MJ

quote:Originally posted by hagarag:Sip, My parents were second cousins. There are instances in my family of even closer family members marrying. Actually, I was thinking what the heck is wrong whith this guy.... Now I know.

quote:Originally posted by aurguplu: First, let me start from saying that I don’t see why Armenia doesn’t have the right to discuss border or territorial issues with Turkey. As far as Nalbandian goes, I don’t know who he is. Have not heard of him. The name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia is Oskanian. Anybody else speaking on the subject of territorial claims to Turkey is irrelevant. Additionally, if some governmental employee is making formal declarations which go against the ones made by the President, he/she has to resign first, and then make such declarations, because then it is sort of fake. The only Diasporan Armenian Minister that I know in ROA is Oskanian, whose opinions always are representative of those of the President. Armenian State is not financed and ran by Diaspora any more than Turkey is financed and run by the US, EU, the International Monetary Fund, the World bank, etc. Your impression about a lot of unhealthy Armenians is accurate. That is one of the sad legacies of the genocide. You can read the texts of the Russio-Turkish and Kars Treaties of 1921 in Turkish and French in the Web page of the Ministry of Foreign affairs of Turkey. While, I agree with you that just the availability of International Law doesn’t manifest itself enforcement of such law, and I am far from being so naïve as to believe that the legal framework is anywhere enough to resolve territorial problems. As you can understand, the Armenian side has emerged victorious in the battles for Karabagh under the circumstances of having the International Law on its side, and this problem being of much smaller scale than the one with Turkey, this has not yielded satisfactory results. However, I don’t see why should the Republic of Armenia shy away from pursuing its legitimate rights. Also, I hope that you don’t of me as being so naïve and living in such a world of fantasies that would think that Turkey would cede any territories, nor you think I am so naïve that would think that Turkey would collapse and the territories would go to Armenians, nor would think that the Kurds would rebel against Turkey, per se, and by some “smart Armenian trick” the territories subject to discussion would be donated to Armenians in a gesture of remorse for the participation of the Kurds in the Armenian Genocide, or since we “share common enemy,” or some other absurd “theories.”

I came occross the following article in the last weekend's issue of Financial Times. I think this material is worth being introduced in the Forum. ------- FRONT PAGE - WEEKEND FT: Rowing alone By John Lloyd Financial Times; Aug 03, 2002 The respect Americans once accorded to Europeans' culture, wisdom and manners has not just disappeared, it has turned into an aggressive contempt. The US, at least at the elite level, and perhaps more widely, has become seized by the idea that we Europeans are weak, whingeing and hopeless; ungrateful, mean and ignorant; guilty, cynical and exhausted. And anti-semitic. Especially anti-semitic. American Jews are numerous among neo-conservative intellectuals and commentators, and much of the belief that Europe is a nest of Jew baiters does come from the right. In one comment (among many), the columnist George Will wrote in the Washington Post that Europe "offers anti-semitism without the Jews". He continued: "Anti-semitism is a stronger force in world affairs than it has been since it went into a remarkably brief eclipse after the liberation of the Nazi extermination camps. Today, many people say that the Arabs and their European echoes would be mollified if Israel were to change its behaviour. People who say that do not understand the centrality of anti-semitism in the current crisis. The crrsrs has become the second - and final? - phase of the struggle for a final solution to the Jewish question." Of course, not all Jews believe that. The liberal literary critic, Leon Wieseltier, writing in the New Republic, chided the more hysterical commentators for believing as one had said he did that loudspeakers could summon Jews to Times Square for transportation. This was nonsense, he wrote. America was the only place, apart from Israel, that Jews could call home. But this commonensical judgment was, of course, about America. No sensible Jew would choose Europe as a dwelling place. "European nationalism," he wrote, "includes no conception of the multi-ethnic state. European culture is permeated with contempt for otherness." Even more shocking was the enrolment in the anti-European stakes of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the best-known US commentator on foreign affairs inside and outside his own country, whose book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, had posited a "social democratic internationalism" as a way of coping with the strains of globalisation - one agreeable to many Europeans. But, in a column in May, Friedman wrote that the anti-semitism coming out of Europe suggests Europeans want a lot more than an end to the Israeli occupation. They want Ariel Sharon to commit a massacre against the Palestinians, or they want to describe what he did in Jenin as a massacre, so that the Europeans can finally get the guilt of the Holocaust off their backs and be able to shout: "Look at these Jews, they're worse than we are!" Neither Will nor Wieseltier offer any evidence of this anti-Jew mania: it seems to have passed into the realm of the obvious. For his evidence, Friedman says he had shared a conference platform with a French reporter, Eric Rouleau, who said that what the Israelis did in Jenin (60 bodies recovered) was worse than what the French did in Algeria (1m killed). That was indeed one foul remark: but it is not necessarily anti-semitic as opposed to anti-Israeli: to adduce an addled French journalist as proof of European Jew-hatred is heroic in its assumptions. I found the anti-semitic charge so horrifying that I asked everyone I met if it was serious. Although some were embarrassed, they usually said "yes, they thought there was something to it". At a dinner organised by the German Marshall Fund of the US, a think-tank specialising in US-German relations and debate, a collection of policy people and commentators assembled to talk about "anti-European-ness" were, in the main, sceptical of my protests. I said the charge was based on a few instances of intellectual baseness in the UK, on the Oxford don Tom Paulin calling for Israeli settlers to be killed; the firing by Professor Mona Baker of two Jewish translators from the specialist translation magazine she owns; the boycotts on Israeli academia demanded by groups of academics and by the Association of University Teachers and on the - anti-semitism of radical Muslims, mainly in France. Wendy Sherman, of the Albright Group, the consultancy created by the former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, asked me why I had brought the subject up. "As a person of Jewish background," she said, "I found it odd that you should mention this first." "Because I found it so unfair," I said. Later, another member of the group told me that a senior EU official had said to him: "We know why the US supports Israel so much: it's because of the power of the Jews there." Many Europeans do ascribe the pro-Israeli bias of US administrations to the power and wealth of the Jewish lobby. Walter Russell Mead, a senior scholar at the Council for Foreign Relations in New York and author of a scathing attack on European valour in April's edition of Atlantic Monthly ("appeasement is Europe's second nature"), told me: "The Europeans saying that the Jewish lobby is so powerful is very like the anti-semitic argument that the Jews are a conspiracy. The lobby plays a role but it's not a huge one. Much more powerful than the Jewish lobby is the fact that this is a Christian country. Jews going back to Palestine is part of God's plan." In Washington, William Kristol, a former foreign policy aide to the Bush Snr presidency and editor of the Weekly Standard, said: "We are sympathetic to Israel generally because they seem so much like us. They take religion seriously. They are willing to fight their enemies. They are patriotic and proud of their state. They are a settler society with a dangerous frontier." I asked Gideon Rose, managing editor of Foreign Affairs, the most prestigious of America's many foreign policy journals, why this was happening. He said: "It's clear that there is an anti-Israeli bias in Europe. I don't think it's necessarily anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is a very serious charge. The Israelis believe that the Europeans would not lift too much of a finger to help them. If they had to rely on the Europeans to protect them they wouldn't be around today." As for the broader Diaspora, he said that "many Jews feel that the Europeans did little to save them during the Holocaust". I said this confused anti-semitism with lack of courage and, in most instances, courage to risk the death mandated by the Nazis for aiding Jews. He said he was not sure. Europe simply fails to empathise with the Israeli plight, It might be atoning for its colonial past, and so shows more sympathy to the Palestinians." The view that Europe is atoning for its former colonies is part of the charge sheet of many of those who feel contempt for Europe. Mead, in his Atlantic Monthly piece, writes that "when the Europeans pulled out [of their colonies] they left huge messes and deep hatreds behind them: India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Tutsi and Hutu. In business, academics, politics and military matters, US links with the developing world today generally match anything Europe has to offer." Mead's determination to assert that in no respect can Europe offer anything better, or wiser, or deeper than the US is echoed elsewhere including among those who are not to the right. One of the main themes in US discussion is that the US is dominant everywhere, and for as near to forever as is politically thinkable. "The US," write the Dartmouth professors Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth in the lead essay in the current Foreign Affairs, "has no rival in any critical dimension of power. There has never been a system of sovereign states that contamed one state with this degree of dominance." But, it is not just that the US is militarily, economically, culturally and technologically hegemonic: it is also that, because of that dominance, its leaders, diplomats and soldiers regard the world from the point of view of the hub on a wheel, looking down its spokes. At the end of one of these spokes is Europe - fractious at times, but united, peaceful and prosperous. Bosnia apart, Americans are unlikely to be at hazard there now. So those who tend US foreign and security policy Cohn Powell at the State Department, Condoleezza Rice at the National Security Council, President George W. Bush himself are preoccupied with the other spokes. European leaders will still be closer to them in tradition and philosophy. But the US does not routinely route its policies for the more turbulent countries and regions at the end of the other spokes in the wheel - the Middle East, China, Russia, India and Pakistan, Latin America through Europeans to get their advice and assistance. Hegemons are hegemonic. At the German Marshall Fund discussion, the Washington Post columnist Stephen Mallaby said that "the policy gridlock now is such that US leaders spend all of their time getting a domestic consensus. The effort to seek European opinions is just too much". The American-European controversy has been described by the policy analyst Robert Kagan in an essay, Power and Weakness, which is seen in Europe and in the US as a summation of the present state of affairs. Kagan does not dwell on any real or assumed European characteristics: he sees present attitudes as a product of recent events. Both the "transatlantic power gap" and the "broad ideological gap" are products of widely differing experiences and differing responses to these experiences. Europeans have become risk averse, pacific, multilateral. Americans have not. "American military power has produced a propensity to use that strength. Europe's military weakness has produced a perfectly understandable aversion to the exercise of military power," he said. Further, argues Kagan, the European reliance on the US's provision of security means that threats - such as that of Hussein's Iraq - actually are greater for the US than for Europe. "In the Persian Gulf, in the Middle East and in most other regions of the world (including Europe) the US plays the role of ultimate enforcer - it is precisely America's great power that makes it the primary target, and often the only target. Europeans are understandably content that it remain so." This is a way of saying that Europeans are strategic couch potatoes: a view that not all European leaders would reject, especially those frustrated by European reluctance to increase military expenditure and reorganise diverse forces. But is it reflected in the US administration? Or is this - as some argue - merely a squall in the policy and commenting communities, the chattering classes, with little or no political weight? It is not a mere squall. Not only is the administration concerned about European weakness and angered by European complaints, it has quite deep divisions on how to react and bow to plan. Richard Haass, head of policy planning at the State Department, seen as the most "liberal" or pro-European voice, says that "there's very little we can do in the world unilaterally. There's almost nothing we can do better unilaterally. We may disagree on particulars - on climate warming, the International Criminal Court, and so on. In many instances, when there is a real crisis in the world, the first thing the president's staff will do is to get a list of those whom the president should call in Europe." When in Washington, I attended an event at which a foreign policy official was speaking off the record to a group of mostly business people. Nothing that was said directly contradicted what Haass told me: indeed, the official stressed bow moving were events held in Europe immediately after September 11, such as the mass march in support of the US in Germany and the playing of the US national anthem at the last night of the Proms in London. But the tone was different: it was more sceptical of European intentions, more critical of European actions. "We've drawn the straw of being the guardian of global security - unwillingly," said the official. So that when we talk about Iran and Iraq - you would have thought the Euro countries would have said - how dangerous are these states? Not to have worried so much about what we are going to do. Europe should feel threatened. I read the cables every day and Europe is threatened. This is an attack on a civilisation. Bigger than anything we have faced of this kind before. It could be London or Paris or Rome. There are days when I sit in my office and I have a parade of foreign visitors. Each one has a problem for the US to solve. And I say to myself at the end of it - how can we take on all of this? That's why we need friends and partners, to share the burdens. There are big historical possibilities now and we all need to realise them. Sometimes, when you're dealing with Russians, you get the impression that they still have a habit of global thinking which the Europeans have lost - and it makes them easier to deal with. "If we can't find a way to mobilise the countries that have benefited from neo-liberal values; if we can't co-operate, then we won't succeed. Europeans are our partners in this - our strongest partners. We've just got to pull together. We can't do it alone." But pulling together has meant, and still means, doing it with the US hand on the tiller. The US has provided security for its allies for nearly six decades. It has done so, at root, because it has defined its national interest broadly, as coterminous with the preservation of democratic states, and because it did not want another (to the Soviet Union) strategic rival, even a friendly one. Now it has no rivals, it is tempting for it to conclude that this is the best of all possible worlds. Power may have a contempt for weakness, but it also has a fear of growing power. The Europeans closest to the US administration believe there is a real, lasting problem here. I told Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to Washington (andformer principal aide to foreign minister Joschka Fischer), that Haass had said the US wanted a strong Europe playing an active role in the world, sharing the US's burdens. "Richard believes that," said Ischinger. "But they all don't. Americans think about how to implement their foreign policy objectives with the confidence of a state which can do it. Let's face it: our capabilities don't allow us to think seriously about strategic issues. But when they talk about wanting a stronger Europe, do they really mean it? Many on the conservative side are not in favour of that." Europeans worry about the effects of power they call it American unilateralism. "Engaging in multilateral negotiation," Ischinger said in a speech in Washington in May, "does not seem to be a natural reflex for, the one remaining superpower which is a continent in itself. But is 19th century realpolitik an alternative?" The answer to the ambassador's rhetorical question is, for the moment, yes. It means that Europeans are now in the uncomfortable position of being thought about, by a large part of the US elite, in the dismissive, contemptuous or condescending way in which the British used to think about the rest of the world - including the rest of Europe - when they were top dogs. That was pretty bad. So is this.

quote:Originally posted by Rubo: Anyway MJ it gives me pleasure to talk with you. I cannot claim the same. I have a strong feeling of wasting my time by commenting on the idiotic statements or "arguments" that contaminates this forum. One may ask, then why do I do it? Well, I ask the same question to myself very frequently. So I will do it one more time... Interestingly enough, the chronology above, whatever its source may be or whomever might've edited it, "forgets" to mention the culminating point of the history of destruction of our first Republic - the lose of Kars, which in my opinion is the stand-alone example of treason in the entire Armenian history. Why?

Dear Ali, While it is correct that there is no consensus amongst Armenians on the subject of the Genocide as far as the land claims are concerned, I think you have missed the crux of my statement – politically relevant Armenians do not mix the Genocide issue with the land claims. I also want to let you know that we understand that the contradictions between our Republic vs. Diaspora are going to be used by Turkey and Turks at least for rhetoric purposes, and Turkey is not going to deal with the issue unless it has no other way to go around it. As you know, states deal with states. States do not deal with Diasporas. Additionally, land claims are advanced by states and Diasporas have no relevance as far as the lands go. I also would like to point that the position of the Republic of Armenia has been crystal clear on the subject of the land claims in view of the Genocide, and as late as a year ago, the President of Armenia has made unequivocal declarations along these lines. It is obvious to any healthy person that one can not claim lands which have not been controlled by “him” for close to 1000 years based on such literary terms and myths as “Western Armenia,” etc. Additionally, there are no two governing Armenian bodies. There is one – the government of the Republic of Armenia. There is also a disappearing and chaotic entity called Diaspora, straggling for its identity and relevance – big deal. Additionally, there is only one framework under which Armenia (and not Diaspora) could present land claims to Turkey – it is the fact of the Kars Treaty (along with the Russo-Turkish Treaty) of 1921 violating the basic norms of International Law. This is also well understood by both governments and the knowledgeable people of healthy mind. Unfortunately or justifiably at this time, the Republic of Armenia has decided not to pursue the issue at least for now. Perhaps due to the understanding that in such case it has to deal with two regional superpowers – Russia and Turkey. Additionally, the government of Turkey being signatory in both treaties clearly understands its terms. It also understands that the Genocide in no way threatens Turkey’s territorial integrity. However, to deflect the public opinion inside Turkey as well as to direct the focus and the efforts of Armenians in an unproductive direction, Turkey successfully uses the fluff which comes with the Genocide claims. This way, Turkey is always one or more steps ahead of the Armenians, and it leads and manipulates Armenians the way it has successfully done for centuries. After all, it is enough for Turkey to have one statement along the denialistic lines to capture the focus of Armenians and preoccupy them with the efforts of the “denial of the denial” rather than the core issues. Sad? Sure. But this is apparently who we are. You may ask whose fault it is. I would say of coarse those who allow themselves to be treated as children with deficient brains. I have to go to work.

One has to be a complete idiot (not that it is so rare in our reality), to judge about history based on some novels. Additionally, one has to suffer from verbal diarrhea + schizophrenia to cut and paste or to “produce” an entire page of "arguments," which would contain no arguments. Or may be it is just part of a tasteless exhibitionism?

quote:Originally posted by sen_vahan:MJ, the site gives a wrong information about the title - Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church. it is simple not orthodox. The first reason why the orthodox and catholic churches are different is theological.The first reason why the arm church is not orthodox or catholic is also the same - theological differencies. (whether it was done for some political reasons is another problem). have you ever heard in Armenia the phrase haykakan ugapar ekegezi?? I guess you should read about monophysits and their heresy in the 5th century. (I think you may know all these things)And how armenians became monophysits and what was the attitude of the Orthodox Church toward monophysits. And just to remind you that there are only several so-called apostolic churches with monophysit theology.(two other in africa) My best, Vahan Vahan, With all due respect, I don't think you have studied the subject sufficiently. The Armenian Church is Orthodox and it is Catholic. There are no serious theological differences between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. The differences are of ritualistic, traditionalistic,cultural and polemic character. Additionally, while the Armenian Church has been qualified monohysitic, it has practically never been monoohysitic effectice the Nicean Councile, prior to which pretty much all Christian Chruces have been monopysitic, especially the first Century Christian Churches, which have predominantly been of Adoptionistic orientation. But if you have information that there are serious theological differences between the Orthodox and Christian Churches, I would appreciate if you could inform us - perhaps in the Theology forum. Additionally, indeed the Armenian Church is called "Hay Ughghapar Arakelakan Ekeghetsi." If someone has decided to from the "Ughghapar" term from circulation for whatever reasons, it doesn't change the situation.

I would like to rise in support of Alpha's thesis that the nationalism, especially the rhetoric nationalism destroyed our first Republic. And I think that the nationalism inflicts much damage on our third Republic, which desperately needs to get out of the narrow minded nationalistic deadlock it has found itself in. I also would like to second him in his assertion that indeed the ARF policies destroyed Armenia, though that was not ARF's intention - just the lack of competence - much like in our days. Additionally, the Kemalist attack on Armenia in 1920 was primarily provoked by the ARF policies, as well as Russia's attack on Armenia was. I would also like to remind all that while throughout most of the history Karabagh has been predominantly Armenian populated territory, it has practically never been part of Armenia. I think putting the record straight may help us to develop more adequate and competent strategies for our future.

quote:Originally posted by aurguplu: You have indeed paraphrased my earlier statement accurately. I just want to remind you another statment I have made in the past... The politically relevant Armenians clearly understand that the Genocide of Armenians by Ottoman Turkey has nothing to do with land claims.

quote:Originally posted by THOTH:Well no and no - first I didn't know that you do not drink - how is it then that Red Wine is one of your interests? And secondly I would not think to test your (or anyones) character in such a manner (by temptation) - as I do not consider being weak in this regard a flaw. If you are tempted and succumb - this is just the nature of your Dao...You are tested in other ways I think - and while I certainly sometimes disagree with your approach (and conclusions?) - by and large I am impressed with the manner in which you comment here (and agree with much that you say). Beyond that what is my interest in your character? And besides - I generally see (consumption of) red wine as an entirely good thing... Thoth, Sometimes you crack me up with your absence of humor... I am having my coffee in a Cafe now. There is a nice Wine Bar next door... Guess what...

quote:Originally posted by sen_vahan:Third, note that this thread was started with the facts by Rubo and then changed to "emotions" and useless posts. Give facts to deny (you as well as MJ) or don't read the posts, please. Vahan Dear Vahan, I think your last statement make no sense. If one would not read, one wouldn't even know what kind of facts should he/she give. Also, if you stand up for something and speak out, finish your sentence,please. Otherwise what kind of response do you expect to you? All you say, comes across like, "Rubo srtitss es khosum." From what I have seen, you have better qualities than that.

quote:Originally posted by Alla:I made it clear that I dislike the Jews and it has nothing to do with me being a phobic, schizophrenic or a primitive person. So keep yuor names to yourself, because i know a lot of other nasty words too. At least i wasn't called anti-Semite right? Let's put it this way... I also dislike you. Therefore, I can say anything I want about you or to you. Even criticise... I also suspect that I have better life than you do... By the way, don't know about anti-Semitism, but cretainly you are anti-Jew.

Vahan, I think you have not read my last material carefully. Sorry, have to go now.

quote:Originally posted by THOTH: Vahan, You should not understand my comments litterally. At least not always.

Dear Vahan, I think the following material may be found to be useful: "THE ARMENIAN CHURCH-A BRIEF HISTORY The Armenian Church is an independent Christian church, also known as the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church. Its head is the Catholicos, who resides at Holy Etchmiadzin, near Yerevan, the capital of Armenia. http://www.armenianchurch.org/c-1-armenian.jsp The Website of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America " Sorry for not being able to provide you with better references under the current circumstances. I tried to find Etchmiadzin's Web site, a reference to which I know exists in Hye Forum, but couldn't. This is the best I could come up with, for now. Please let me know if you don't find this material to be credible, and I'll try to do better job upon my return home. As far as the merrits of the issue are concerned, and if you are interested in the subject, the Armenian Church has been more Orthodox in some centuries and more Catolic in other. All has depended on which way has the Byzantine Empire leaned in the corresponding era.

quote:Originally posted by hagarag:MJ, Thanks the miserable domestic policies of your hero George W. Bush, I have had to got back to work in my old age. That is why I am not here to banter with the great King Arghisti. My investments have fallen through the bottom of the barrel while Georgie Bush's friends have embezzled billions of dollars for their multiple estates and yachts. I wish that we had the Great Fornicator back in the White House. His policies allowed me to retire at 50. Now Bush will put me on Skid Row in my so-called Golden Years. OK. Don't have time for it. But just think about the trick that your Great Fornicator played over you and others like you. On the other hand, though, you deserve it. Don't you think so?

quote:Originally posted by nairi: quote:Originally posted by MJ:Since you have to have the last words, or perhaps the last several words, I will give you the pleasure. Just get your stink out of the way, OK. So this is what you were trying to tell me yesterday. My way or no way. Another point we seem to have in common. Nairi Nairi, You knew that I have not much time at my hands today and for the coming week or so. I am out the door in a minute, in fact. Therefore, I think your last remark is a little dishonest. Additionally, why do you think that having the last word over you is such a great satisfaction for me so that I would go through such great lengths? In fact you would love to have you to have the last word. Only your word as to carry the necessary weight. Can you have such last word?

quote:Originally posted by nairi:Nevermind. Bari tchanapar. Nairi Shnorhakalutiun.

quote:Originally posted by Aghtchik: Sorry, sometimes I am a bit naive still. See, even though you are Duthch and some of us are Soviet Armenians, we still share common features - naivity in this case.

quote:Originally posted by MJ:Dear Nairi, I have an international trip ahead of me today, and have very little time. So that you answer your last question, please tell me what's the problem you are trying to solve. P.S. Funny, isn't it. I keep mistyping things. Clearly, I meant "So that you answer your last question."

Dear Nairi, I have an international trip ahead of me today, and have very little time. So that you answer your last question, please tell me what's the problem you are trying to solve.

quote:Originally posted by MJ: quote:Originally posted by THOTH:MJ - (our forum clock maker/repairer) - I (believe that I) understand your positions completely - but you too must understand the frustrations Armenians have (regarding both the Turks and Azeris - etc) and sometimes the ignorance of the traps we set for ourselves. Its just not possible to expect that all will approach (all of) these issues rationally - and thats just the way it is and is likely going to be - it is you who need to appreciate this. Being right is not necessarily being right (for all things). I commend you for going easy though (of late)...but also consider that others don't have the benefit of your perspective (or intelligence). I don't mean to imply that others here are not intelligent - that would not be a true statement - but (most) others here do not have your breadth of experience, temperment or insight - again though - your correct (?) answers may never be correct (for us). And don't assume that others inherrently know the basis for your arguments. I am very sympathetic (to your positions) of course - and am also dismayed and pessimistic - as you are - and I know I am just being very roundabout here - but I don't think you should be as quick as you are to discount (the legitimacy) of other views here - even if they strike you as horribly conventional or otherwise non-productive (etc). Thoth, Sometimes, the biggest part of the solution of a problem is the understanding what the problems is and formulating it. Then, the formulation of the problem becomes much easier. In the case of the activism around the Armenian Genocide, the tragedy is that this problem is not well formulated and therefore, it is consistently headed towards a deadlock without any meaningful solution. Meanwhile, it is producing new scores of schizophrenia and schizophrenics. This has nothing to do with my views and perspectives. I have a long trip in a few hours and have things to attend at home before then. Will be occasionally online. Otherwise... cheerios.. P.S. I meant, above,"Then, the solution of the problem becomes much easier."

We just eat khas-khorovadz and play nardi.

quote:Originally posted by Aghtchik:MJ. Are you saying that you are not familiar with a thing called blowjob? What's that, Elly? In Soviet Armenia, we don't know such words and we don't do such things - whatever it may mean.

quote:Originally posted by THOTH:MJ - (our forum clock maker/repairer) - I (believe that I) understand your positions completely - but you too must understand the frustrations Armenians have (regarding both the Turks and Azeris - etc) and sometimes the ignorance of the traps we set for ourselves. Its just not possible to expect that all will approach (all of) these issues rationally - and thats just the way it is and is likely going to be - it is you who need to appreciate this. Being right is not necessarily being right (for all things). I commend you for going easy though (of late)...but also consider that others don't have the benefit of your perspective (or intelligence). I don't mean to imply that others here are not intelligent - that would not be a true statement - but (most) others here do not have your breadth of experience, temperment or insight - again though - your correct (?) answers may never be correct (for us). And don't assume that others inherrently know the basis for your arguments. I am very sympathetic (to your positions) of course - and am also dismayed and pessimistic - as you are - and I know I am just being very roundabout here - but I don't think you should be as quick as you are to discount (the legitimacy) of other views here - even if they strike you as horribly conventional or otherwise non-productive (etc). Thoth, Sometimes, the biggest part of the solution of a problem is the understanding what the problems is and formulating it. Then, the formulation of the problem becomes much easier. In the case of the activism around the Armenian Genocide, the tragedy is that this problem is not well formulated and therefore, it is consistently headed towards a deadlock without any meaningful solution. Meanwhile, it is producing new scores of schizophrenia and schizophrenics. This has nothing to do with my views and perspectives. I have a long trip in a few hours and have things to attend at home before then. Will be occasionally online. Otherwise… cheerios…