around a big sweeping curve with a rather large drop off on the ocean side) - and I guess my attention was somewhat diverted from the road...(some here may remember my telling of this story on another Armenian web site a few years back...). And of course its even possible to enjoy the vehical when stationary (the car that is - except perhaps some rocking to & fro)....

Ahh - Baja - used to get down there when I lived in So Cal. Would travel down there with two very unrelated groups of friends (with only one common denominator - cute girls!...actually two, now that I think of it - the popensity for us to hit a great many bars being the second thing both groups had in common). One group consited of some lefty/radical friends of mine who owned this huge (light blue) Chrysler from the late 1960s - and I mean huge - bench seats front and back - we sat 4 accross both front and back with no discomfort (with plenty of trunk room as well). And the car fit in very well in Mexico! One of the guys was married to a (great looking/dark) Mexican gal who was a green card and everyone but me spoke fluent spanish. So we almost were like locals. We toured around for several days (never got too much further then Ensenada) singing revolutionary songs in Spanish (at least they did) and drinking quite a bit. I got in two fights with Mexican guys who kept grabbing at two of the gals (blonds..one being my g/f) - in each case folks had to grab me off of them - everyone thought I was being overly sensitive and not understanding local ways - etc - hey she was my g/f - and no doubt I was a bit drunk.... The second group was mostly these lifeguards from San Diego I met up with (again - due to a gal I knew [who was also a lifeguard]. With the first group we would hit local dive bars and places that they knew (being Mexican or connected as such). With this group we hit all the trendy dance bars and bars Americans frequented (I prefered the others actually). But it was great fun as well (lots of pretty/very drunk women). For some reason we tended to have more run-ins with the federales with this latter group (we blended in better with the locals [more grungy] with the first group). Never any jail time luckily (though occcasionaly some bribes had to be paid). Oh and another vehical tidbit. One of the guys had his Bronco converted to dual use propane and had a tank fitted in the back. He could fill up on propane for a few cents on the (?)...anyway - it was significantly cheaper to run then by using regular unleaded from the states. I'm still in touch with most all of my friends in the first group - but haven't a clue as to what the others are doing these days. Oh - 3rd thing - they were mostly all San Diegans....

Azzat - perhaps we were neighbors - eh. I lived there from 1982 to 1987 - like you 2 door down from Franklin. The Los Filiz area was always nice and the Vermont corridor in particular has nice eats & such. Palermo Pizza! etc - do they still serve free wine while you wait for a pizza? Once I carried out a pizza with 2 or 3 wine cups on top of my box for the walk home - immediatly ran into 2 cops on their way to the restaurant - they saw the wine and laughed - wishing me a nice walk. Of course you know Panos pastry! (It moved after the Northridge quake I think (I was still there for the Whittier quake (right before I moved) and suffered a good deal of damage. Do you know if a restaurant called Ara's is still on Hollywood? (next to where Panao used to be). Best chicken kebabs in the world. I really loved that neighborhood. All of the Armenian grocery owners knew me and even if i didn't have money on me would just write an IOU & such. Lets see what else - Zankou chicken, Falafel Arax...ahh great food memories. I remember when the cleaned up the neighborhood in '84 before the Olympics. Chased all the whores over to Santa Monica Blvd or such - shame really - they kind of spiced up the area a bit. (though I once had to bail a friend out of jail for such....) I try to visit when I'm in town - but thats been a few years now. My impression was that it was getting more run down...perhaps it has changed - always had potential. BTW - Hollywood Toyota had banned me from test driving their cars! LOL. I just remembered that (and it keeps this post on topic!)

quote:Originally posted by Sip:Wow Thoth, never imagined you as a sports-car, fast-drivin kinda Well I'm not such an old fart as I might seem. quote:Originally posted by Sip: Talking of "chick magnets", my first car ever was a beat up, burgandy colored, 1982 Chevy Malibu station wagon. The interior was also supposedly burgendy but sometimes you couldn't tell since it was so dirty. I drove that hunk-o-junk for a couple of years ... When I would show up to school with that (highschool), everyone (especially the girls) would run in the opposite direction and hide. Well, one morning, I drove it to school, parked it as usual, got out to notice the entire street and parkinglot was filled with white smoke and everyone laughing ... I think it had busted the head gasket or something and water somehow ended up in the engine, making a nice steam cloud over and around the school area <img border="0" alt="[lol]" title="" src="smilies/lol.gif" /> That was the end of that car ... But I still LOVED it. I enjoyed every minute of driving that car. I would actually (and still do), sometimes take the longer way to get from point A to B I guess my equivilant was my old 1981 Toyota Starlet - I did everything in that car (including railroad tracks and moterbike trails!) - At one point (after 3 accidents - none even remotly caused by me) - I refused to wash the car (for several years) - its dirt was practically a 1/4 inch coating. Once when I was parked in La Joija (near San Diago...rich area) - someone actually washed the car while I was away from it....I was crushed... quote:Originally posted by Sip: As far as speed, my current car can certainly do 0-60. I am sure of it. However, I have never really been able to figure it out since by the time I approach 60MPH, I am already close to the desitnation and have to start slowing down . I can practically reach 60 by the end of my drivway (in reverse). Any day that I don't at least hit 100mph once must have been a day where I didn't drive. (well the last statement is perhaps stretching it a bit...but less then you might imagine). Of course my Mustang is my pride & joy - and I often just do the slow cruise...but sometimes I just cant help myself and must get those carbs blowing....it still lays down rubeer in first and second gear. Nothing like the sound (& feel) of that "chirp" when your driving along and can still lay a patch...(just did a nice one last night as a matter of fact). [ July 17, 2002, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

quote:Originally posted by Azat: I do not get why people fall in love with their cars. Well what can I say - you just have to be a driver I guess. Think of how much time you spend in a car (as most of us do) - better it joy time then drugery - eh? I love to drive - and I love to drive different/special cars - and I purchase cars that exite me. (again you spend alot of cash - you should get something more then just transporation - IMO). The M5 is hot - but I don't understand that you would spend for something like that if you think of cars only as transportation. (or chick magnet?) Often I think great cars are wasted on the rich. A guy I know is a driving instructor at a local track and he has stories of all of these Ferrari, Porshe, BMW & the like owners who come to these driving clinics and full blown courses to teach them how to properly drive their cars. He says less then one in ten has a clue how to properly drive their cars - or even wishes to really (many are out and out frightened to push their cars even near to what they can do). They buy these super fast - super capable cars - and for what? Status? Its requirred for admission to the country club? Such a waste I say. Once I met this French fellow - a friend of a friends - who was visiting here in the states - actually he would come here and buy used Corvettes to sell back in France - doubles his money or more on every one....anyway, he told me that he owned & drove several corvettes and BMWs (big & small) and loved to drive very fast etc. I said "oh really" and took him out for a spin in my MR2. Within minutes he was screaming for me to slow down/stop and squeezing so hard on the dashboard I thought his fingers would sink through. Anyway (after) he said he only liked going fast on straightaways! LOL. He also said he wanted to go out now and buy a Supercharged MR2 for himself because it was way more fun & fast in the curves then he could every imagine. (Of course this is very driver dependent). (So do French people always pee their pants and scream alot when they get exited?) Anyway - I'm better then an e-ticket ride at Disney. If its not tied down it flies out the window - literally. LOL...well I digress...Funny how he never accepted another ride from me (but, eh - that list is a long one...LOL)

Well Accelerated - I will second your love of (fast/nimble) cars - even if I think that your politics/social attitudes suck. I may be purchasng a WRX STi as soon as it is available here in the states (this fall?). A relative of mine already owns a standard WRX that he has tricked out a bit and it is awesome - still some very severe Turbo Lag. I love the Supra Twin Turbo - for many years my car of choice (an intended buy) - but it is no longer sold here (is it still made over in Japan? exported to...where was it that you live - some little Island in the South Sea somewhere...?)). The Skyline has never been available here - though I once saw one on the road. Nissan didn't want it to eclipse its Nissan Turbo Z (new version of that car is out now - nice - but a bit tame IMO). Another vehical that I get off on (besisde, agree/of course - the M - latest one in particular) is the Audi S4. Its just hard to justify ($15K) price difference) with the WRX around (of course the STi will be a bit more $ - but I don't think too bad - under $30k I think). Looking foreward to what Audi will do with the new S4. Anyone know when it will be comming out? Currently I own 4 cars. The out & out quickest is probably a Supercharged Toyota MR2 - with which - believe it or not - I have dusted many a Mustang GT and Corvette (to their great surprise). I run semi-slicks on it and its cornering (in dry) is practically unbeatable. Of course much of the former is attributable to the driver (me). Its particularly great on curvy mountain roads and such and I have driven it all over the country - through the Rocky Mountains - up and down the appalacians (Blue Ridge parkway) etc etc - all the while dogfighting with the motorcyclists ("You shall not pass!" * Gandalf - LoTRs). Spent 2 weeks driving around out in our great west several years ago - put over 5,000 miles on the car (mostly small wilderness roads in Colorado and Utah) - great adventure. (ended it with a 26 hour straight run - (no stops other then gas) - from Boulder Colorado to home - here near DC (T-tops down all the way). And I also own a 64 1/2 Mustang Convertable 4 barrel V8 - mint/show (original) condition - with less then 50,000 miles on it. Enough said. My daily drive is a Mazda Millenia - Supercharged - also a much hotter car then you might imagine (for a family sedan). In fact it is a 3 time road rally race winner - up against BMWs (incl an M3), Mustang GTs, Volvo Turbos, Volkswagon Gtis and an asundry of other vehicals. And in fact this year (this weekend actually) my team is sponsoring the very same rally event (sponsorship shifts every year with first offer going to previous years race winner. As for 4 wheeling - it looks like great fun - but for me speed is the thing. In the past I have done faux 4 wheeling (with various 2 wheeler) - again you might be surprised - certainly I could never do the ground clearence olympics or the verticals (but to the cars limit) - and again I surprised lots of folks. I can remember once out in California (north of the Mojave Desert a bit - (Red Rocks canyon I believe) I surprised a rail car driver by tailing him at 60mph in a wash (sand) in my Toyata Starlet! Those were the days...

TB, MJ - thank you both for such stimulating discussion. You have covered so much here (and I have been away and just now have read it all in one chunk) that I would not know where to begin to comment. Still I supose I should attempt to write at least something clever/worthwhile...to at least attain a Boghos level of participation in your mostly two way conversation...and perhaps garner a passing reference). There are many unresolved issues that the two of you have surfaced (an understatement). One (in my mind) is the whole dilema concerning what comprises a "nation" - is it just a conciousness by a group of being a member of some specific (larger/somewhat homogeneous) group? or is this insufficient and is some central authority (state?) (or theme - religion and/or defining event [ussually some sort of heroic defense of the neigborhood, etc]) required? I don't necessarily think that the latter is required (though without such it is difficult (and in the case of Armenians pretty amazing) that such a group consiousness/association can/could have been manintained over such a long period and under such conditions (of occupation and the like). Which leaves me to think that both of you are perhaps rather diminuising (is that a word?) the role of the Armenian Church in perpetuating this identity. (though [being non-Christian in belief] I most fully appreciate why you are aprhensive and reject the church definition for an answer to the "Is one an Armenian" question for today... I am curious to know (and don't know the answer) to the question of just how many years/centuries/milenia (etc) prior to the advent of Christianity (300 or so AD/CE) did Armenians consider themselves as Armenian - and distinctive (culturally/racially?) from other Uratuans/Anatolians/Caucasians and other passers-by....I know of the existance of Armenian events/leaders/religion etc prior to this period - but can't say for just how long this distinctive period was and when it began (if known). And might "we" have been different then - more "State" orientated (of course this term ussually meant some form of monarchy - heavy handed rule...I mean much before this we (humans in general) were really anarchists in the true sense (of association/allegience).... Even in rejecting this concept of an Armenian necessarily being a Christian I can't help but think that without a (national) Christian identity though these past (nearly) 2 centuries - there would be no such thing as an Armenian today (called or thinking of him/herself as such). Which is why I have often said (in recent years) that in order to maintian this concept of being Armenian (disting from everyone/anyone else - if we really at all care to) - and considering the failing of Christianity today (where to begin eith this one....perhaps just take my word for it...) I have been saying that all Armenians who wish to remain in the "club" - as it were - should conceive of and join some entirely new (and very distinct) religion that we can use to clearly distance ourselves from the rest of the (not worthy) masses of humanity....(besides I hear that there may be some money in it...) Briefly a few other points (or more rightly questions)... Just how unique (strong?) is the Armenian family compared to that of other "cultures"? And why would someone with such strong family association neccesarily think of themselves as part of "X" group...and not just a Hatfield or McCoy? I think we need to better define this concept of the "peaceful" Armenian. I tend to see this (supposed) phenomonon more as a result of a strong agrarian basis (thus simple/non complex heirchicaly evolved culture - structurally) and without the need for leadership (to organize raids and such as nomadic folks might do) and at the same time Armenians (historically - with some exceptions) seem mostly non-Urban - also lessening such (need for) heirchy (and lessening the type of ambition which goes with such). Its such a contradiction though that Armenians seem to like to give advice and tell others what to do (on the micro level) but seem to have little or no interest in doing such at a macro level (and never take to listening to such advice [directly])...LOL And back to the original issue - ease for a young person (in the Diaspora) for being Armenian...Is this concern ease (of growing up) in general (as an Armenian) or of being (becomming/maintianing?) as an "Armenian" - these are perhaps two different things. And I likely do not understand enough to appreciate (particualrly the latter) - but certainly - to some degree - my belief is that (for most) it is easier now then ever before (even with the myriad of pressures and distractions to assimilate. My observation is that American culture is far more acccepting now of ethnic diversity (and maintaining ones ethnicity) now that it ever has been (and I suspect this is perhaps even more true in Europe). Also there are many more avenues to express this and to learn about ones background and maintain a larger community (the internet for one). In the past the Church played this role (and still does it seems - though it also seems to be failing in this role)...And simultaniously maybe the idea of what it is to be Armenian is also evolving and perhaps expanding just a bit - eh? And I have always maintained that if the Diaspora and Armenian identity were worthwhile things - provided something - then they would survive. If they do not - then they will not. All of this concern by various Armenians that we will all assimilate and there will be no more Armenians seems to me like wasted breath. If it is worthwhile it will survive - and if one cares enough they will make the effort. [ July 08, 2002, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]