Bine ati venit pe la noi…

Calliope   Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:51 pm GMT
"Kallimera, Calliope; Ti kanis? Thello na millisso .... (Sorry for the spelling), about Ionnis... (First of all: Nice to meet you!) Parakalo para polli for the support and understanding you given/showed to me when I kind have deviated from the normal behavior.

Coming back to Ionnis, I was always curios to find out where the name of Ioannina came from? It has something to do with Ionnis? Each time when I heard the name of this place, I felt a strange attraction for it...what I never could explain... "
Hey, you can speak Greek! This is just so cool. :-)

Ioannina now... the word itself means "city of Ioannis (John)" roughly, but I didn't know how it got the name. According to wikipedia though:
"The city was named Ioannina, and put under the patronage of St. John, in the early Christian period, supposedly in 510 AD."

However, it states that the name was not officially used until later: "However it was not until 879 AD that the name Ioannina was used for the first time in the Acts of Constantinople.Ioannina was mentioned in 1020 in an imperial document by Basil II as an Episcopal Seat, under the self-governing (Autocephalous) Church of Ahrida. An even older source, from the Acts of the 879 Synod, referred to Zacharias, the Bishop of Ioannina."

So yeah, it's pretty much a city that has your name on it, heheh. Kalispera kai se esena.
Ion   Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:27 pm GMT
Ef haristo poli and ! Kalispera i se...Calliope!

The Greeks are my relative...my sister has married a wonderful Greek man and my two nephews have tightened the relation between us. Because of that, in my heart, after Romania, it always come Greece...as for them, being born in Greece, living in Greece, (the Saloniki - Salonica), after Greece, Romania comes always next in their soul.

I was many times in Greece and I always enjoyed being there, among so warm, nice and communicative people. In Greece, I feel always like home!

God bless you!

Ion

SkoopyIE,

You're right..it is the human nature who cannot ovwecome its limitations ...
OldAvatar   Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:18 am GMT
Communism is not democratic in nature. As a matter of fact, Communist and Fascist doctrines are forbidden in Romania. Communist is not Democratic for a simple reason... It needs to get rid of Democracy, otherwise it can not go any further with its ideology.
OldAvatar   Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:20 am GMT
Edit:

"Communist is not Democratic", should be Communism, of course
Calliope   Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:49 am GMT
Well, in theory, communism is "the people in power", so in that sense it is (and I repeat, in theory) democratic. Now reality is of course much different than theory.
Ion   Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:33 pm GMT
Communism has never been implemented; the Communist theory has never been applied anywhere in this world, ever. What it has been, what we had, what we lived, what we witnessed was only a Leninist-Stalinist dictatorship.

It has been said that between Marx theory and Lenin's theory is no difference but only one which is regarding the way of implementation/apparition... But that was essential.

I don't want to transphorm this forum in a philosophical one, but please, don't make such confusions. The dictators have only used(abused) these specific terminologies for imposing their absurd and fanatic rules and nothing else. Communism, in Marx-Engels vision is not something to be imposed to the people by force, on tanks, or/and like a template.

Communism is the highest level reached by a socialist society in its development. But we didn't reach not even this level, of a socialist society. We have small surrogates in Northern Europe. The people are simple not ready, they cannot accept this type of living. We are too terestrii (to use a Romanian word), to closed to the ground to accept socialism so easy and Socialism can not be imposed by force, eitehr.

These society models should be a result of an objective process; they should appear on a specific moment of evolution of capitalisms, (when this has reached its highest level), as a natural process, as an objective necessity of continuing evolution.

It appears /it should appear (if ever will) in the same way as capitalisms did; as capitalism replaced feudalism; when the production forces and production relations have lost the balance between them; when the production forces development became more advanced and the production relations remained behind. They need to stay in ballance and to get so, they need new adjustments...

It is a lot to discuss about these things, and it is wrong to qualify as being bad something what we never experienced. Calliope, SkoopeIE are right in what they say!

As long as socialism and capitalism have been never experienced by humans, they remain only simply philosophical concept, free to all kind of debates.
Ion   Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:04 pm GMT
"As long as socialism and capitalism have been never experienced by humans, they remain only simply philosophical concept, free to all kind of debates."

sorry, please read: As long as socialism and communism....instead of socialism and capitalism as I wrongly wrote above

Thank you!
Guest01   Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:15 am GMT
" Oh really? What the hell does that mean? Are you threatening me?"

No, I'm not threatening you. What I said is that you don't have much information and that you would better keep your mouth shut so that the others won't consider you a total idiot. A bit too late, I guess.

And congratulations to Latinate, who can understand Romanian! He also made a good point.
a.pa.m.   Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:47 pm GMT
Guest01, Fuck you and go to hell.
a.pa.m.   Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:07 pm GMT
Latinate, I read the article "Rome and Romania". I don't doubt that Dacia was part of the Roman Empire. When the author, A.H.M. Jones refers to "Romania" in the article, he's talking about the New Rome. Mr. Jones said that the Roman Empire had grown so big that the empire was no longer about a single city (Rome), but about the entire empire which he referred to as "Romania". In case you may not know, "Romania" means New Rome. It comes from the Latin "Roma" (Rome) and "Nea" (New). The author wasn't saying that Dacia was the new Rome. The new Rome (Romania) was what the entire Roman Empire.
Guest01   Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:06 am GMT
Ignoring the fact that your response was immature, I will respond with a simple: Idiots first.

I hope that's simple enough for you to understand so that I won't have to explain (yet again).
a.p.a.m.   Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:48 pm GMT
Guest01, I'm not impressed.
Guest01   Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:02 pm GMT
"a.p.a.m. : Guest01, I'm not impressed."

And I should care because...?
Ion   Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:30 pm GMT
Calm down guys, nobody loses or gains anything here. It is just an opinion exchange, let it be!

Take care of yourselevs!