From: vkb57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Nitpicking... (Was Re: The Balkan Dance of Death [Macedonia])
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:12:17 GMT

In article <vassil.724022724@cs.wisc.edu> vassil@mary-ann.cs.wisc.edu (Vassil Peytchev) writes:
>vkb57@cas.org () writes:
>
>>In article <7784@news.duke.edu> yavor@acpub.duke.edu (Yavor B. Parashkevov) writes:
>>>In article <9234501.16250@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> sachz@montebello.ecom.unimelb.EDU.AU (SAS) writes:
>>>>
>>>>                     THE BALKAN DANCE OF DEATH
>>>>                     =-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>>>[...]
>
>>When one posts a newspaper article the only thing he can check is whether he
>>copied it right.  Anything else would be highly improper.
>
>You are right. I don't think Yavor should have criticized this particular
>posting since it is relatively objective. However, you don't do any favors
>to yourself and to the cause you defend with your response.
>
>>>following articles do present the current situation fairly well, I
>>>think that Bob Beale is largely a clueless moron with regard to world
>>>history. Read on...
>
>Well, it seems AU general education in Balkan history is as bad as anywhere
>else in the world.
>
>[...]
>>>>ago. Christian Slavs settled there in the 6th century. They were
>>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [Yavor's highlighting]
>>>When the Slavs settled there, they were barbaric. They were christened
>>                                [V. Babamov's highlighting] ==========
>>>
>>Bob Beale isn't a moron,  neither is he a historian.  He is a journalist who
>>did his job of understanding the basic issues around Macedonia remarkably
>>well.  Anyway,  if you insist on nitpicking,  the above does not necessarily
>>state that the Slavs were Christian in the 6th century, only that they DID
>>settle there in the 6th century and that they ARE christian.  The only thing
>>that he can be accused of is lacking clarity or precision which is,  for a
>>hastily written newspaper article,  not a major sin.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>For someone who thinks he is so careful about language, you would be better
>>off bying a dictionary and checking the words the meaning of which you dont
>>know.  Start with "christened" and then proceed to look up "christianized."
>
>I did it:
>
>======= output from the online webster dictionary ============================
>[188] mary-ann:~/Latex> webster christen
>   chris.ten vt  \'kris-*n\ chris.ten.ing \'kris-ninj\
>    [ME cristnen, fr. OE cristnian, fr. cristen
>        Christian, fr. L christianus]
>      1  a : BAPTIZE *** [Or do you think this is not good enough?]
>       ...
>===============================================================================
>But this is not the only point here. Your understood what Yavor meant by
>christened, even though you don't accept (or know) this usage of the word.

No,  that not good enough,  and the usage of the word christened in the sense
implied by the passage above is not acceptable in the english language.  The
Slavs were not Baptized,  they were converted into Christianity, as Yavor
said:  "when king Boris acceprted christianity as the official religion of the
country."  Thus, they were christianized (just like "hellenized" or
"islamicezed"),  not christened.

>What Yavor objected is the different meaning, which is created by the
>improper usage of words, as illustrated by the next example.
>>>>conquered by the Bulgars in the 7th century. The western part of
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Conquered is hardly the right word. When the Proto-Bulgars arrived at

>>As we have already established,  you are not the man to quible about the
>>precise use of words.  Besides,  your stance is highly debatable.
>
>Debatable - yes. Highly - I don't think so. As for the establishing part,

And what is the differene between debatable and highly debatable?
>
>>>The Second Balkan war
>>>broke out, Bulgaria lost, Sofia was occupied by Romanian troops, and
>>>Bulgarian-populated lands went to Serbia and Greece. Numerous
>>>population exchanges followed, attempting to adjust the population
>
>>There has never been a population exchange involving the territory of the Republic
>>of Macedonia.  You did not find the "several poulation exchanges followed" in any
>>history book,  not even a less-than-objective one.  You made it up.
>
>I thought Vasil B. was very good at nitpicking, but it seems to be context
>oriented. Nowhere did Yavor state that there were population exchanges
>involving the territory of the Republic of Macedonia. Or maybe you got this
>from the context? So does this mean that Yavor's criticism of the article's
>beginning was justified?

Yes he did,  unequvocally,  in the theree lines bellow.  You may need to read
them more carefully.
>
>>>distributions to the administrative borders. As a result the Bulgarian
>>>population in Macedonia greatly decreased. The few that remained were
>>>convinced by the Serbs that they are a separate nation - Macedonians.
>> ======================

>>You are in dire need of history lessons.  That is the last thing on earth the
>>Serbs would have done
>
>Why do you think so? Their (the Serbian government's) other option would
>have been to shoot 1.5 mill. people.

This is getting to be annoying.  You insist on making statements about
things you seem to know know nothing about.  The Serbs did rule Macedonia
until 1941 and they did not shoot 1.5 milion people.
>
>I think you are the one in need of history lessons, especially the history
>of the creation of your nation.
>
Now,  stop for a minute and think about what you said.  Nest time you get the
ugrge to sday something like that count to ten first.

>>Rest deleted
>>>Yavor Parashkevov
>BTW,  do the Macedonians use the word adash?
No, they don't,  but i asked around and found out what it means
> Vassil Peytchev
Vasil Babamov