The Armenian

[Twilight Bark]

For those who are still interested in subjects other than sexual organs and shish-kebab philosophy, let me clarify one thing before I exit this topic (which is at least not a disgrace if not wholly intelligent). I see it as comically obvious that 19th century european style "nationalism" was invented in Europe in the 19th century. It is also obvious that many elements of that "nationalism" has spread to many non-European nations, including a section of Armenians. My problem is with identifying the spread of "modern" nationalism with the concept of a self-aware nation. It is not only baseless to do that, but there is ample evidence to the contrary. "Modern nationalism" in the Armenian context is basically the "Dashnak" (et al.) brand nationalism. To say that Armenians had no self-awareness before those naive adventurers is so obviously wrong in so many ways that it is wasteful to even argue about it. Armenians had a strong sense of "nationhood" (as they understood it) and collective group consciousness; just not in the "modern" sense (and should anyone but the dimmest be surprised by that?). And in the absence of an impending danger, the natural mode of Armenian collective consciousness is still the pre-modern one. Today.

 

Please don't take my word for it; just read up a bit, and don't neglect the good old-fashioned "observation" outside the written word. Hint: European enlightenment is the wrong section of the library for the subject.

 

And finally, I have no claims (or particular pride; quite the contrary in fact) about my intelligence or contributions; contrary to what has been claimed. We all do what we can according to the various "budgets" that we have (be it cerebral, monetary, and temporal among other things). This is not about "Oh mirror, mirror, who is the fairest". However, being shallow, vain, or pompous is not something we cannot avoid, regardless of our "budgets".

[Sasun]

Well, I haven't read all of the thread but it seems that TB is talking about national awareness/consciousness which undoudtedly existed for as long as we were known as Armenians. While Anon is talking about the modern notion of nationalism which really came into existence in the last few centuries. Certainly nationalism cannot be without a nation and awareness of one's nationality. Perhaps before the emergence of the European nationalism that Anon is talking about national awareness did not take an exclusive and decisive part in political decision making. Nonetheless, I believe there was national awareness in historical Armenia.

 

I think you guys are comparing apples with oranges. But I could be wrong.

[Twilight Bark]

Well, I haven't read all of the thread but it seems that TB is talking about national awareness/consciousness which undoudtedly existed for as long as we were known as Armenians. While Anon is talking about the modern notion of nationalism which really came into existence in the last few centuries. Certainly nationalism cannot be without a nation and awareness of one's nationality. Perhaps before the emergence of the European nationalism that Anon is talking about national awareness did not take an exclusive and decisive part in political decision making. Nonetheless, I believe there was national awareness in historical Armenia.

 

I think you guys are comparing apples with oranges. But I could be wrong.

The problem with Anonymouse's assertion is that it precludes national self-awareness and the existence of an affinity for other members of the group in the absence of a post-enlightenment european nationalism. In other words, "there was no apple until orange came along". In his view, Armenians were nothing more than a linguistic group, with no collective consciousness. I would not be overly surprised to hear this opinion from an urban peasant in America or even Europe. However, an Armenian has no excuse for such ignorance. A second leg of his thesis is that, in addition to the absence of a cultural continuity of Armenian identity, even their familial continuity is imaginary. For that to hold, Armenians would have to offer such a compellingly advantageous identity to those passing through Armenia that they would assimilate into the Armenian "liguistic group". Since they did not have a "collective identity", I guess the only compelling advantage would be our beautiful language. Except that it wasn't the lingua franca of anywhere, and not the state language of any empire for any length of time; so why they would give up the "language of dominance" and adopt the "language of the subjugated" is a mystery that apparently could only be solved by reading profusely about French nationalism and European enlightenment . And spontaneous conversion to Armenian Christianity en masse by the newcomers is as likely as spontaneous human combustion. We could only wish that we offered such a compelling picture to the others that the claims of mass assimilation into the Armenian identity (so as to make an ancestral link to the original Armenians meaningless, as arguably is the case for Greeks and Turks) did not sound so ridiculous.

 

I am not sure the topic "thesis" is not part of Anonymouse's repugnant sense of humor.

Edited January 28, 2004 by Twilight Bark

[axel]

We all do what we can according to the various "budgets" that we have

 

Very true, as far as I am concerned, my english writing "budget" has been shrinking to a point it takes me almost ten minutes to write a single line (at 24, I do fear premature mental sclerosis) so that I am completely submerged by anonymouse's logorrheic posts

[Anonymouse]

The problem with Anonymouse's assertion is that it precludes national self-awareness and the existence of an affinity for other members of the group in the absence of a post-enlightenment european nationalism. In other words, "there was no apple until orange came along". In his view, Armenians were nothing more than a linguistic group, with no collective consciousness. I would not be overly surprised to hear this opinion from an urban peasant in America or even Europe. However, an Armenian has no excuse for such ignorance. A second leg of his thesis is that, in addition to the absence of a cultural continuity of Armenian identity, even their familial continuity is imaginary. For that to hold, Armenians would have to offer such a compellingly advantageous identity to those passing through Armenia that they would assimilate into the Armenian "liguistic group". Since they did not have a "collective identity", I guess the only compelling advantage would be our beautiful language. Except that it wasn't the lingua franca of anywhere, and not the state language of any empire for any length of time; so why they would give up the "language of dominance" and adopt the "language of the subjugated" is a mystery that apparently could only be solved by reading profusely about French nationalism and European enlightenment . And spontaneous conversion to Armenian Christianity en masse by the newcomers is as likely as spontaneous human combustion. We could only wish that we offered such a compelling picture to the others that the claims of mass assimilation into the Armenian identity (so as to make an ancestral link to the original Armenians meaningless, as arguably is the case for Greeks and Turks) did not sound so ridiculous.

 

I am not sure the topic "thesis" is not part of Anonymouse's repugnant sense of humor.

You have grossly misconstrued my position on this, whether consciously or unconsciously. It is precisely youre ignorance and hang up with maintaining Armenian nationalism before the idea of nationalism itself that you cannot see, nor wish to.

 

I have throughout my discussion highlighted that "self awareness" is not the same as nationalism. Apparently you haven't understood what differentiates the two and ultimately why you are confused by the issue must resort to personal attacks to compensate for your lack of understanding, or simply because you cannot deal with the fact that national history is not accurate history.

 

Just because the ethnically based "nation-states" have been called "imagined communities" and that because communities have been called "imagined" should not be dismissed or triviliazed. The process by which nationalism emerged varies from region to region. In regions lacking political organization for example Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were spread out, nationalism provided an ideology to create and augment state power, the creation of a State. When nationalism was being created in France and Germany, governments and ideologues suppressed minority languages, cultural traditions and variant memories of the past in favor of a unified national history and homongenous language that could claim to project into the distant past.

 

So in empires such as the Ottoman or the Hapsburgs, individuals identifying themselves as members of oppressed minorities used nationalism to claim the right to not only separate cultural existnece as well as political autonomy. During the middle ages prior to the rise of nationalism and nation-states, the nation along with religion, kindred, and lords provided the overlapping ways by which certain active elites identified themselves. A sense of belonging to a nation did not constitute the most important of these bonds. Nor was there any common national identity to unite the high and low, or lord and peasant. This is why Armenians in Ottoman Turkey lacked the unity as the development of nationalism was sparked off by the Armenians of Russian influence. This is why the conservative bourgeois Armenians in Ottoman society and the patriarch generally resisted change, whereas the peasant class and the revolutionaries were for change. There was no unity for "the nation" in the sense we come to understand it these days.

 

So ultimatley when Armenians of today, look in hindsight and ask the question of "why were Armenians never united throughout history?" that is because of precisely what I just outlined, the concept of nationalism was alien to them. But then again, those of us who do not wish to get a crack in our edifice of thought will stop at no lengths to maintain and create history of what it 'ought' to be, as opposed to what it really was.

[Twilight Bark]

You said, among other things:

 

a homogenous Armenian speaking land is not in accordance with history. This implies that "we have always been Armenian for thousands of years all the way from the Yervantid Dynasty to the present State". We project ourselves into the past that for some reason Armenians have always been a nation. That is untrue.

 

.

.

.

 

 

When Armenians of the present, seek to compare themselves to the Armenians of the past, and outline a common ancestry or descent and project themselves into the distant past, that is anti-historical. This implies that Armenians ( and this isn't just for Armenains this applies to all modern nations ), have always had a fixed and common identity for all time.

 

.

.

.

 

The truth is that Armenians of today, or those who claim "Armenian ethnicity" are nothing like what the Armenians of the Yervantid Dynasty were, or the Arshakhuni. Throughout its history "Armenian" has been a term that has changed in meaning. At one point "Armenians" were those who were heavily influenced and interacted with the Greeks, at another it was with the Achaemenians. Many Armenian nakharar houses are of Persian origin as well, even the Mamikonians. Then when the Umayyads attacked Armenia, there was further demographic changes. The same applies to the Turkic and Mongol invasions, and then on to the Russian influence. Throughout all its history people have changed. The fact that an a nakharar such as the Bagratunis or Artsrunis can ally themselves with an Arab emirate in Armenia, against another "Armenian" nakharar house, show the fungible nature of what it meant to be "Armenian". Likewise if an Arab Muslim can convert to Christianity and call himself "Armenian" suggests the same thing.

 

.

.

.

 

The truth his the people that have been "Armenian" throughout the ages, have changed, and as they have changed, the language has changed also because of different influences.

 

What you said was a lot more than the trivially obvious assertion that "modern nationalism is modern", which you also pontificate as if it were some divine insight.

 

I suggest you wait until you grow up, and then take up the subject with a wiser mind.

[Anonymouse]

You said, among other things:

 

 

 

What you said was a lot more than the trivially obvious assertion that "modern nationalism is modern", which you also pontificate as if it were some divine insight.

 

I suggest you wait until you grow up, and then take up the subject with a wiser mind.

What I said, is indeed more than just nationalism is modern, which you were thoughtful enough to post. What I also said is that Armenians have changed and that region far from being homogenous has been diverse. Thus mixing has taken place along with cultural changes. Thus the idea of what it constitutes to be "Armenian" has changed over time and hence you cannot pin one fixed "nation" on it. That you cannot grasp this simple is beyond me.

 

Apparently for you wisdom means resorting to personal attacks because you feel threatened oh "wise and grown up one" or that's simply where you got tired of thinking. This proves wisdom does not necessarily come with age.

[Twilight Bark]

What I said, is indeed more than just nationalism is modern, which you were thoughtful enough to post. What I also said is that Armenians have changed and that region far from being homogenous has been diverse. Thus mixing has taken place along with cultural changes. Thus the idea of what it constitutes to be "Armenian" has changed over time and hence you cannot pin one fixed "nation" on it. That you cannot grasp this simple is beyond me.

 

Apparently for you wisdom means resorting to personal attacks because you feel threatened oh "wise and grown up one" or that's simply where you got tired of thinking. This proves wisdom does not necessarily come with age.

My dear lad,

 

You mistake simple statements of facts for personal insults. You do indeed need to grow up; that is a simple fact and not an insult.

 

I see now that you retreated to "but Armenians have changed over time, haven't they?" argument. Yes, indeed. And the sun rises from the east every morning. The fact that cultures change over time, and that nations accepts brides and grooms from other cultures are well-known facts that unfortunately and inconsiderately have not waited for you to discover and convey to the rest of us. That you even compare the Greek and Turkish cases with the Armenian one is preposterous, for reasons that I explained before. Very briefly, their "lack of political success" (to put it kindly) ensured that Armenians did not act as a magnet for others to assimilate into them. That Armenians have "changed over time" does not mean "they are nothing like the original Armenians", nor does it mean that the formation of the Armenian nation waited for Dashnaks and Hnchaks to appear.

 

If we clear that last rhetorical corner, we'll be done with this unfortunate topic. However, I suspect that either nothing I said actually registered on your side, or that you might find it hard to swallow your pride and evolve your thoughts. Indeed, by taking you on directly I might have done a disservice to you, if as a result you cling to your initial thoughts defensively. For that, I am sorry.

[Anonymouse]

I see now that you retreated to "but Armenians have changed over time, haven't they?" argument. 

 

I never retreated to that, that was my point the whole time, you just cherry picked certain parts of my posts.

 

That you even compare the Greek and Turkish cases with the Armenian one is preposterous, for reasons that I explained before.

 

Well, if this isn't another one of your sad attempts to 'cling' to your idea that Armenians were flirting with nationalism and unity before they actually did, I don't know what it is. They were self-aware of being Armenian but the idea of the "nation" uniting high and low eluded them for that was not their primary concern. Not until Enlightenment influence of nationalism sparked that idea in them.

 

Very briefly, their "lack of political success" (to put it kindly) ensured that Armenians did not act as a magnet for others to assimilate into them. 

 

You didn't need "political success" for people to assimilate into Armenian culture. This is what you do not understand, or don't want to. Throughout the centuries many peoples have come through that area, some have settled some have moved, and others intermarried. The fact that literally the Armenian nakharar is of Persian origin speaks volumes. People have always changed, no different than an Assyrian or an Arab emir intermarrying an Armenian.

 

That Armenians have "changed over time" does not mean "they are nothing like the original Armenians", nor does it mean that the formation of the Armenian nation waited for Dashnaks and Hnchaks to appear.

 

Yes, Armenians of today do not resemble nor bear the same culture as "Armenians" of say the Artashesian period. What part of that is so hard for you to grasp in that empty cranium? I can look at Armenians and see the spectrum of the light skinned to the tanned skinned and those that display Mongoloid or Asiatic features. This indicates alot of change from the people. Obviously the Armenians of the Artashesian period would not have any Mongoloid mixture because quite obivously the Mongols weren't around then. In any event, I suggest you approach things without ideological or nationalistic bias.

 

If we clear that last rhetorical corner, we'll be done with this unfortunate topic.  However, I suspect that either nothing I said actually registered on your side

 

Nothing you said makes any sense for me to register, for something to register it must be sensible not merely appeal to your own ignorance of what things ought to be.

 

or that you might find it hard to swallow your pride and evolve your thoughts.

 

You can call this pride, I can call it ignorance, and it is nothing more than tautology. What it ultimately isn't for you is viewing this objectively, but rather with a bias. You should apply your message to yourself before you apply it to others.

 

Indeed, by taking you on directly I might have done a disservice to you, if as a result you cling to your initial thoughts defensively.  For that, I am sorry.

 

No need to be sorry here. What I started merely as just a discussion you turned it into a personal issue and thus resorted to negativity, which is the last refuge of the pointless.

 

Adieu.

Edited February 4, 2004 by Anonymouse

[Twilight Bark]

I never retreated to that, that was my point the whole time, you just cherry picked certain parts of my posts.

 

 

 

Well, if this isn't another one of your sad attempts to 'cling' to your idea that Armenians were flirting with nationalism and unity before they actually did, I don't know what it is. They were self-aware of being Armenian but the idea of the "nation" uniting high and low eluded them for that was not their primary concern. Not until Enlightenment influence of nationalism sparked that idea in them.

 

 

 

You didn't need "political success" for people to assimilate into Armenian culture. This is what you do not understand, or don't want to. Throughout the centuries many peoples have come through that area, some have settled some have moved, and others intermarried. The fact that literally the Armenian nakharar is of Persian origin speaks volumes. People have always changed, no different than an Assyrian or an Arab emir intermarrying an Armenian.

 

 

 

Yes, Armenians of today do not resemble nor bear the same culture as "Armenians" of say the Artashesian period. What part of that is so hard for you to grasp in that empty cranium? I can look at Armenians and see the spectrum of the light skinned to the tanned skinned and those that display Mongoloid or Asiatic features. This indicates alot of change from the people. Obviously the Armenians of the Artashesian period would not have any Mongoloid mixture because quite obivously the Mongols weren't around then. In any event, I suggest you approach things without ideological or nationalistic bias.

 

 

 

Nothing you said makes any sense for me to register, for something to register it must be sensible not merely appeal to your own ignorance of what things ought to be.

 

 

 

You can call this pride, I can call it ignorance, and it is nothing more than tautology. What it ultimately isn't for you is viewing this objectively, but rather with a bias. You should apply your message to yourself before you apply it to others.

 

 

 

No need to be sorry here. What I started merely as just a discussion you turned it into a personal issue and thus resorted to negativity, which is the last refuge of the pointless.

 

Adieu.

Neither the nakharar's origin, nor the spectrum of skin color gives any support to your assertions. The nobility being of different origin than the population is nothing to write home about; it's as old as prehistory. And there is no reason to assume that the "original" Armenians were of one type or race. In fact, there is ample reason to think the opposite. That includes "mongoloid" features, but that is entirely beside the point. Accepting others into the community (almost always by marriage or rape) does not sever the familial ties to the ancestors that lived on the same soil.

 

As for the "settlers-to-become-Armenians", the "political success" issue is crucial there, and it is one of the most fatal blows to your assertion. People don't assimilate into the losing side.

 

The rest of your mental ejaculation that tries to be insulting belongs in the toilet section, so I'll hold my nose and move on.

[Anonymouse]

Neither the nakharar's origin, nor the spectrum of skin color gives any support to your assertions.  The nobility being of different origin than the population is nothing to write home about; it's as old as prehistory.

 

So your assertion is tantamount to Armenians staying "pure" but that is untrue and inaccurate, since yes, even the population mixed. You cannot escape is, otherwise we wouldn't see the differences today.

 

And there is no reason to assume that the "original" Armenians were of one type or race.  In fact, there is ample reason to think the opposite.

 

Indeed, there is, no one disputes this. But by and large, even the peoples who comprised the different groups of what were "Armenians" during that period of say, Tigran, were very different than the "Armenians" who we know them as now.

 

That includes "mongoloid" features, but that is entirely beside the point.  Accepting others into the community (almost always by marriage or rape) does not sever the familial ties to the ancestors that lived on the same soil.

 

It means there is a change in the make up of the people, whether they adopt Armenian culture or not, the people change. That is why more Turks nowadays look alike with Armenians and Greeks, because of all the mixing, rape, and forceful conversions. I hate to break it to you, but these people have not remained the same over 2000 years. We live on the same soil as the early natives of this continent, yet we aren't the same as them are we? Thus a Turk that lives around Van now is somehow, by your logic, living on the same soil. Your idea of history is a point in time, not a process. But reality says that peoples change.

 

As for the "settlers-to-become-Armenians", the "political success" issue is crucial there, and it is one of the most fatal blows to your assertion.  People don't assimilate into the losing side.

 

For example, when Arabs dominated Armenia, they eventually settled there, no different than other invaders that came later. When there is a relative time of peace, there is no "losing side", people fall in love, and marry, and interact, your assertion ignores everything and tries to make this solely "political"; meaning your assertion tries to make out there behavior into something they "ought'" to have done, as opposed to what they did. People interacted and mixed at all times, no different during the Cilician period.

 

The rest of your mental ejaculation that tries to be insulting belongs in the toilet section, so I'll hold my nose and move on.

 

Aww, what's the matter, cannot fathom the crack in your edifice of thought? The truth is that you may not even relate back to the Artashesians but a totally different gene pool that may have found its way in Armenians throughout the centuries. Thus maybe you have more "Greek" or "Turkic" or "Arabic" in you than say anything remotely resemling the Armenians of the Artashesian period. Are you threatened by this?

 

Before you come here and preach about your "age" and "wisdom" you should know that the two are mutually exclusive and your childish demeanor is evidence of this.

[Azat]

Anonymouse, please watch the language and insults

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse, please watch the language and insults

He started it. I'm just finishin

Edited February 4, 2004 by Anonymouse

[Twilight Bark]

So your assertion is tantamount to Armenians staying "pure" but that is untrue and inaccurate, since yes, even the population mixed. You cannot escape is, otherwise we wouldn't see the differences today.

 

 

 

Indeed, there is, no one disputes this. But by and large, even the peoples who comprised the different groups of what were "Armenians" during that period of say, Tigran, were very different than the "Armenians" who we know them as now.

 

 

 

It means there is a change in the make up of the people, whether they adopt Armenian culture or not, the people change. That is why more Turks nowadays look alike with Armenians and Greeks, because of all the mixing, rape, and forceful conversions. I hate to break it to you, but these people have not remained the same over 2000 years. We live on the same soil as the early natives of this continent, yet we aren't the same as them are we? Thus a Turk that lives around Van now is somehow, by your logic, living on the same soil. Your idea of history is a point in time, not a process. But reality says that peoples change.

 

 

 

For example, when Arabs dominated Armenia, they eventually settled there, no different than other invaders that came later. When there is a relative time of peace, there is no "losing side", people fall in love, and marry, and interact, your assertion ignores everything and tries to make this solely "political"; meaning your assertion tries to make out there behavior into something they "ought'" to have done, as opposed to what they did. People interacted and mixed at all times, no different during the Cilician period.

 

 

 

Aww, what's the matter, cannot fathom the crack in your edifice of thought? The truth is that you may not even relate back to the Artashesians but a totally different gene pool that may have found its way in Armenians throughout the centuries. Thus maybe you have more "Greek" or "Turkic" or "Arabic" in you than say anything remotely resemling the Armenians of the Artashesian period. Are you threatened by this?

 

Before you come here and preach about your "age" and "wisdom" you should know that the two are mutually exclusive and your childish demeanor is evidence of this.

Anonymouse,

You make desperate attempts to rescue a train of thought that was bound to derail. I think the issue has been debated well enough, and the readers can make up their own minds. And please stop trying to bait me by your insults. While my assertion that you are in need of growing up was made in good faith, and not as an insult, you keep throwing insults at me in the pathetic hope of getting a reaction. My dear lad, contrary to what you may be fantasizing, the "ME" with capital letters has not been on the headlines in my personal newspaper for about a decade or so. Go find somebody else for your entertainment.

TB

 

P.S. From what I have read in other threads, in addition to repugnant vulgarity, you are capable of pseudo-rational, semi-rational, and even occasionally fully rational thought, expressed at an impressive rate (haste?). That is a good basic foundation. Now all you need to do is grow up. I am quite optimistic that you will become an impressive person.

Edited February 4, 2004 by Twilight Bark

[Sip]

P.S. From what I have read in other threads, in addition to repugnant vulgarity, you are capable of pseudo-rational, semi-rational, and even occasionally fully rational thought, expressed at an impressive rate (haste?). That is a good basic foundation. Now all you need to do is grow up. I am quite optimistic that you will become an impressive person.

Very well said!

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse,

You make desperate attempts to rescue a train of thought that was bound to derail.  I think the issue has been debated well enough, and the readers can make up their own minds.  And please stop trying to bait me by your insults.  While my assertion that you are in need of growing up was made in good faith, and not as an insult, you keep throwing insults at me in the pathetic hope of getting a reaction.  My dear lad, contrary to what you may be fantasizing, the "ME" with capital letters has not been on the headlines in my personal newspaper for about a decade or so.  Go find somebody else for your entertainment.

TB

 

P.S. From what I have read in other threads, in addition to repugnant vulgarity, you are capable of pseudo-rational, semi-rational, and even occasionally fully rational thought, expressed at an impressive rate (haste?).  That is a good basic foundation.  Now all you need to do is grow up.  I am quite optimistic that you will become an impressive person.

 

Let's dispense with social pleasantries. Face the monitor, and pay attention while I explain the 'Theory Of Why You Are Ignorant' to you. My response was not merely at your supposed "good faith" remark, but your overall condescending tone which you displayed as if you bear some validity because youre "older" and somehow youre humor is not "repugnant" and other jibes; that somehow you deserve some inkling of respect or that I should somehow give in to you because you are older, when plainly put, you're ignorant. It was you who desperately reshaped your position to somehow arise with an immutable argument, and you who constantly resorted to cherry picking to defend your case, and when you noticed your intellectual assets were not making up for it, you gradually started to resort to your antics of inanity, and the overall tone by those who disagreed here morphed into that as well, since no one likes uncomfortable topics that crack their prism, or prison of thought. Nor is it my fault that this escaped the comprehension of your gap filled cranium.

 

Now you try to paintyourself as the "victim" of insults whereas it was your so called "maturity" that "comes with age" that sparked off this insecurity of yours. As for you following my posts and noting my presence, well I'm thankful for I have nothing to note you for aside from this desperate attempt at trying to come across has half intelligent and "wise" as you implied. If you don't like posts from "kids" like me, then stop reading them and using your pointy forehead to hit the keyboard and respond. Truly the behavior of a bark.

[Anonymouse]

Very well said!

Gee, moderator, I thought you guys were fair and balanced?

[Anonymouse]

Oh by the way, I bet you're just waiting to hit the "Ban" button on me, eh?

[axel]

Siegfried Act III scene 2.

[Twilight Bark]

Let's dispense with social pleasantries.

You already have. And I am not being pleasant; I am being calm.

 

Face the monitor, and pay attention while I explain the 'Theory Of Why You Are Ignorant' to you.

Yes, that certainly predisposes me to be receptive of your "idea"s; that was very perceptive of you. As for "ignorance", guilty as charged. But we all are ignorant, aren't we? What is important is not how much you "know". It is what you know, and how you process it (i.e. reasoning).

 

your overall condescending tone

Although you fully deserve to be condescended, that is beside the point; you confuse sympathy with condescension.

 

..somehow youre humor is not "repugnant"

But it isn't; to the extent that it exists and is displayed.

 

.. It was you who desperately reshaped your position

As I said before to no avail, it is wise to let the reader decide on the original debate, which you have been trying to turn into an ego war, perhaps as an attempt to create a "fog of war", and create the impression of "equivalence" between the two positions.

 

...  you who constantly resorted to cherry picking .... your intellectual assets were not making up for it ...  resort to your antics of inanity, ...  escaped the comprehension of your gap filled cranium.

What are you expecting? A response in kind? You are perhaps theorizing that a "grownup" who lowers himself to exchanging thoughts on the internet can't be all that mature or respectable, and that a little agitation will surely expose the true nature of the beast. A respectable assumption, wrong though it is in this case.

 

As for you following my posts and noting my presence,

Well I didn't need to "follow" your posts, as they have been popping up like mushrooms all over the place. Most of them have respectable grammar, vocabulary, and syntax, and manage to give the impression of reasoned thought at a cursory glance. Not bad for stuff written at such pace. Hence I repeat my previous statement that I am optimistic about you becoming an impressive person. In time.

 

well I'm thankful for I have nothing to note you

Oh I am not overly impressed by myself either, I assure you. Whatever gave you the idea that I was craving for your attention or compliments?

 

If you don't like posts from "kids" like me,

It really isn't that. It's the lack of solid reasoning in what you write, combined with its false appearance of reasoned thought (which may misguide the young and the uninitiated) that prompted me to respond to your inaccurate assertions.

 

... your pointy forehead

????

 

Truly the behavior of a bark.

I guess I am at a loss about the behavior of a bark. Ascribe it to my ignorance on such matters.

 

Sigh, now back to earning the daily bread ...

[Anonymouse]

Since you're so desperate to get the last word in, you get it.