Go:bekli

Phantis informs us that On May 22, 1963, after delivering the keynote speech at a pacifist meeting in Thessaloniki, he was run down by a delivery truck driven by two right-wing extremists (Emmanouil Emmanouilidis and Spyros Kotzamanis). He suffered brain injuries and died in the hospital five days later, on May 27 The Wikipedia in English claims that: On May 22, 1963, shortly after he had delivered the keynote speech at an anti-war meeting in Thessaloniki, two far-right extremists, Emannouel Emannouilides and Spyro Gotzamanis, driving a three-wheeled vehicle, struck Lambrakis with a club over the head in plain view of a large number of people and (allegedly) some police officers. He suffered brain injuries and died in the hospital five days later, on May 27. The two men were arrested because of the reaction of a passenger who jumped on their vehicle and fought with them (Manolis Hatziapostolou, nicknamed Tiger). According to wikipedia in Greek:

As usual, Phantis was of the opinion that I am a machine. The surrealistic logic of the machine results in surrealistic situations. The first post in this thread will be in position #2.

Phantis offered us the following ANA/MPA (I assume that ANA/MPA stands for Athens News Agency/Macedonian Press Agency) article (http://www.phantis.com/news/debris-egypt-air-flight-located-southeast-crete-say-ministry-sources) which informs us that Two orange objects were located 200-230 miles southeast of Crete inside Egyptian airspace by an Egyptian aircraft participating in the search and rescue operation for the EgyptAir flight that disappeared over the Mediterranean on Thursday morning ........... The aircraft was flying at 37,000 feet and had just entered Egypt's Flight Information Region from the Athens FIR when it disappeared from the radar. It then carried out a 90 degree turn to the left, under unexplained conditions, followed by a 360 degree right-hand turn that brought it spiralling downward to first 15,000 feet and then at 10,000 feet, before it vanished from the radar screens entirely. I wonder if someone can comment on any of the following: 1) Is it true that the distance from Crete to Alexandria is ~400 miles? 2) Is it true that the UN Convention defines the Territorial waters as ?Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline? (baseline being the low water mark)? 3) Is it true that the Territorial Airspace is defined as ?the portion of the atmosphere controlled by a country above its territory, including its territorial waters?? 4) If so, how can an object that lies (actually flows in the sea) 170+ miles from the coast of Egypt be within the Egyptian airspace? 5) Looking at the second paragraph, can we assume that ANA/MPA considers that the terms FIR and Territorial airspace are interchangeable? 6) What is a 360 right ?hand turn? Should we assume that they are describing a rightward and downward spiral? 7) Next time that I read an ANA/MPA article concerning violations over the Aegean, what must I conclude?

1)

At http://www.phantis.com/news/second-formation-turkish-fighter-jets-enter-athens-fir#at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=5728e3544b924fdb&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=auto we read that on April 11 The Wikipedia informs us that: Every portion of the atmosphere belongs to a specific FIR. Smaller countries' airspace is encompassed by a single FIR; larger countries' airspace is subdivided into a number of regional FIRs. Some FIRs encompass the territorial airspace of several countries. Oceanic airspace is divided into Oceanic Information Regions and delegated to a controlling authority bordering that region. The division among authorities is done by international agreement through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The ICAO is the outcome of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, at Chicago. The following articles appear to be relevant: As a result of which I wonder if my knowledge of English and/or my logic and my ability to understand simple notions are inadequate. I hope that some good Christian who understands the English language and elementary logic will help me to understand why these entries to the FIR of Athens were newsworthy.

It appears that the IMF has had enough of the Greek governments and at http://dailyhellas.com/2016/04/11/lagarde-admits-to-imf-mistakes-urges-greek-govt-to-do-more/ we read the following (from an interview of Mme Lagarde to Bloomberg markets): (emphasis mine).

1) I am not targeting Greek history; I am targeting Phantis for not having done a good enough job 2) As far as I can tell you are victim of the false and AngloSaxon version of parity. So let me list a few instances in which (in my opinion) parity does not apply: Unfortunate Tragic and unacceptable My neighbor is a cuckold I am a cuckold My neighbor?s kid is dumb My kid is dumb My neighbor loses his job I lose my job My neighbor has cancer I have cancer My neighbor?s doctor is a quack My doctor is a quack and so on and so forth. As a result, I care minimally about Italians lying to Italians, Patagonians lying to Patagonians and Martians lying to Martians. I do care though about a presentation of the Greek history that by omission or commission lies to Greeks. Those who do not learn from their past are likely to make the same errors in the future. In particular, it would have been useful to know what preceded the massacre at Chios and what, if anything, could be done to avert it or to limit the losses. And this brings us to the true and tragic: If this is the only thing they have learned and if this is what they will pass to their grandchildren and to the future generations, the future generations are likely to make the same mistakes and lose their own house as well.

Really? I suggest that the information is not sufficient and all of a sudden what I wrote is an insult to the dead and not a criticism of the text at hand? Why is it not an insult to them to not present a complete picture? And how can one know that what was excluded were details unless the whole story is known? My idea is that using the dead in order to defend bad writing is disrespectful to the dead and the alive as well. You are really dumping on Phantis. I presume that your son is not old and mature enough to understand some things; on top of that, he is at an age that he wants to belong, not to be right and apart from his peers. He should also not be privy to information he cannot handle properly (e.g., he does not need to be told that his beloved uncle ignores the extramarital activities of his wife). Similarly, when an uncle in advanced dementia asked me if in Paradise he would be living with his wife, I asserted that he would, the Bible says so! Why should upset the man with irrelevant truths? Finally, there was in Greece a radio program under the name ?Aunt Lena speaks to young children ?. For reasons obvious, it was not a paragon of historical, social, or scientific rigor. If I understand correctly your simile, the Phantis pages target individuals of limited maturity and the lack of rigor (if any) mirrors the opinion that Phantis has of its readership. I.e., our immature brains should not be exposed to truths they cannot understand. That would be a real paradox. A site whose pages on history aim to keep its readers happy, not informed. Vasko does not care about the truth. He is happy though to see his critics commit (for no rational reason whatsoever) the very sins he does. Misery likes company!

Let us not exaggerate. The fall of the City was the last chapter of a process that started at Manzikert (or earlier). Eventually, the Byzantine emperors became vassals of the Turk sultans. As an example, in 1390 Bayezid 1 conquered Philadelphia (today AlaShehir). The emperor Manuel II was there, helping his liege lord. Symbolism aside, the fall of the City made official what was already real. It should also be noted that (1) the last Palaeologos' mother was a Slav who, as far as we know, did not claim to be a descendant of Alexander the great. Nevertheless, how many Greek patriots nowadays would be happy to be serving a 50%-Slav emperor. (2) The City was not taken by the Turks. It was taken by the Janissaries.

Has Phantis declared war against the English language? a) In another topic I wrote. Apparently, if elections were were held today, ND would receive more votes than SYRIZA?.. and the response was ?? you came to the firm conclusion they would lose by a poll ....... b ) In this thread I wrote A massacre took place; but the rest does not make much sense? and I am asked ?do you dispute the Chios massacre occurred??. And after that: 2) 1789 post is the version that we have been taught......is it far from the truth in your opinion? In a court the witnesses are asked to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Obviously, a witness can effectively lie by not telling the whole truth. The same standard applies when history is discussed. I do not know what the reference to 1789 is. I assume it was a typo. Did you mean 1822? 3) if the massacre did happen but was not of the magnitude we may believe it does not extend to Vasko and his clowns being granted liberty to create what they want... None of the above. But whoever does not live up to the ?whole truth? standard lowers himself (and by extension his nation) to Vasko?s level. The exact magnitude is not known but, as far as I know, the numbers at Phantis were more or less correct. ??) I have noticed how in a 2-3 year period the great wikipedia has changed it?s description of what a Bosnian is? and was? got to love their flag??? I bet all those Turko worshiping Slavs loved to wave around that UN created cloth 500 years ago... I do not know what the Bosnians have to do in this thread. Our neighbors did not use to like the Turks. They may have learned though that the enemy of your enemy is, temporally, your friend.

Tsipras and Greece madi it to the Financial Times. The opening paragraphs can be read below: I wonder how many would agree with the sentence in bold (Once again, he is displaying an instinct for short-term political gain and a disregard for his country?s long-term interests; the bold formatting was added by me). I should add that Alavanos said something similar about Tsipras (Mega, 26/8/2015). Namely,

Mistake!

I have no idea as to how I come across, but I believe I can explain Vasko?s point of view. Namely:88 1) Our Alexandroplectic neighbors did not like the Ottomans. See the Ilinden revolt/uprising. 2) Since there is no rational defense for the Alexandrian psychosis of his nation, Vasko prefers to attack. If we lie about our own history through commission or omission, we are no different from his Alexandromaniacs. 3) In my opinion, a nation that censors its history lies to itself. Let me also add the obvious. While I am responsible for what I write, I am not necessarily responsible for the interpretation of what I wrote by others.

I have no idea as to how I come across, but I believe I can explain Vasko?s point of view. Namely: 1) Our Alexandroplectic neighbors did not like the Ottomans. See the Ilinden revolt/uprising. 2) Since there is no rational defense for the Alexandrian psychosis of his nation, Vasko prefers to attack. If we lie about our own history through commission or omission, we are no different from his Alexandromaniacs. 3) In my opinion, a nation that censors its history lies to itself. Let me also add the obvious. While I am responsible for what I write, I am not necessarily responsible for the interpretation of what I wrote by others.

As far as I know the term Byzantine empire was invented after 1453 A.D. The Encyclopedia Britannica writes The Turks called the subjects of the Empire Rum, we have the term

I do not know what/whom Mme Lagarde misses. What I do know is that at http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2016/pr16149.htm one can read her response to Mr Tsipras. The message can be summarized (in my opinion) as follows:

I wrote Apparently, if elections were were held today, ND would receive more votes than SYRIZA. and If the polls are worthless, how did you come to the firm conclusion ..... and your comment was, The same way you came to the firm conclusion they would lose by a poll. I guess that I must return to primary school and learn the meaning of apparently.

Now I am confused. If the polls are worthless, how did you come to the firm conclusion that SYRIZA would win again as of today?

The question is not who, if any, is stunned. The question is who, if any, can use it and profit. Obviously, the Greek government thinks it can use it and profit. It will be interesting to see if the the Germany will react and if so, how. My overall impression is that the Greek government tried to use it clumsily. Unless its purpose is to blame the IMF for its own failures. Apparently, if elections were were held today, ND would receive more votes than SYRIZA.

The Wikileaks released a presumably private conversation between Velculescu and Thompsen, possibly captured in Athens because of the spelling (Velkouleskou). I could not follow the conversation on the Greek Press and the four PhDs in economics I hired gave me four, dour and mutually incompatible, interpretations. Thank God, the WSJ has at last accepted the Greek wisdom (that the Americans are by their very nature dumb) and I read something which, I believe, I understood. Here is the heart, methinks, of the matter: