From: bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi)
Subject: Re: [IRAN BCE 1000](bavafa)
Organization: Lightening
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:26:03 GMT

In article <lj1pguINNga6@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> >>>>>> Anonymous writes:
>>Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian
>>Subject: Re: [(c) Iran 10000 BCE]
>>Summary: 
>>Expires: 
>>References: <lipl9rINNg1r@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992Dec15.053024.19489@netcom.com>
>>Sender: 
>>Followup-To: 
>>Distribution: 
>>Organization: Univ of Utah Electrical Engineering Dept
>>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Dec15.053024.19489@netcom.com> bavafa@netcom.com (Hooshyar Naraghi) writes:
>>In article <lipl9rINNg1r@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> >>>>>> Anonymous writes:
>>>
>>>Mr. Naraghi writes:
>>>
>>>  Deleted text much to dismay of the author
>>>
>>>>==================  Message for Cyrus the Great Only  =======================
>>>> ............koorosh, shAh-e shAhAn! You ought to arise by yourself,....
>>>                                      ==============================
>>>What  exactly are you implying?
>>>
>>>a not so dirty minded fellow country man
>>
>>My dear not-so-dirty-minded fellow:  I was talking to koorosh.  Good
>>observation, my friend.  Just be careful though.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Hooshyar
>
>Bavafa joon,

Hi anonymous poster.

Sorry, there was no intention to provoke you.  I guess you got it anyways.
So where is the soozan va javAl dooz? [(c) Amoo, 92] to punish myself.

>I truly appreciate your commendation of my observatory merits, yet the
>question still lingers.  The answer you have given is not to the question 
>posed!! Despite that , I am no longer eager to learn the answer to that 
>particular question.  I have, however, grown increasingly curious regarding
>the last sentence you have stated in your reply. you know the "Just be
>carful though" bit.

Funny you ask me to lighten up, but you say you're provoked.  Sorry, my tone
didn't make sense to you.  Nobody is trying to discourage you from posting.
I declare that I am not the 'gendarm' [(c) Navid, 92] of SCI.  There are
others better than me.

>Sir, is this statement meant as a threat to some how discourage me or 
>suppress my desire to reply to a particular issue that I find a bit curious 
>or slightly whimsical and may be just a tad naughty, I think not.
 ^^                    ^^^
I think NOT too.  Those LOGICAL constructs did it.  dAee, khob shomA keh
roshan nisti, man keh nemitoonam jAj konam!  You dig?  I took the tad
naughty position exactly to lighten up myself a little bit, absent clear
understanding what the hell [(c) Zafar, 92] you meant.  Now, if I apologize
will we be friend again?

>At the end I wish and dearly hope that you lighten up! and refrain
>from using terms similar to the one you used in, such ambiguous manner.

didi hAlA!?  How about you?  Would you start all over?  Hint:  No.  No.
A new shah is not coming, OK?  I was talking to koroosh, the historical 
figure written in the books of historians who lived around 500 BCE.
No implications.

Regards,
Hooshyar F. Naraghi
bavafa@netcom.com
(415) 322-8056

PS.  I 'aslan' don't understand why if Shah called koorosh and asked
him 'Asoodeh bekhAb' it would be OK, but if I say 'koorosh arise,' it's
kind of ambiguous!

PSS.  I hope I have demonstrated to you beyond the shadow of doubt that I
have lightened up.  No would you please become happy again?