The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> Re: Nation and Nationalism Panco said:

Re: Nation and Nationalism Panco said:
Posted by pancho (Guest) - Saturday, September 9 2006, 21:41:37 (CEST)
from 200.57.25.27 - unknown.bestel.com.mx Mexico - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Ashur Beth-Shlimon wrote:
>Here PANCHO again:
>
>"...you still haveīn`t defined "nation"...you merely use the word to suit yourself...and that`s precisely the reason people long ago decided to collect COMMON usage in things called dicvtionaries..so they could understand one ANOTHER..and not merely talk to the wall...you didnīt define "under occupation" either...the United States is far more "occupied" than ancient Assyria ever was...by your definition nine tenths of the Assyrian empire was "occupied territory" and hence illegitimate...would YOU have given any of it back? "
>
>MY REPLY:
>
>You are not going to accept any way anything I will say, because even if I give a definition of a nation, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT it,

...you`re missing out on something basic: I didn`t give you MY definition of "nation"...I gave you the ACCEPTED defintion..in the civilized world..which I wish you would join. Why on earth would I accept your PERSONAL definition of "nation"??? No wonder you all are at each other`s throats...you have to use a COMMON language if you want to be understood....was I mistaken in thinking you wanted to be understood? Do you just want to rant?

..if you have another definition from some other recognized sourse...such as a DICTIONARY..let us have it and we`ll consider it...we aren`t here to "agree" blindly with anyone...we`re here to make the strongest possible case for our points of view...and to do so it helps to use a common language and meaning...otherise we just fight.

...you use many provocative words...but you do so without offering the least proof that you know what they mean...you should be the first one to correct yourself..not leave it to me. Hanna has one meaning of "nation" and you have another and Aprim has a third and Dadeeshoo has another and so on and so forth...this will never do. If you`re going to use the English language to express ideas in...then have the decency to check and see what the words mean in ENGLISH...picking and choosing from authors you happen to like won`t do either...there are sources..agreed upon sources and they are called dictionaries..use one sometime.


in any event I am not in the STATURE of those thinkers who DEFINED the NATION, but it was not accepted by each other,

...we`re not talkiing aboput competing WRITERS...wer`re talking about the DICTIONARY...and dictionaries mostly agree...try looking up a word in several acepted dictionaries and you`ll see they agree much more than not....of course different people use definitions in different ways when making their points...but they all pretty much agree on the legitimate MEANING.and that comes from a dictionary and you`d appear to be a bigger fool if you went around saying that dictionaries "don`t agree"...yes they DO! Authors may not...but dictionaries most definitely do!




and DO YOU THINK IF I DEFINE IT , you will accept that, you are actually the one who put things as it suits you,

...I don`t define the word myself....I gave you the accepted defintion...accepted by teachers, professors and universities...in lands occupied by millions and millions of people...it "suits" me to be certain what a word means before arguing with someone....and by "meaning" I don`t mean what i THINK it should mean..but rather what the universally accepted SOURCE says it means...that`s quite different from what you do, whixch is to define the word yourself and then run with it. I`m not giving you MY definition of the word, so you might get justifiably huffy...I gave the DICTIONARY meaning...and instead of dealing with reality, you`re off and running again, AWAY from the issue at hand.....again!!!

Try it now...."nation" has that ACCEPTED definition that I showed you...not MY defitnion but Merriam Webster`s...go look it up for yourself...and then let`s discuss whether or not modern "Assyrians" have a nation.

is that so hard to do? If it is ghard to do it`s only because you don`t LIKE what you hear and can`t bear to accept reality. Which explains a lot.

remember I am talking to people very respected people as you, BUT IF YOU THINK YOURSELF A WALL, that is up to you !

..:I merely gave the ACCEPTED definiton of the word...and for that you have done nothing but blather and blubber and try to hide and run..which is what you ALWAYS do! Why don`t you pick up the discussion where we left off and give it your best shot?

It was not MY definitioon of the word...it is the accepted defintion of the word given us by those whom we trust and entrust with defining the English language..so we can discuss things like civilized people AND reach some sort of understanding....try it.



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 5245
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa: ++++++++++++++
Accept: */*
Accept-language: es-mx
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf4/rkvsf_core.php?Re_Nation_and_Nationalism_Panco_said-2Tas.FGJq.QUOTE
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9