[Zeropean]

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

I did not use the quote function because this is no dissection.

I recomended you to use quote function since you are loosing yourself in a post full of stupid comparisons and aren't adressing any of my points but you're just repeating yourself. More than once I asked you to be more specific and provide arguments for your statements, of course the easiest way to avoid this questions is to re-write what you posted already without using quote function.

Since you are so keen on primary school - what is the inhabitant of Krško? Of Trst? Dat. sing. of gospa? Which is correct - zaželen or zaželjen? Prinesen or prinešen? Láhek or lahák (tének or tenák)? Zvonenje or zvonjenje? What is the comparative of globok? I could think of many more, and I honestly expect you will answer at least half of these.

Are you serious or what? I just reminded you of your mistake, now don't be a child and get over it, everyone makes mistakes.

And yes I can answer each one of this, but this is not what we're debating here.

I took my time twice already, but it did not seem worth the effort.

That's because you're not puting enough effort in it, or enough time. Or both. Not my problem.

Reading does not mean understanding - you may have read my post, but this:

clearly shows you are too eager to prove me wrong to try to comprehend what I explained using different wordings.

Haha, trying to proove you wrong? Come on? I was joking, I didn't need to answer anything you write because I already did, it was just funny to me.

if people are willing to discuss and not just write their opinion and then say "good night and good luck".

Yes which is exactly the same thing you did. Wrote your opinion, but not willing to discuss it, you just re-wrote it. And discussing the opinion where quote comes in, or at least you answer the points or questions other member has made.

I do not seek your "conversion" or whatever perverted image it is you have conjured in your mind, but the very least you can do is try to understand what I am telling you without some preconception like "slavic=panslavism", which is only the most blatant one.

I will kick-start you with this explanation: meta-ethnicity is the same basic scheme (layout, pattern, design) as nationality, but applied to a larger scale.
Ever heard of fractals? Micro- and macro-cosmos? Family-trees? Gravity is the same basic principle (force, interaction) as between particles, but applied at a planetary scale. Does that mean all particles are part of one solar system? Whales and dogs are both mammals. They are distinct, but the pattern of relation is the same, applied at a different scale and to a different degree. A german shepherd can't play Free Willy and a sperm whale can't be trained to bring you the newspaper. Does that preclude science from considering them related? You can call it (mammals) "class", you can also call it "meta-order" (since order is the next lowest scale, roughly speaking). That doesn't change the concept, though. As you move into larger scales, the degree of relatedness starts declining rapidly. Yes, we are related to negroes. Yes, we have more in common with other europids than with negroes. Where you draw the line of how much of this "relation" is "important" for what purpose is a matter of politics and ideology, which is not being discussed here, but whether or not they are related (or rather, how they are related) is a matter of science, and you just keep mixing the two.

See my other post in this thread.

You know, the easiest way to refute something is not actually arguing, but sabotaging it, for example, using false generalisations, which is what you are doing.

Oh yeah, where? Examples please..

Ah why I'm a writting this as I'll never get an answer anyway, just like before. The easiest way to refute something is to accuse someone that he is this and that or that he uses this and that, without actually backing up your statements with examples from his posts (because usualy there aren't any, just like here).

I have never said that being of the same meta-ethnicity means having the exact same ancestors.

Did I say you said that you said that?

I was making a point, since meta-ethnicity is supposed to be (and widely understood) as an ethnicity on a larger scale. Ethnic identity includes having same descent. You obviously have your own logic and definition.

It could mean that we simply have more common ancestors with the slovak people than we do with the italians, or it could mean that poles have more common ancestors with russians than with balts, but it could also not.

I actualy agree here in a way.

I'm Slavic (as considered by majority of people). For someone that doesn't know I'm Slovenian, this COULD mean that I'm Catholic living in Alps. But it COULD also mean I'm an Orthodox living in some swamps in eastern Europe. It COULD mean I'm a sub-Nordic Slovenian but it COULD Baltid Russian. It could mean I'm a Slovenian and that my culture is close to other central European nations, but it could also mean that I'm a Belarussian with a completly different culture and identity. I could mean a lot of things. You know why? Because it's artificial identity constructed somewhere in 19th century.

It means even less than being American, since beside language Americans share their "American way of life".

Being of the same nationality does not mean having the same ancestors either.

Actualy it does. Descent is one of many things of which national identity is composed.

The point is that all evidence shows that there is a layer of culture common to all "slavic" nations (yes, there is a slavic culture, even if there was never a slavic nation), and hardly any credible scientific analysis of the ethnologic material can conclude that this layer is as young as the 19th century (yes, the term slavic was coined at that time, since that was when serious research into that matter was beginning.

All evidence? Where are all this evidences? You mind showing me those evidences?

From what I read here that wouldn't be a hard job, since there must be TONS of that evidences.

*Why we are so similar to austrians is another interesting point, though - arguably at least a quarter of austria is composed of germanicised populace. About 60% minimum of hungarians are also slavs, originally. So it's really them who fucked us over, since there would be propably a lot, lot more slovenians now if they haven't.

Replace that Slavs with Slovenian or Slovenic population and your statement suddenly makes sense.

By the way, the ethnic identity you share with Portorožani was also conceived in the 19th century. You propably have more in common with hungarians that you do with the people of Portorož or Trst, just like we are tied more to austria than to russia. And it is wrong to assume culture in the context of ethnology means merely catholicism, politics and recent history. Culture, as I use the term here, means inherited culture - heritage, not borrowed culture. Had the (original) magyars stayed in the steppes, you wouldn't have a single sentence to fill with your cultural similarities.

Wrong. I already explained it in other post however, I don't need to repeat myself here.

-

Anyway I'm looking forward to your new posts. It has become quite fun now. Also don't remember you have post #3 to answer.