From: ls1@cec1.wustl.edu (Lambros Skartsis)
Subject: Re: Scopjian Flag
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:19:42 GMT

In article: <BxtL08.Fs6@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>
 cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes:

>That Macedonian couldn't be understood by the ancient Greeks - that
>sounds like a different language to me.

...

>How about R.A.Crossland who wrote the relevant chapters for the new
>edition of the *Cambridge Ancient History* vol.3 pt1, ch.20c.A man whose
>credentials are unimpeachable.
 
[etc., etc.]

Ladies and gentlemen,
I have "complained" several times that these discussion about national
issues on the net, although unavoidable and very often informative, can
easily degenerate into fruitless, posting-after-posting, long, boring,
often fanatic discussions that lead absolutely nowhere...
One of the worst features of such discussions, however, is that they give
the chance to third-party netters who wish to discuss and argue for
the sake of the argument (to put it simply: to have fun!) to jump
in and start teasing one or the other party. This makes things eeeeeven 
worse, generating even longer threads, often angrier and angrier (!), while
these third-party netter who don't give a sh*t for the issue really, 
have a good time. I apologize for my style of writing but, please, try to
see what I'm saying.


One such case is, of course, Andy Fear (I won't say any other names - he is
not the only one however!).  
Andy, for example,  goes around teasing
 the greeks on whatever "national issue" they are - or
could possibly be - sensitive. I have seen him arguing [ just a sample to
give the readers an idea and exhibit  a good example for what I'm saying ]:

- that there are truly two countries in Cyprus.
- that the turkish invasion of the island was justified because:
- the greeks were ready to massacre the turkish population.
- that Turkey is justified in about everything it has done or doing
  (incl. the landing force  "facing" the Aegean islands).
- that modern Slavomacedonia is the continuation of ancient Macedonia.
- that the greeks oppress their "Macedonian" minority.
- that the greeks oppress their turkish minority.
- that there is no freedom of expression in Greece.
- that everything the slavomacedonians do or claim is OK.
- that the ancient Macedonians were not greeks, were not speaking greek, etc.

and other interesting stuff...

For the last mentioned issue, Andy uses his knowledge of ancient history
(which is anyway his topic of studies) to sound more sophisticated and
often throws names and references that supposedly support his "views". 
And after his cool arguments he mentions that "anyway this has nothing
to do with recognition of Slavomacedonia" [OK, fine, then why start this
discussion at all ??!]. 

Once more: I URGE you, the readers, in case you are interested, to go,
read and find out for yourselves (there are plenty of libraries around us!).
Go and read, if you want, about the Macedonian problem that goes on for
decades in the Balkans; what is the whole story about; who claims what.
Go and read, if you want, about the ancient Macedonians. See the prevailing
scientific views and, even more, see the REASONS (i.e., artifacts, historical
accounts) for these views, so that you can judge for yourselves.

In that I agree with Luben Boyanov: the source of knowledge is there,
available. All we have to do is to go and get it!
Get it, so that it want it up to greeks, slavomacedonians, me or
Andy whether you'll believe A or B, i.e., whether one party or
the other will sound more "knowledgable", "convincing", "unbiased",
"sophisticated", "sincere", "cute", etc. , whichever the reasons are 
(national interests or ... pleasure).

This net has become enough of a theater!

Sorry for my tone. And sorry for specifically mentioning Andy, but
he probably provides the best example for what I am trying to stress.
 

Regards,
L. Skartsis

Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek