[Polemica]
From: GLTUDO%LSUVM@vm.uni-c.dk (GLTUDO%LSUVM@vm.uni-c.dk)
Subject: Obiectivitate, partizanat, pertinenta
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-17 21:19:19 PST
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
1. Cred ca marea majoritate a celor scrise de Ioan Rosca sint foarte adevarate
si ma bucur ca cineva a reusit sa gaseasca o formulare adecvata pentru situatia
actuala din Romania. Din pacate normalitatea este inca departe si comparatiile
ipocrite cu felul in care functioneaza lucrurile in Vest este adesea deplasata.
Un exemplu: este binecunoscut exercitiul de cinism al lui Iliescu atunci cind
intr-un interviu, la o intrebare referitoare la "misterul" disparitiei
teroristilor, a raspuns ca in definitiv nici despre asasinarea lui Kennedy nu
s-a aflat adevarul nici dupa 30 de ani (ceea ce desigur este foarte promitator)
Deci daca au si americanii asa ceva, ce sa ne mai facem noi griji? Ceea ce a
"uitat" Iliescu (pentru care asasinarea lui Kennedy e musai sa fie opera
CIA -de, agenturili...) este ca in acest caz a fost gasit un ucigas foarte
verosimil (Oswald). Isi inchipuie cineva ca americanii ar fi rabdat ca acest
asasinat sa ramina fara explicatie iar la un an dupa aceea noul presedinte sa-i
asigure zimbind ca misterul nu va fi dezlegat nici in 30 de ani?
2. Sint convins ca a trata pe cineva drept "securist" sau alte asemenea fara
nici o dovada concreta, doar pentru ca impartaseste (sau nu impartaseste)
anumite opinii este reprobabil. Pe de alta parte, incercarile de a fi
"politically correct" in stil american (deci de a nu supara pe nimeni) se
potrivesc ca nuca-n perete cu realitatile romanesti. De exemplu toti romanii
stiu ca nu mai departe de '89 practic oricine de la ambasadele romanesti era
securist, ca exista un intreg aparat de propaganda in strainatate (care facea
si lucruri mai inteligente decit sa editeze operele...), ca exista o retea de
informatori in rindurile emigratiei etc.- si un copil stia asta! Ce s-o fi
intimplat cu ei? Credeti ca s-au dedicat agriculturii in tara? Sau poate sint
domni si distileaza istorie in stil vestic si obiectiv ? Asta ma face sa ma
gindesc ca acum 2-3 decenii un politician italo-american (omul mafiei) reusise
sa obtina interzicerea prin lege a folosirii cuvintului "mafia", deoarece mafia
nu exista, era doar o inventie (a celor ne-obiectivi, presupun) pentru a jigni
pe cei de origine italiana.
3. Reactia d-lui Ghica surprinde prin ireverentiozitate, dar surpriza adevarata
vine de-abia la citirea posterului original. "How many of the people who
disagreed to S. have ever not agreed, but merely listened and apreciated
comments depicting a different point of view? None!" Scurt si cuprinzator,
fara ezitari! Asta obiectivitate, non-partizanat, pertinenta ! Nu esti de acord
cu S.- esti pierdut definitiv. Dar partea cea mai buna de-abia urmeaza:"Because
if you cannot appreciate S. at all, you will hardly ever appreciate anything
that is politically different". Practic toti cei care au comentat negativ
mesajele lui S. (inclusiv subsemnatul) au apreciat ca o parte din continut
este bine scris si adevarat - tocmai acesta-i principiul, doua albe si una
neagra, pentru ca minciuna sa fie comestibila. Dar dl. Ghica se pare ca vrea sa
stabileasca un etalon cu care sa se masoare daca cineva va fi in stare sa
"appreciate anything that is politically different". Nu ramine deci decit ca
mesajele lui S. sa fie depuse la Paris, ca si etalonul metrului. Si vai de cine
nu corespunde - se poate incepe cu cinci ani (se poarta in ultimul timp!) si se
poate continua cu un canal.
4. In ceea ce priveste obiectivitatea lui S., care intr-un mesaj explica pe
larg cit de bine au inteles Iliescu & Co. aspiratiile poporului roman, propun
celor interesati un mic exercitiu de imaginatie. Sa impingem la extrem pacatele
de care S. acuza opozitia: neintelegerea "directiei de schimbare" si a
"ritmului reformei", "demagogie" si "comportare dubioasa". Sa presupunem deci
ca opozitia a fost si este total absurda si n-a facut nimic bun. Cum n-a avut
niciodata acces la putere, aportul ei a fost, sa zicem, zero pe toata perioada
de la '89 incoace. Intrebarea adevarata devine limpede: problema nu este ce a
facut sau nu a facut opozitia, ci ce a facut efectiv puterea. Pentru S.,
istoria, fie ea si in stil vestic, se opreste la alegeri. Nici o vorba despre
dezastrul moral si material in care s-a scufundat tara de atunci. Unde este
acel "modern Western European style welfare state" pe care chiar S. spune ca
FSN-ul l-a promis romanilor? Asa arata Romania azi ? Mai mult, ceea ce uita
S. (desi, dupa opinia d-lui Ghica, mesajele sale sint "valuable, superior,
a joy to read, well-documented and objective") este ca FSN/FDSN a tras o
cumplita pacaleala propriilor alegatori (dintre care multi nu-i mai sint
alegatori!). A promis tranzitie treptata, protectie sociala si a criticat
"terapia de soc" propusa de opozitie, ca pina la urma sa-si rasplateasca
alegatorii cu soc fara terapie. Are cineva vre-un dubiu despre parerea pe
care o au romanii in ceea ce priveste protectia sociala de care au parte?
In schimb in ceea ce priveste ritmul reformelor, s-a ajuns ca sindicatele
sa-si mobilizeze oamenii in strada pentru ca acest ritm sa fie accelerat.
Pentru cine citeste macar un singur buletin de stiri din Romania, a discuta
despre obiectivitatea lui S. incepe sa devina de prost gust.
Numai bine,
Andrei.
From: Serban Dragnea (dragnea@bcarh5cc.bnr.ca)
Subject: Re: Obiectivitate, partizanat, pertinenta
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-18 08:34:37 PST
Controversa starnita de *S* expune o clasificare interesanta a
participantilor din s.c.r.:
a luptatorii din transee = proaspat veniti din Romania (in orice caz
dupa revolutie), frustrati si dezamagiti de turnura politica si
sociala de acasa, au de gand sa se intoarca mai devreme sau mai tarziu.
b observatori si critici cinici din spatele frontului = in general
plecati de mai de mult, probabil nu intentioneaza sa se intoarca,
prezinta o curiozitate mai mult "stiintifica" pentru evenimente care
nu le vor influenta probabil in mod direct viata.
Cele doua tabere vad faptele si solutiile in mod total diferit.
Probabil ca adevarul este pe undeva pe la mijloc (din fericire).
Din pacate frustrarea politica genereaza impresia ca 'democratia' in
Romania nu poate functiona pentru ca "uite cum se alege FSNul cu toate ca
sunt fosti comunisti si noua nu ne plac".
In article <199402180313.AA03012@ns.dknet.dk>, GLTUDO%LSUVM@vm.uni-c.dk writes:
|> . . .
|> actuala din Romania. Din pacate normalitatea este inca departe si
|> comparatiile ipocrite cu felul in care functioneaza lucrurile in Vest
|> este adesea deplasata.
> . . .
In mod evident Romania este departe de idealul unei democratii
constitutionale dar cred ca are mult mai mult de castigat daca joaca dupa
reguli democratice. Abandonul, chiar "temporar", al idealului democratic
pentru o populatie prospat iesita din somn politic este un pericol mult
prea mare. Pricipiile politice functioneaza la fel in Vest ca si in Est
pentruca si intr-o parte si in alta principalii actori sunt aceiasi: oameni
care isi cauta o viata mai buna. In mod sigur romanii mai au multe de
invatat inclusiv cum sa nu se lase pacaliti de politicieni abili si lipsiti
de scrupule. Masuri exceptionale care sa-i "apere" nu fac altceva decit sa
intirzie acest proces.
Discutii si opinii diferite (inclusiv analiza lui *S*) ajuta mai mult decit
atacuri furioase si emotionale.
Serban.
From: Alexander Mihai Popovici
(mihai@sep.Stanford.EDU)
Subject: Re: Obiectivitate, partizanat, pertinenta
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-18 12:38:59 PST
In article <1994Feb18.163437.14104@bcarh54a.bnr.ca>, dragnea@bcarh5cc.bnr.ca (Serban Dragnea) writes:
|>
|> Controversa starnita de *S* expune o clasificare interesanta a
|> participantilor din s.c.r.:
|>
|> a luptatorii din transee = proaspat veniti din Romania (in orice caz
|> dupa revolutie), frustrati si dezamagiti de turnura politica si
|> sociala de acasa, au de gand sa se intoarca mai devreme sau mai tarziu.
|> b observatori si critici cinici din spatele frontului = in general
|> plecati de mai de mult, probabil nu intentioneaza sa se intoarca,
|> prezinta o curiozitate mai mult "stiintifica" pentru evenimente care
|> nu le vor influenta probabil in mod direct viata.
Is this another way of saying "n-ai mincat salam de soia cu noi?"
I don't think there is any correlation between being out of Romania
for a longer time and being a "cynical critic behind the front."
Maybe just a better understanding of how the democratic mechanisms
function here.
Cheers
Mihai
From: Serban Dragnea (dragnea@bcarh5cc.bnr.ca)
Subject: Re: Obiectivitate, partizanat, pertinenta
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-18 15:04:06 PST
In article <2k3913$r31@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>, mihai@sep.Stanford.EDU (Alexander Mihai Popovici) writes:
|> . . .
|>
|> Is this another way of saying "n-ai mincat salam de soia cu noi?"
|> I don't think there is any correlation between being out of Romania
|> for a longer time and being a "cynical critic behind the front."
|> Maybe just a better understanding of how the democratic mechanisms
|> function here.
|>
|> . . .
Nope. Tot ce spun este ca observ doua grupuri cu experiente si in
consecinta atitudini relativ diferite. Dupa cum mentionam cred ca
schimbul de idei este bine venit pentru ambele grupuri.
Serban.
P.S. Daca "cinic" suna prea tare in context atunci poate "aparent cinic"
sa se potriveasca mai bine.
From: Marius Hancu (hancu@crim.ca)
Subject: Re: Obiectivitate, partizanat, pertinenta
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-18 12:43:38 PST
>>>In article <1994Feb18.163437.14104@bcarh54a.bnr.ca>, dragnea@bcarh5cc.bnr.ca
(Serban Dragnea) writes:
>> Nntp-Posting-Host: bcarh5cc
>> o clasificare interesanta a
>> participantilor din s.c.r.:
>>
>> a luptatorii din transee = proaspat veniti din Romania (in orice caz
>> dupa revolutie), frustrati si dezamagiti de turnura politica si
>> sociala de acasa, au de gand sa se intoarca mai devreme sau mai tarziu.
>> b observatori si critici cinici din spatele frontului = in general
>> plecati de mai de mult, probabil nu intentioneaza sa se intoarca,
>> prezinta o curiozitate mai mult "stiintifica" pentru evenimente care
>> nu le vor influenta probabil in mod direct viata.
cred ca sunt mult mai multe categorii. si sa nu uitam ca dupa
disparitia dictaturii plecarea / reintoarcerea nu mai sunt decizii
quasi-definitive pentru romani.
marius
--
Marius Hancu, Parallel Architectures Group
Centre de Recherche Informatique de Montreal (CRIM)
1801, avenue McGill College, Bureau 800, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2N4, Canada
phone: (514) 398-5561, fax: 514-398-1244, email: hancu@crim.ca
--
SIG
From: Emil Marcus (marcus@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Subject: Re: Obiectivitate, partizanat, pertinenta
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-18 14:17:36 PST
In article , hancu@crim.ca (Marius Hancu) writes:
>>>>In article <1994Feb18.163437.14104@bcarh54a.bnr.ca>, dragnea@bcarh5cc.bnr.ca
(Serban Dragnea) writes:
> >> Nntp-Posting-Host: bcarh5cc
>
>
>
> >> o clasificare interesanta a
> >> participantilor din s.c.r.:
> >>
> >> a luptatorii din transee = ...
> >> b observatori si critici cinici din spatele frontului = ...
>cred ca sunt mult mai multe categorii. si sa nu uitam ca dupa
>disparitia dictaturii plecarea / reintoarcerea nu mai sunt decizii
>quasi-definitive pentru romani.
>
>marius
Absolut de acord cu remarca lui Marius.
Si adaug ca, in ciuda divergentelor, a deosebirilor de opinii, a problemelor
personale, virstei, ar fi de dorit ca ceva "unitate in diversitate" sa se
manifeste, o apropiere a celor care, "impotriva" sau cu voia lor, au ceva
comun: sint din Romania ! Beneficiarii neindoielnici ar fi atit cei care
traiesc si vor continua sa traiasca in Romania, cit si *noi*, cei din
emigratie, fie ea temporara sau permanenta.
Emil
--
Emil Marcus marcus@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: Marius Hancu (hancu@crim.ca)
Subject: Re: Obiectivitate, partizanat, pertinenta
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-18 09:03:39 PST
>>>In article <199402180313.AA03012@ns.dknet.dk>, GLTUDO%LSUVM@vm.uni-c.dk writes:
>> Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 21:09:19 CST
>> Resent-From: Andrei Tudoran
>> Resent-To: soc-culture-romanian@sandes.dk
Isi inchipuie cineva ca americanii ar fi rabdat ca acest
>> asasinat sa ramina fara explicatie iar la un an dupa aceea noul presedinte sa-i
>> asigure zimbind ca misterul nu va fi dezlegat nici in 30 de ani?
Din pacate, multa lume in America este de aceasta parere: v. filmul
JFK de Oliver Stone, si multe alte dovezi.
In rest, as vrea doar sa mentineze ca e pacat ca unele articole de
interes general pe s.c.r. nu apar in engleza. Nu atat fiindca limba
oficiala a grupului este engleza, ci fiindca audienta este
internationala si trebuie informati si ei de ce se intampla in
Romania si dezbaterile de opinii de acolo. Desigur, fiecare face cum
crede, dar ...
Marius
--
Marius Hancu, Parallel Architectures Group
Centre de Recherche Informatique de Montreal (CRIM)
1801, avenue McGill College, Bureau 800, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2N4, Canada
phone: (514) 398-5561, fax: 514-398-1244, email: hancu@crim.ca
--
SIG
From: Mihai Dima (mihai@lamar.ColoState.EDU)
Subject: Re: Obiectivitate, partizanat, pertinenta
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-18 15:41:47 PST
> Si vai de cine
>nu corespunde - se poate incepe cu cinci ani (se poarta in ultimul timp!) si se
>poate continua cu un canal.
Nu, nu. Cinci pt. cine asculta. Zece pt. cine spune. Si 15 (cincisprezece)
pt. cine nici nu spune si nici nu asculta (pt. ca nu-l intereseaza politica
partidului).
Mihai O.
From: Dorin Baru (stssdxb@sugarland.unocal.com)
Subject: Re: Obiectivitate, partizanat, pertinenta
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-18 15:54:07 PST
Serban Dragnea wrote:
>Controversa starnita de *S* expune o clasificare interesanta a
>participantilor din s.c.r.:
>a luptatorii din transee = proaspat veniti din Romania (in orice caz
> dupa revolutie), frustrati si dezamagiti de turnura politica si
> sociala de acasa, au de gand sa se intoarca mai devreme sau mai tarziu.
>b observatori si critici cinici din spatele frontului = in general
> plecati de mai de mult, probabil nu intentioneaza sa se intoarca,
> prezinta o curiozitate mai mult "stiintifica" pentru evenimente care
> nu le vor influenta probabil in mod direct viata.
This is not a very good model. Almost any of the atributes that you
arbitrarily use for group 'a' would easily match group 'b' (the other way too).
Also, not everybody who was in Romania in 1989 was on the 'frontline',
neither everybody will return to Romania.
'Observatori si critici cinici' may not be fare for everybody who lived here
for a while.
Dorin
From: Dorin Baru (stssdxb@sugarland.unocal.com)
Subject: Re: Obiectivitate, partizanat, pertinenta
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-18 16:54:34 PST
GLTUDO%LSUVM@vm.uni-c.dk wrote:
>Cred ca marea majoritate a celor scrise de Ioan Rosca sint foarte adevarate
>si ma bucur ca cineva a reusit sa gaseasca o formulare adecvata pentru situatia
>actuala din Romania
OK
>Dar dl. Ghica se pare ca vrea sa
>stabileasca un etalon cu care sa se masoare daca cineva va fi in stare sa
>"appreciate anything that is politically different". Nu ramine deci decit ca
>mesajele lui S. sa fie depuse la Paris, ca si etalonul metrului
I do not think that was Razvan's goal. If we read again your very first
paragraph (above), should we say that you want to implement Rosca's opinion
as 'standard' ? Of course not.
>Unde este
>acel "modern Western European style welfare state" pe care chiar S. spune ca
>FSN-ul l-a promis romanilor
S said indeed that FSN 'understood that the Romanian people want to
live in a modern Western European style welfare state'. He does not say that
FSN provided that kind of state. What's your argument ?
>Pentru cine citeste macar un singur buletin de stiri din Romania, a discuta
>despre obiectivitatea lui S. incepe sa devina de prost gust.
>Numai bine,
I do not think so. While I think that S wrote a good, sharp and articulate
article, I doubt the objectivity (can we ever be objective?). But your article
does not prove that Rosca's article is more objective.
Dorin
From: an70614@anon.penet.fi
(an70614@anon.penet.fi)
Subject: Comments on Mr. A. Tudoran's recent posting
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-19 18:30:10 PST
In a recent posting, Mr. A. Tudoran raised the issue of my objectivity, as
part of the exchange between Mr. Ghica and Mr. Rosca. Of course, for his
part Mr. Ghica will choose whether and how to respond. I will reply to the
issues that are related to my postings. For once, in one of my future postings
I will try to define objectivity as it applies to Romanian history. Until then,
though, here are my comments on Mr. Tudoran's posting:
In 1. we hear again the theory that since Romania is not a mature democracy,
but a country in transition, rules of political action and norms of behavior
should not be required from the participants and standards should be relaxed.
( I personally think that perpetuating old ways and delaying change is
detrimental, but I do not see this as not objective, especially because I think
it should apply to all political forces in Romania, including those in power. )
Then the author gives some example of alleged Iliescu's cyncism, something
with Kennedy and Oswald. I fail to see any relevance to whether I am objective
or not in my writings.
In 2. Mr. Tudoran plays on the stereotype of the omnipresent Securitate forces
in embassies and emigration and mentions something about "political correctness"
and "mafia" whose relevance to my objectivity ( or lack of ) again escapes me.
In 3. he directs his comments to Mr. Ghica, so I do not consider appropriate
to say too much, except that I interpreted Mr. Ghica's posting as a call for
open mindedness, tollerance for alternative views and a call for uphelding a
certain level of discourse; I did not understand it at all as a claim to
my infailability or exclusionary possesion of the truth, with implied threats
for those that disagree.
In 4. Mr. Tudoran introduces a new ( to me!) method of analysis of my
objectivity: it will be based not on what I actually wrote but on an exercise
of imagination which pushes to the extreme what I wrote( "... un mic exercitiu
de imaginatie. Sa impingem la *extrem* pacatele de care S. acuza opozitia:" ).
Anyway, to the point:
a) I never claimed that the opposition did nothing good or its contribution was
zero. All I did was to publish what I believed to have been their mistakes.
b) I never said that history stopped in 1991. As present moves into past so
do political events become historical events. Writing in 1993, would have been
unfair to get any closer than 1991 and still attempt to keep politics and
history separate. The way things looked when I posted my article, the 1991
elections marked ( subjectively, of course ) the end of a clear period in
Romanian history( namely post-revolutionary ) and the beginning of a new one,
under a new social contract and constitutional framework. I realize that there
are people who think that it is nothing more than a continuation of the
previous regime with cosmetic changes, but I do not share this oppinion.
c)I never claimed that FSN promissed a "modern Western European style welfare
state". All I said is that when the people raised in the 1989 Revolution, their
vision of a free Romania was more in line with their perception of a modern
Western Europeean state than with the pre-WWII Romania. To this extent, the
opposition insistence on the past contributed to the diminuation of its
electoral apeal.
d) I do not think you can fairly judge why FSN/FDSN won the elections in
1991 based on their subsequent performance( or lack of ) in 1992 and 1993.
As far as "tricking the electorate" I do not know if I should laugh at Mr.
Tudoran's naivete, or I should admire his idealism. I have yet to see a
democratically elected government who delivers everything that promissed
before the elections. As for the government's deeds, sooner or later will
have to present itself in front of the public, and neither I nor Mr. Tudoran,
but the electorate will decide its fate. If a clear majority of the people
wants to change it, neither its control of the TV, nor the priveledges of
power will be able to save it.
Now, if Mr. Tudoran attempts to change the focus of the criticism from the
opposition of 1991 to the government of 1994, this belongs to a political
and not historical discussion.
As for the historical discussion, I intend to continue it as soon as I can
disengage myself from defending my writings and objectivity.
** S. **
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
From: Florin Cutzu (florin@clotho.weizmann.ac.il)
Subject: Re: Comments on Mr. A. Tudoran's recent
posting
Newsgroups: soc.culture.romanian
Date: 1994-02-24 02:20:25 PST
an70614@anon.penet.fi wrote:
: In 2. Mr. Tudoran plays on the stereotype of the omnipresent Securitate forces ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: in embassies and emigration and mentions something about "political correctness"
: and "mafia" whose relevance to my objectivity ( or lack of ) again escapes me.
Doesn't this sound very much like Iliescu accusing the oppostion of
paranoid anticommunism, of "stereotypes", of judging "according to the
files"?
Now the Securitate is nothing but a "stereotype" of obsessed, paranoid
people seeing conspiracies everywhere! The Securitate in embassies??!!
C'mon -- don't be a child -- you cannot really believe THAT!
I think that this very apparent "fairness" and "objectivity" and "call
for a reasonable, open minded approach" that it is one of the
stereotypes of the official propaganda in Romania. It suits them very
well in fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------
: c)I never claimed that FSN promissed a "modern Western European style welfare
: state". All I said is that when the people raised in the 1989 Revolution, their
: vision of a free Romania was more in line with their perception of a modern
: Western Europeean state than with the pre-WWII Romania. To this extent, the
: opposition insistence on the past contributed to the diminuation of its
: electoral apeal.
All along the (semi)official line has been that the
geronto--opposition is "focused on the past."
And always on the "wrong" past, that is pre-WWII Romania, a period in
our history which communists have always disliked. And it is also
focused -- how absurd, and unreasonable!! - on the last 45 years. They
would like to take revenge on millions of innocent party members for
those years!
But we all know that the leaders of the opposition are a bunch of
senile expatriates coming now to ask for their former properties, to
bring back the king and the "mosieri"! Right?
While we - the FSN - we are young, open minded, we want you to forget
the past and all those silly stereotypes about party secretaries and
the Securitate. The king and "pre-WWII Romania"!? Bleh! What's that
anyway?? We are making Romania a "Western Europeean state" now!
________________________________________________________________
:I do not think you can fairly judge why FSN/FDSN won the elections in
: As far as "tricking the electorate" I do not know if I should laugh
:at Mr. Tudoran's naivete, or I should admire his idealism. I have
:yet to see a democratically elected government who delivers
:everything that promissed before the elections.
Again a stereotype of the official propaganda -- compare the Romanian
government/situation with the western ones and force analogies; make
the opposition look below the "democratic standards of the West".
________________________________________________________________________
: As for the government's deeds, sooner or later will
: have to present itself in front of the public, and neither I nor Mr. Tudoran,
: but the electorate will decide its fate.
Yeah, right; it's not up to "you" to criticize the government: only
the "masses" have this right. You, clearly, do not belong to the
masses. You are a "bourgeois" who has abandoned his country. So you
better shut up.
Silencing the individual under the amorphous chorus of the masses has
always been a communist strategy.
___________________________________________________________________________________
: Now, if Mr. Tudoran attempts to change the focus of the criticism from the
: opposition of 1991 to the government of 1994, this belongs to a political
: and not historical discussion.
: As for the historical discussion, I intend to continue it as soon as I can
: disengage myself from defending my writings and objectivity.
The pseudoscientfic, pedantic and patronizing tone is again a hallmark
of the communist propaganda.
_____________________________________________________________________
Come **S**, put your "historical discussion" project on hold for
while, and just tell us who you are! (I bet you are sick of
typing....).
Florin