From: ls1@cec1.wustl.edu (Lambros Skartsis)
Subject: Re: How typical (and pathetic) are the sources that they use
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:52:08 GMT

In article: <1992Dec30.203844.6174@enea.se>
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:


>Lambros Skartsis (ls1@cec1.wustl.edu) writes:
>>I have said that a certain knowledge on the Macedonian issue should be a
>>prerequisite for any meaningful discussion (I'm refering to
>>Erland, who, once more, started a thread). If this knowledge
>>existed we wouldn't have all these discussions moving on tangents,
>
>So do you think the Greek particpators in this debate knows everything
>they need?

Absolutely not! Actually I have condemned many times those greek
netters who post insults and fanatic statements without really
having anything to say. But you see this is bad, but probably
worse is to START a thread, as you so often have done (see your
original article "Recognise Macedonia, would be ashamed to
be a greek", etc. which, according to
you, made you feel quite good for generating one of the longest
threads - which it would definitely do) with little 
real information. You should understand, nonetheless, that
greeks and slavomacedonians are more probable to be relevant to
the subject and have more experience on it - no matter what
"theater" they play on the net - than a third-party person who
expects to learn about the issue from fanatic net postings.
You certainly are not the
only one to blame; we are all responsible (incl. myself) for these
useless discussions. But see my above point...

>
>And, no, I didn't really start the thread. That "credit" goes to
>Milan Pavlovic.

OK (in this case) sorry, I can't justify him.

>
>>whether it is the above (i.e., "seing something in an Encyclopedia"),
>
>Yes, I saw in it a encyclopedia so it must be a lie.

Who said that? I am against discussing based on things we see right
and left without knowing what we really have to argue about.

> Come on, we
>have had people in this newsgroup claiming that there is not a
>pre-1940 source including the Republic of Macedonia in the geo-
>graphical region of Macedonia. If you are asking for prerequisites,
>what did you say to that person?
>

You are once more right here. I hope you know now that the above claim
is indeed irrelevant - now, before the late 19th cent. is another story...

>
>>         - WHEN (end of 19th cent.) and WHY this extension of
>>           the geographic notion of Macedonia occured, by whom
>>           and serving which interests -  with the expanded
>>           geographic notion coming the creation of a nation
>>           and an "appropriate" historical theory that you all
>>           had the chance to see in a recent posting.
>
>It should also be known who it would serve to change this definition
>today!

Well, all we are talking about is that there is something nasty with 
this plan - at least as far as Greece (territory etc.)
is concerned - and this should
be understood and greek reactions seen from that viewpoint, OK?

>>You have to understand though that you CANNOT  be strongly arguing, 
>>creating long thread after thread, based on only this amount of knowledge -
>>which, at least as far as the net is concerned, is nothing but
>>screaming propaganda from one side or the other.
>
>Now, tell me how much what has been posted from Greek contestants
>on this issue is *not* propaganda? By your definition above, any 
>single line?

A lot of them are. But as I said above, we (Greeks) and them (Slavomac.)
do know a bit more, whether we post the truth or not!!!
 
>
>>If you are really interested and not playing around, you should at least first
>>get familiar enough with a topic, especially an extremely complex
>>one like the above.
>
>Thanks. That applies to many of you Greeks as well.

Right - although we are naturally a little bit more familiar.

L. Skartsis