All countries (except for the most base, like North Korea) have a stake in Greece's survival, since Greece has contributed so much to the world. This is why as long as humanity exists, Greece will exist.
Happy ith who said I'am Greek.
In a sense, all of us who live in the modern civilized world are Greek and Roman; just as all of us who share an Abrahamic cultural heritage (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Samaritan, Bahai, etc.), whether recent or ancient, are in a sense Jew.
Of course, it can also be said that the Ancient Romans were also in a sense Greek.
What happened to greater Greece?http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Greekhistory.GIF
Dude their achievements were over 2000 years ago. Most advanced places had long/multiple golden eras. For instance China's longevity, the middle east and the birth of civilization along with the Islamic era, ancient Italy the Renaissance American modern Italy, Germans as a leader in science for the last 400 years and if not for globalization probably would be much longer. I can see that all the above have good genes because when given opportunities in America to do well they succeed. What I cannot understand is how the ancient Greeks did so much and yet the modern Greeks seem nothing of the like.
" princenuadha said... Dude their achievements were over 2000 years ago. Most advanced places had long/multiple golden eras. For instance China's longevity, the middle east and the birth of civilization along with the Islamic era, ancient Italy the Renaissance American modern Italy, Germans as a leader in science for the last 400 years and if not for globalization probably would be much longer. I can see that all the above have good genes because when given opportunities in America to do well they succeed. What I cannot understand is how the ancient Greeks did so much and yet the modern Greeks seem nothing of the like."Many great achievements done by different peoples after the ancient Greeks owe something to ancient Greece and other civilizations. The modern Greeks are partaking of same chain of accomplishment as anyone else. I can tell you from personal experience that many modern Greeks have done a lot. The modern Greeks in my life as a whole have forcefully instilled education into their children. I went to Greek school and American school at the same time. There is a great love of education in the Greek-American community and in Greek communities elsewhere. Greeks per capita are economically successful in America and elsewhere. My parents were almost always self-employed--another apparent love of modern Greeks, self-employment, owning their own businesses.
How trite. Bah! Cadaveric.
Aside from just pondering such developments I only want to suggest that you not focus so much on teaching your kids Greek history and instead teach them science, economics, philosophy, writting and so on. Pride can burden a whole group of people.A culture is an idea and an institution by which people live by; it is not enough to say that ancient Greece has effected later cultures and therefore Greece as a nation lives on. If you thought that way you might as well have broken Greece into all of its contributors the Babylonians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Hittites, and more. You could further break down devolpments in Greece to the individuals who, for instance, made the advancmens in science and the friendships and other personal relations that effected them uniquely. Then you consider all the events that brought there lives together. You can add all the other biographical happenings that effected them, such as moving by the sea, having an apple fall on their head, seeing a swinging lantern at a certain moment. After all this cause effect type thinking you loose the concept of Greece. If things continue as they have Greece will only live through the history books and a people who wear certain flags and own restaurants and other little businesses.
and Long live Marika Papagika:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK4c-twfn8M&feature=related
and Constantine Cavafy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_P._Cavafy
To princenuadhaHow terrible to compare the Germans and the Greeks. In no way do the Germans even come close to the Greeks. Nor do they resemble them in their achievements. The psyche of the classical and other Greeks is just much more refined than that of the Germans. The Greeks are shaped by many things. Their mythology, philosophy, taste for beauty, language, geography, climate, their very true nature...and many other factors have shaped the image of the Greeks. The Germans, regardless of all their achievements in the last centuries(and there are many), have a very different image which is somewhat lacking in colour from an aesthetic point of view. You see, it's not what you do, but HOW you do it. And the Germans just lack style. BTW what makes you think the last achievements of the Greeks were 2000 years ago? Can't quite remember the name of the German king in the 10th century who went to Constantinople to marry a Greek princess, but was refused because he was considered 'barbarian'.
I see what ur saying... I was basically just talking about technology because that is what I was concerning myself with at the moment. Technology is a usefully tool in comparing cultures as it relates to their instructional/experimental knowledge (science), methods of gaining knowledge and what it means (philosophy), and the stratification within a culture (learned jobs). Science and technology is nearly a universal measure of a culture as the progression within each of the cultures is fairly easy to map and compare with others. I would argue that part of humanity is the striving of more technology and as it gives us advantage over others and "nature".That being said I think you are right that the Greeks have a beauty in their golden era that the Germans have not. One example, greek mythology describes human relations and their place much more beautifuly than most modern literature and psychology. I'm no historian but I would love to travel to Greece a little over 2000 years ago to see how great it really was.
greek mythology describes human relations and their place much more beautifuly than most modern literature and psychologyHere you are comparing apples and oranges. A much more appropriate comparison scheme would be between Greek mythology and German(ic) mythology, which is unfortunately impossible because of the scarcity of surviving written German or Germanic mythological records compared to the Greek ones, which are relatively abundant despite the Christian suppression.
"You could further break down devolpments in Greece to the individuals who, for instance, made the advancmens in science and the friendships and other personal relations that effected them uniquely". Isn't that true of all advances? Sure, individuals belong to their social set, which may encourage experimant and speculation. Advances are not usually made by nations but by the individuals in them. "you might as well have broken Greece into all of its contributors the Babylonians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Hittites, and more". The genius of ancient Greek society was to extract useful elements of these various belief systems and recombine them in a new way. They also didn't let their religion dominate their thinking.
In a sense, all of us who live in the modern civilized world are Greek and Roman; just as all of us who share an Abrahamic cultural heritage (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Samaritan, Bahai, etc.), whether recent or ancient, are in a sense Jew.The "Abrahamic cultural heritage" predates what we think of as Judaism, which itself is a cobbling together of several near eastern religious traditions and writings. Judaism for the past two millennia is night and day different from that of say the period of Moses (when Hebrew groups took the god Yahweh from other extant monotheist groups and melded it with the Egyptian theology they had adopted) and the period of Joshua and the period of the importation of masses of Persian theology into Judaism, and then the Temple based religion that was Judaism. And lots of historians of religion would say synagogue Judaism (vs temple Judaism) is an offshoot of Greek culture, and rabbinic Judaism (again vs temple Judaism) is younger than Christianity.
John, I used the word "Jew" focusing on the Jews of the pre-Christian times, just as I used the words "Greek" and "Roman" focusing on the Greeks and Romans of the classical antiquity. Rabbinic Judaism is of course a later phenomenon and isn't the ancestor of Christianity or vice versa; the two seem to have developed more or less contemporaneously with each other and largely independently from each other. Unlike Christianity, Islam, which is younger than both Christianity and RJ, has Christian and RJ roots, in addition to pre-Rabbinic and pre-Christian Judaic roots. I don't think Moses, Joshua, the Patriarchs and even David and Solomon are historical people; they seem to be almost completely mythical figures. The earliest historical period from which historically verified figures and events are found in the Bible is the period of the separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah. That is because the Bible writing almost certainly began during that period at the earliest.
Btw, I agree with you that Persian theology exerted an enormous effect on Judaism during the Persian rule of Judah, and, yes, synagogues are very probably an offshoot of Greek culture.
I posted this to Rokus blog, but perhaps it could be useful also here, seeing that many ignore the last findings on Jewish religion and history:"Rokus, glad to know you have a blog. I saw you gave some credit to the ancientness of the Jewish R-L4 and to Tut’s R-haplogroup as a (likely) Jewish one. I wouldn’t be so sure. All your theory is based on the reliability of the Jewish history based on the Bible. Unfortunately things aren’t so. After having read “The Invention of the Jewish People” by Shlomo Sand (I reviuwed on Amazon.com) and the book of a teacher of the Pontificia Università Lateranense (P. Merlo, La religione dell’antico Israele), I think I can surely adfirm that:1) Nothing of the Jewish history from Abraham to Moses is reliable: pure myth. There are no introgression by an archeological point of view into the Palestine.2) No reliability of the Kings period. No trace of the Solomon’s Temple. The kingdom more powerful before the exile was that of Israel in the North, that hadn’t anything to do with the Southern one (Judah).3) There is no monotheism of YHWH before the exile: there was a politheism in Judah’s kingdom and YHWH had a wife (Asherah) like the contemporaneous religions.4) The YHWH’s monotheism was created by the Sodocite cast returned from Babylon, inspired by the Persian religion, as well as the Bible we know. Etc. etc.About this reconstruction agree the leftist Jew Sand and the catholic Merlo, who probably hopes to save the other myth, that of Jesus. Difficult, I think. For me it is a game already lost. Lost in the beginning.It remains our Genetics, I hope to be thought only by a scientific point of view. Proofs, proofs, only proofs, dear Rokus. See how wreched is my old enemy, also with a smart guy like Argiedude.Gioiello Tognoni del Badia. R1b1b2a (S136+). K1a1b1".
the catholic Merlo, who probably hopes to save the other myth, that of JesusNot just his miracles and accomplishments recounted in Christian texts and oral accounts (which are often impossible to be true or contradictory within and between themselves), but even the mere existence of Jesus as a real person, rather than being pure myth like for instance Zeus and the god of the Abrahamic faiths, is open to question. There is no extant external (non-Christian) testimony of Jesus' existence until the first decades of the 2nd century CE (apart from "Josephus' testimony", which was clearly forged - most probably in the 4th century CE - by Christians). The authentic extant external "testimonies" of Jesus' existence, which only began to appear in the first decades of the 2nd century CE, it seems, are nothing but direct repetitions of the Christian accounts (oral or written) existing in their times. So it seems that there is no external testimony of Jesus' existence independent of Christian accounts.
Onur, I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God and of the Vergin Mary, and I don't believe he resurrected after his death, but I am sure of his existence. If you read the book of James Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty (and others), it is clear that he had four brothers and at least two sisters, that after his death the brother James began the leader of his movement at Jerusalem, and after his death other brothers who had sons etc. etc. Probably the true followers of Jesus were the Ebionites. Cristianity as we know is a creation of Saint Paul and of century of discussions, stakes, persecutions against Greek philosophy, science etc. I can adfirm for certain that Jesus wasn't a Christian, but a pious Jew of his time. And for all this I hope that all this ends soon.
onur,On your topic of the inter-relationship between Judaism, Zoastrianism and Christianity:It's interesting to compare Easter, Passover and the Persian celebration of No Ruz.A professor of comparative religion at the University of Toronto, an Orthodox Jew, once told me that he was certain that the three religions shared many roots and that these stem from Zoroastrianism.
"the three religions shared many roots and that these stem from Zoroastrianism". I very much suspect that to be so. However the festival at the first full moon after the equinox hints very strongly at a planting festival, so it's probably even more ancient than Zoroaster. Most people without a solar calendar plant by the moon. 'Primitive' astronomers knew that the weather would get warmer after the equinox (colder down here because it's an Autumn festival in the southern hemisphere) so it was time to plant. "I don't think Moses, Joshua, the Patriarchs and even David and Solomon are historical people" Actually Israel Finkelstein has a good argument that David is historical. In his book 'David and Solomon' (I think it's called that) he suggests that Solomon is a mythical example of a 'wise King', but David was probably a minor hill chieftain who offered his services as a mercenary variously to the Egyptians (Philistines in that region) or to a minor king (Saul) in the Yisrael Valley who was trying to gain independence from the Egyptians. The others you mention, along with Abraham, are almost certainly mythical. "And for all this I hope that all this ends soon". I don't think there's much chance of that. Too many people have too much vested in keeping it all going.
Anybody seen the movie "The Quarrel"? It captures an argument between two friends, Jewish, who run into each other in Montreal in 1948. One friend is an atheist and the other very religious. The argument takes place on beautiful Mount Royal in Montreal.I see that someone else loves this movie too. It's posted in 9 parts on Youtube."The Quarrel (part 1 of 9)"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jziOCOoauCM
Terryt says:"And for all this I hope that all this ends soon". I don't think there's much chance of that. Too many people have too much vested in keeping it all going.Yes, of course. We live in free countries, where Constitution recognizes free thinking and religion. But we'll always adfirm truth, that that science and proofs have ascertained.
Gioiello, thanks. I'd add tolerance. And more than tolerance.
Yes, but Tolerance is the result of the Open Societies of the Western World after more than one thousand years of Religious Wars,of persecution of Science and Phylosophy, of murdered Ipazias, after Humanism and Renaissance, after many Galileos. And I can say only:Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas.
What is "sed magis"?I'd say that we've gone up and down throughout history on tolerance. And on understanding. And on unconditional love, not only of one's own, but of others.It's not only modern European societies that understand and practise these concepts.But it's not easy. "Love thine enemy" is not an easy concept.
Plato is a friend but truth is better.It would be not easy to find the origin of "Love thine enemy", if Jesus said something similar or not. Gospels were written at least 50 years after his death. The maxim of my life is another:"Perché uno uomo che voglia fare in tutte le parte professione di buono conviene ruini infra tanti che non sono buoni" (N. Machiavelli, Il Principe).
"Why should a man do good, says Ruini, to those who are not good?"Is that a correct translation?If so, that's the tension in the belief of "love thine enemy" or the modern version, which is "be, or try to be, understanding and accepting of those with whom you fundamentally disagree with."I don't think any one religion holds a monopoly on that idea.The ancients, mystics, and nomads of faith throughout the millenia have struggled with just such questions, so I don't think we are going to solve it here!
The Italian of Machiavelli is of course the Italian of the Renaissance. "ruini" is the actual "rovini", Subjunctiv present of "rovinare" = "to ruin" of the same origin. By chance is the name of Cardinal Ruini.But the meaning is much much more. Take, please, a translation of "Il Principe" and read (the whole book of course).
OK. Yes, I often hear it quoted. It's probably a little dark for my tastes, but in any case, I'll have to read it.
Gioiello,I looked on line a bit at some of the passages from "The Prince." You could just as easily read Thucydides' "The History of the Peloponnisian Wars" for a cold blooded analysis of human failures.And yes, it's always good to know the game that someone is playing on you. But even knowing this, and accounting for this, I'd still say that in the end, there is no alternative to the principle of trying to understand.And also:"γνῶθι σεαυτόν"
Onur, I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God and of the Vergin Mary, and I don't believe he resurrected after his death, but I am sure of his existence. If you read the book of James Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty (and others), it is clear that he had four brothers and at least two sisters, that after his death the brother James began the leader of his movement at Jerusalem, and after his death other brothers who had sons etc. etc. Probably the true followers of Jesus were the Ebionites. Cristianity as we know is a creation of Saint Paul and of century of discussions, stakes, persecutions against Greek philosophy, science etc. I can adfirm for certain that Jesus wasn't a Christian, but a pious Jew of his time. And for all this I hope that all this ends soon.Gioiello, Tabor is not a man I would take seriously, especially after his participation in the "lost tomb of Jesus" hype. Still, it is possible that there is a historical core behind the Jesus stories of the early Christians. If there is, I think quotations of the Church Fathers from the now-lost Gospel of the Hebrews (Matthaei Authenticum), which I and many scholars think was written before the canonical gospels, can shed some light on the real Jesus.
Actually Israel Finkelstein has a good argument that David is historical. In his book 'David and Solomon' (I think it's called that) he suggests that Solomon is a mythical example of a 'wise King', but David was probably a minor hill chieftain who offered his services as a mercenary variously to the Egyptians (Philistines in that region) or to a minor king (Saul) in the Yisrael Valley who was trying to gain independence from the Egyptians. The others you mention, along with Abraham, are almost certainly mythical.I already know these, Terry. Still, the correct reading of the "DWD" in the Tel Dan stela isn't clear (not even from the context), e.g., it can also be read as "Dod" (Hebrew for "beloved") and in many other forms. Many (maybe even most) of these alternative readings are more plausible than the "David" reading taking into account the context and the known Northwest Semitic writing norms and examples.
Onur, if you have read some posting of mine in the past, perhaps you know I don't like who hides himself behind a nickname: my name is Gioiello Tognoni and only one person in the world takes this name: me. Who are you? I quoted James Tabor because I think his is a good book and the story of The tomb of the Shroud, of the James' ossuary etc. should be investigated seriously. Now is the day of the Turin shroud!Anyway what Tabor, Ehrman etc. are writing now was already written many many years ago by, for instance, Ambrogio Donini, a marxist, my master on Religion. These aren't news. We know these facts from many time and knew them Vanini, Giordano Bruno and many others that Christians burnt.
Gioiello, I am not from those hiding behind a nickname. I am already using my real name. My full name is Onur Dincer (it is pronounced as in Italian, 'e' is open, 'nur' and 'din' are stressed, the primary stress is of course on the surname). I will only ask you a simple question: What do you know about the real Jesus with certitude?
Then you are a Turk. Hope that you aren't like Occhiai (perhaps you don't understand, but if you were, by chance,"quel rompicoglioni svedese", you certainly would understand). We amateurs have a YDNA and a mtDNA: mine is R1b1b2a (S136+) and K1a1b1 (I am waiting for the next 12 my FGS). And yours? If you are a Turk certainly your data would be very interesting.About Jesus I think it isn't interesting if he was a real man or not. Most important is that he wasn't the God's son and didn't resurrect. If all Europeans begin to think this I think that many things would change. And you, as a Turk, in what do you believe? In Allah?
My suspects are growing: why haven't you said that you surname must be pronounced /dinger/dinjer/?
OcchiaiWhat does that word mean? The online dictionaries gave no results for its meaning. Is it a personal name, as you capitalized its first letter?And yours?Unfortunately, I haven't had my DNA tested yet, but I'm seriously thinking about it. Do you have any company or test recommendations? Autosomal DNA tests make immensely more sense as indicators of overall personal (and even also populational) genetic structure than Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup tests. On the other hand, they are much harder to interpret than haplogroup tests (at least for now).If you are a Turk certainly your data would be very interesting.Yeah, I know. :)About Jesus I think it isn't interesting if he was a real man or not. Most important is that he wasn't the God's son and didn't resurrect.I concur.And you, as a Turk, in what do you believe? In Allah?Firstly, I'd like to state that my religious beliefs (or disbeliefs) do not have anything to do with my nationality or ethnicity. You should already have realized - at least partially - my religious belief by now. Let me give you a some clear examples: a Muslim cannot even seriously think of the possibility of Jesus' nonexistence, as both the Koran and "authentic" Hadith mention him as one of Allah's prophets (many times), which means he has to be as much real as a human being as Muhammad according to Islam. That would be doubting some of Allah's and Muhammad's sayings, and doubting as a Muslim the truth of even a speck of the Koran or "authentic" Hadith makes you an apostate according to Islam. So I cannot remain a Muslim with my current thoughts about Jesus. And this is my statement from this same thread: "but even the mere existence of Jesus as a real person, rather than being pure myth like for instance Zeus and the god of the Abrahamic faiths"Getting to the point, I am an atheist, simple as that. My suspects are growing: why haven't you said that you surname must be pronounced /dinger/dinjer/?No, the 'c' in my surname is written with cedilla in Turkish. 'c' with cadilla represents the sound of the 'ch' in the English word "chain" in the Turkish alphabet. But I can understand your objection, as 'c' without cadilla represents the sound of the 'j' in English "journal" in the Turkish alphabet. The thing is, I intentionally omitted the cadilla due to potential problems in display on the computers of some of the readers of this blog. My first name "Onur" (it means "honor" in modern Turkish) is a relatively recently (in early republic times) Turkified version of the French word "honneur" (French of English "honor"). The word "onur" is so commonly used and integrated in modern Turkish that it can be considered as a Turkish word. As a result, there are many Turks with the first name "Onur" today. Before the introduction of French "honneur" in the form of "onur" into Turkish in early republic times, the usual Turkish equivalents of English "honor" were "seref" ('s' is written with cadilla here and pronounced as the 'sh' in English "shop") and "haysiyet", both of which are ultimately of Arabic origin and are still frequently used both in formal and colloquial Turkish. As to my surname, it is a composite, consisting of the words "dinc" (as I said, 'c' is with cadilla here) and "er". The word "dinc" has meanings like "vigorous", "energetic" and "healthy" in Turkish. The word "er" means "man" in Turkish. So my surname means "vigourous man" in Turkish. Btw, both "dinc" and "er" are of Ancient Turkic origin. Hereafter, whenever I mention a Turkish word, I will be explicit about cadillas and so on.
The name of "quel rompicoglioni svedese" is Johan Hagman.There are six Onur Dencer on "google": Who are you? Johan knows a little bit Turkish language, very well Italian and also his English is good.Re. the origin of "Onur" I think it is closer to the Latin "honor" than to Frech "honneur". This word was present from ancient time in the Balkanic peninsula (Alb. "endra" etc.).
Gioiello, you almost cannot find me on the Internet, as I don't have a website, or a photo, bio or CV, etc. of mine uploaded to the Internet, or even a Facebook or Twitter account. Only publicly visible thing I do on the Internet is to write on a handful of forums and blogs, mostly under the name of "onur", there is nothing else you can find about me on the Internet. Btw, my surname is Dincer (as I already stated, c is with cedilla), not Dencer. I am wondering the reason of your curiosity about me. As to the origin of my first name, the French "honneur" was deliberately transformed into the Turkic-sounding "onur" by some of the state officials (probably including academicians) working for the state-sponsored Turkish Language Remorm (TLR) of the 1930s Turkey in order to sell it to the official TLR Committee, whose aim was to replace Turkish words of foreign origin (including Arabic, Persian, Greek, Armenian and of course French among others) with words that have Turkic word roots (most of which were neologisms). Another criterion was that the neologisms must have complied with the Turkish vowel harmony rules (only words of Turkic origin are expected to comply with the Turkish vowel harmony rules in Turkish, not words of foreign origin, e.g., "fatih", a Turkish word of Arabic origin, doesn't comply with the Turkish vowel harmony rules). The French "honneur" was artificially transformed into "onur" by some state officials working for the TLR to meet these criteria, as there is by chance a Turkic root "on" and a Turkic suffix "-ur", which are expectedly completely unrelated to the French word "honneur" (or its Latin form "honor") and its meaning, and the word "onur", unlike the word "honneur", complies with the Turkish vowel harmony rules. So, depite its obvious French origin, its newly coined version "onur" somehow managed to be passed as a word of "Turkic origin" in the circles of the TLR officials. Though this may have to do with the similarly state-sponsored Sun Language Theory of the 1930s Turkey, which proposed that all human languages are ultimately descended from Ancient Turkic language. Thus this theory created a more inclusive and positive atmosphere for Turkish words of foreign origin and foreign word borrowing with the progress of time in the 1930s and beyond. In short, your conjecture of a Latin connection directly or via Balkan languages going back to remote past, i.e., before the modern era (btw, modern era begins in the 19th century in the Ottoman lands), is certainly wrong, but the state officials behind the coinage of "onur" may have also been influenced by the Latin - and even English - version of the French "honneur".Btw, you still haven't answered my question about the meaning of the word "occhiai". I guess it is a personal name.
"Occhiai" was a nickname of a Turk as you, who wrote sometimes to me, and I suspected he really was this "Johan Hagman", as I suspect you are the same "Johan". As I have said many times I don't like these "rompicoglioni". I unmasked him writing some sentences in Turkish language. Really a wanderful language, even though it is absurd to think it is the "mothertongue" of all the languages of the world (in the past they thought the same for Hebrew etc.). Certainly I believe in the monogenesis of the languages or, at least, in the Nostratic theory, then to a link between Altaic languages and Indo-European ones.If you are Johan, certainly your knowledge of Turk has progressed now and it would be difficult for me to unmask you.
Dear Gioiello, I know neither Italian nor Swedish, I only know Turkish (my mother tongue) and English (from school years). Additionally, I know - mostly from Internet research - the phonology, orthography and pronunciation rules of some languages (mostly European and Middle Eastern languages, and including Italian btw) with varying degrees of proficiency depending on the language. I think I know how to convince you that I am not Johan or Occhiai and I am really Onur Dincer. http://tarihdeniz.blogspot.com/2010/03/turkcenin-ilk-kez-konusulmas-ve.htmlThe above is a link to a thread of a blog to which I have been sending posts for the last two years under the name of "onur". As soon as you enter the page, you will notice how an enormous number of my posts I deleted before settling on a final revision. You should already have noticed my habit of deleting my posts consecutively until finally fixing on a last revision. In case the month names appear on your screen in their Turkish forms, I should inform you in advance that "Mart" means "March" and "Nisan" means "April" in Turkish.As another proof that I am really Onur Dincer and not someone else and certainly not Johan or Occhiai, and this time including my surname, I want to forward to you some of my emails I sent last year to the owner of the blog I linked above. In them, you'll see that their sender email address consists of my first name and surname with the last two digits of my birth year and that the recipient email address is the same with the email address of the blog owner, which is displayed in his blog above his photo. Of course, I must first learn your email address.As to the Sun Language Theory, of course it is, and was, absurd, and because of that it was abandoned during the 1940s.
Gioello, no one really cares who either you or Onur are, so drop the subject.
Gioello, no one really cares who either you or Onur are, so drop the subject.You are technically right, Dieneke, but his claims put me under suspicion, so I should defend myself until I prove my disconnection to the claims.
Post a Comment