Go:bekli

As usual Phantis detected that I am a robot. The opening statement can be found in the next post.

1) I do not know much about history. There is though a historian that appears to be more or less sane. His name is

Today I read at Phantis: A massacre took place; but the rest does not make much sense: 1) Who and how estimated the 100,000? 2) Did "the massacre" last one day? Did it start on March 31? Did it end on March 31? 3) Was there a single massacre (as the "The massacre..." implies) in Chios that year? The only sure thing is that Vasko Naumovski must like the way Phantis presents the Greek history. He calls me at least once a week, entertained by the historiography at Phantis and just before hanging up he throws at me the following mantra: You, Zitouniates/Arahovites/ Vostitsanoi and similar, insist on practicing Slavic-style historiography. Compared to you, our historians, undoubtedly daft, appear to be as good as Thucydides; and, by the way, when will Phantis commemorate the Melian massacre?

As far as I can tell, the Greeks were fooling only themselves. The OECD, and not only, was politely informing (starting in the early '90s) the Greek governments that the economy was going from bad to worse. Moreover, Petropoulos the banker had this to say about the Greek economy (article at today's NEA):

Wonderful! While I doubt that your memories will become as famous as the text of Proust concerning the medeleines it was moving and another instance of the fact that smell affects the memory. Here is my own experience: On a wintry but sunny day, I had an ouzo. Suddenly, I felt as if it were Spring or Summer. For some time I was perplexed. The feeling appeared to be incomprehensible; until I remembered that, ever since I left Greece, I rarely drank ouzo with one exception: During my vacations, with my friends, in the old country. Note: as usual, the site maps the characters it dislikes (e.g., an e accent aigu) into question signs(?). Use your imagination and map the ?-signs into the French alphabet.

One of the many problems of Greek soccer is the fact that the last 60+ years only four teams (and Larisa after a mini civil war) have won a championship. Recently, minus a short interval when PAO spent real money and then went bankrupt, OSFP dominated the league year after year. These championships are becoming boring; we could as well watch the Christians fight (so to speak) the lions. If one looks at other leagues, one would see models that try to to make sure that the differences between the clubs remain small. E.g., 1) In the USA (la fuente de toda sabiduria) the professional leagues impose upper/lower limits to the money that every team in the league can/must spend. 2) As of 2013 the Bundesliga adopted rules concerning income sharing from advertising. The new rules aim to help financially the teams that need infusions of moolah in order to remain competitive. Who, with a working mind, would like to follow a championship such that the outcome is known before the season starts? And what would be the value of a championship won against teams that could not afford to be competitive?

According to Contra:

Today I read the following at the bottom of a thread: 3 user(s) are reading this topic0 members, 1 guests, 1 anonymous users and now I am confused. Has Phantis declared war on Arithmetic or on the English language as well?

Just to make sure that we are talking about the same thing: What do you understand when you read yalanc? dolma? As far as the

Today I was informed that the Greek Social Security (IKA) was created on March 4. The article in the Phantis Wiki informs us that Interestingly enough, the text forgot to inform us is that at the time Greece was governed by Ioannis Metaxas who had decided that he could and should govern without being elected. As a result, I remembered that in an American court the witnesses are expected to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I assume then that the Greek version of historiography serves a higher purpose and is unrestrained by silly rules. It is free to serve to its readers liberating untruths (Zaloggo), liberating half truths (IKA), and to add to the mix whatever disorientating statement it likes (a "dolma yalanci tabagi") concerning the neighboring countries.

I know nothing about Australia and you should feel free to disregard all that follows. The Dardanelles campaign turned out to be a debacle for the Allies and a gift from Allah to Mustapha Kemal Pasha. One could tell the mothers of the Australian soldiers who died there that their sons died as the result of a strategic miscalculations, possibly the outcome of lack of careful planning, insufficient intelligence, and political considerations. The other possibility would be to claim that the blood spilled was the very foundation of some wonderful purpose. The rest, as they say, is history. Similarly, we speak about the 300 Spartans fighting a suicidal rear guard battle; few mention that this battle would enable the rest of the army to be saved. Fewer mention the Thespians who also stayed and the Thebans who were forced to stay because Leonidas (not a dummy) considered them likely to change sides. Almost none mentions that Leonidas had left ~1000 Phocians to guard the path that the Persians followed in order to encircle the Greeks. The guard was guarding nothing and when it saw Ephialtes and company, it retreated to the top of a nearby hill. Unfortunately for Leonidas, the Persians were not interested in defeating the Phocians, they wanted to encircle the Greeks at Thermopylae. At the very worst, the Australians imitated our illustrious example. From the battle of Thermopylae all the way to the invented suicidal dances of the Arvanites that we serve as history to the Europeans and the North Americans whom we lovingly call

I cannot understand this anti-religious mania. The basic way to present an idea is the parable. Example: -In 1954 Elias Kazan filmed the ?On the waterfront?. Whoever saw it and thought that it was about abusive workers? representatives missed the boat. - In 1955 Arthur Miller more or less answered Kazan with ?A View from the Bridge?. Again, if one thought that the play was about immigrants, he missed the boat. The Bible is full of parables and only the priests and the maniacally anti-priests can fail to see that it must be read as a collection of parables, rules that put a limit to the ferocity of men, and stories that demonstrate how easy it is for men to use religion to present their cruelty of as the will of God. E.g., - Adam and Eve have no notion of good and evil until they eat the forbidden fruit, become God-like, and are expelled from Paradise. Is it not clear that the text describes the passage from childhood to adulthood? Very young children are the embodiment of "I want it, I must have it" ?. Eventually they acquire the notion of right and wrong and become adults. - When God tells Adam "

Obviously, then, the iconoclast cab-drivers were more honest than the rest of them.

As far as I know Religions do not have anything to do with facts. As an example, Mohamed claimed that he was visited, in his dreams, by Gibril (Gabriel in English) who is supposed to be (as all the readers of the all testament know) the messenger of God. You either believe the prophet or you do not. Proof is impossible. Moses presumably conversed with God. When Moses asked the name of God, the God replied "I am who I am". A wonderful answer if you consider that God (if God exists) can be defined only through self-reference. There is Genesis but who (other than God) could have been its witness? Bear in mind though that the species are created in a sequence that looks as if God had read Darwin (or the reverse). Finally the Orthodox Christians believe that the holy Ghost emanated from the father only while the Catholic insist that it emanated from the father and the son. My Philipino relatives are maniacally religious and insist that baptism is a necessary perquisite if one wishes to enter Paradise. They hate me when I tell them that God hated the Philipinos and let them learn the "good news" through Magallanes with a delay of ~1500 years; they hate me a second time when I remind them that hate is a mortal sin. But, hateful or not, they were never crazy enough to believe that there is a factual basis for their beliefs (hateful or not). In the societies we live in the problem is not Religion but those who believe they know the answer even though they have not understood the question; a capital sin that we all will commit sooner or later. Example: I ask why we must present as historical a description that, apparently, is not. We managed to touch almost all possible subjects with a single exception: Why we maintain a description that is, as far as we can tell, a fanciful myth. To me this a miracle that is more admirable than all the miracles (actual or imagined) of Jesus. Mi mujer est? mi testigo (y mi tesoro tambi?n)! Note: The Phantis software seems to hate the accent marks (see above) and their use in Castellano.

The E gave us the Age of Reason ?.. Really? It gave us Adolfo, Marx, Stalin, Lysenko, Mao and Pol Pot. Their reasoning was that a few millions of premature deaths were a small price to pay in order to create a Paradise on earth. ? patriotism means having a stake ?.. in a society where I live. That's why I support the conditions that make me happy. - With this definition you declared war on the English language; not a mortal sin if you live in NY. - Thank God, you are not a US diplomat living abroad - The conditions that make your fellow Americans happy is to evade taxes and to have everyone else pay them. Obviously, this definition of patriotism leads to pernicious practices. ? people who complain about everything are themselves disrespectful of common decency This appears to be an accurate description of the New-Yorkers For example, everyone in Athens ??.. Well, there is the social gravity. E.g., if everyone around me is shouting, the only way I can be heard by my wife is to shout as well. As far as extremism is concerned, there is the well-known ?Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; and. moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue? Finally, my question still begs an answer. Which definition of patriotism demands that historical non-events (such as the famous dance) be presented as historical events?

If you do not believe, the Religion is based on myths; if you do, it is based on Revelation. And given the fact that the idea of God is more or less incompatible with the human logic, arguing about God and Religion will not get you far. There is nothing wrong with patriotism. On the other hand, there is the demek patriotism that systematically lies. If you lie about your own history, you implicitly accept that, bar the lies, your nation is not lovable. There is a form of "patriotism" that reminds me of Oscar Wilde: Yet each man kills the thing he loves, By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! These lines pretty much explain, methinks, the brand of patriotism that creates and maintains the myths (see Zalogo) that soothe the chauvinist/jingoist soul.

Unfortunately, Kant the cantankerous can?t explain anything. Back in 1976, Alain Peyrefitte, published a book with the title ?Le mal Fran?ais?. It was an interesting book that attempted to explain the evolution of France and of its culture. Alain, mon pote, claimed that the French minority (Jews and protestants) had miraculously earned the majority of the French Nobel prizes and dominated the important sectors of the French economy. I do not remember the numbers he put forth but if one were to use google, one would find that the Jews (i.e., at least one parent being Jewish) have won 22% of the Nobel prizes and 36% or the Nobel prizes were earned by Americans. One may explain this as one can or can?t. Now, let us look at the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and Greece in particular. A few years back a fellow whose last name is Beziryiannis wanted to find the meaning/origin of his last name. I was forced to tell him that in the language of our former masters bezirgan= (1) greedy merchant and (2) Jewish shopkeeper or peddler. Neither they nor we have the faintest idea of what Enlightment is all about. As a result of this, we live in a make believe world in which we conflate patriotism and historical forgery. In order to not linger exclusively on mythical dances, I will mention this time the patriotic remake of Socrates? trial.

It is well known that "bad money drives out good" and apparently this law was known to Aristophanes, to the Mamluk Al Maqrizi, ..., and finally to Gresham; hence the Gresham's law concerning good and bad money. I do not plan to become known through a similar law (e.g., Go:bekli kanunu) but I will assert that bad historiography drives out good. As an example, one may compare what is believed to be known about Zalogo and what is, as a rule, not known about the Husainids and Mustapha Khaznadar.

As far as I can tell, the Enlightment was the side-effect of Protestantism. Moreover, the Enlightment cannot be imported, it requires a process through which the warring parties come to understand that victory is impossible and a formula of co-existence must be found. Beyond that, there the notion of ?pesanteur sociale?. Crudely speaking, even if driving on the left side may be the better option, one is not advised to drive on the left if every other driver drives on the right. Or, if in Greece you do not accept/demand rousfetia (a word/practice of AraboOttoman pedigree that modern Greek adopted), you have taken, ipso facto, vows of poverty and abstinence. This thread, fun as it can be, demonstrates perfectly the universal technique of not solving a small problem by transforming it in a bigger and unsolvable one. E.g., is there credible support for the Zaloggo-story ? If there is, why is it not cited? If not, why is this mythological event presented as an historical one? When these simple questions are not answered, I remain unenlightened!

Actually, this is incorrect! 1) Acts are, in part, rooted on beliefs and culture. While, as a rule, one cannot hold X responsible for the acts of Y (unless X profits from the acts of Y (e.g., if X inherits what Y stole) one can wonder what X is capable of if X shares the beliefs and culture of Y. 2) The ?I am not responsible for the acts of my ancestors? axiom leads to the ?I cannot deserve credit for the exploits of my ancestors? theorem. In other words, according to the no-blame theory, the Slavophones who claim that they are descendants of Alexander the great may sin against history but do not harm all these fine patriots who think that the Slavophones are stealing their inheritance and should have been invaded. 3) The only utility of the ?I did not do it, I am not responsible? theory is that the present generation of the Phantis? swamis cannot be held responsible for the mythostorical exploits of the previous generation of the Phantis? [pundits, poohbahs, and caciques] and the Phantis? sacred texts need not be modified. 4) Speaking of sacred texts, I need to remind you that in Exodus 20:5 we read