For a love almost as old as the sun!

[Sarafot]

Here is a song that one Romanian made it for our sister Kristy and for us Macedonians.All thanks to him for great poem.

I never thought Alexander the Macedonian
Could be named anything else but Alexander,
Or could be called anything else but Macedonian.
His troops split among themselves the spoils of war,
But in the end, the victors were the Greeks,
Because the idea makes the sword, and the idea wins against the sword, in time.
And yet, Alexander himself was not Greek.
When the wave of Slavs came,
Your name was not taken by the sea,
And although your language took Slavic melody,
The word which sustains your world remained Macedonian.
And Slavs were not a Turkish tribe,
So, how could you be Bulgarian ?
You passed to be in the shadow of three empires,
But you kept the light of your ancestors sun,
And slowly created a new sun for your children,
Because the new struggle needed new gods.
There are many mountains in your country,
Because every mountain is the statue of a hero,
And you have many lakes, to wash away the fear
And all the muddy arguments thrown against you.
The horses do not die when the dogs want to, it is said in my country,
So how could a lion die, just because some hyenas are hungry ?
The tailored costumes seem more beautiful,
And much greater the delight of songs,
When the traditions were kept with heroism,
And people followed the path of tears to reach their freedom,
Instead of the seductive comfort of slaves.
I have nothing to give Macedonians but my heart,
And from my heart I wish for you,
Since only the sun is older than you,
To be alive as long as him.

Thank you very much.

[Philosopher]

Gay poem. Gay poem. Gay poem.

ON what evidence does this author base his assertion that Slavs arrived in Macedonia?

This is the usual nonesense; they say if you repeat something long enough, even if it doesn't have any truth to it, but is merely a meretricious argument, people believe it. How sad.

[Rogi]

What's all this 'slavs' nonsense? Which waves of 'slavs'?

I don't like it.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The fact that Slavic-speaking tribes from the Danube area had arrived in Macedonia and the rest of the Balkans as far south as the Peloponnese is undeniable. What else is undeniable is the fact that there are several pieces of evidence which indicate a prior linguistic relation (before the Slavic tribes crossed south of the Danube) among the people of Macedonia, Illyria and Thrace - and between them and tribes located north of the Danube. To people like SS Cyril and Methodius, the term 'Slovianski' represented a linguistic commonality among a vast amount of peoples and lands, at that point in history it was a term in its glory years.

I don't agree with the overemphasis of this period by those uninformed or one's seeking to negate our identity, because Macedonia has other definitive periods in its history, but to deny that it took place is also not accurate. With regard to the 'wave of Slavs', this Romanian author is following a certain perception in reference to invasions during the 6th century, that cannot have been possible with a mere 100,000 or so tribal warriors, similar numbers of Huns, Avars and Bulgars also performed such acts in the Balkans yet their legacy in the local languages is insignificant. I think the verse as a whole is not far from the truth when it reads:

When the wave of Slavs came,
Your name was not taken by the sea,
And although your language took Slavic melody,
The word which sustains your world remained Macedonian.
And Slavs were not a Turkish tribe,
So, how could you be Bulgarian ?

Interpretation is important. Although the languages on both sides of the Danube were related in varying degrees before the invasion of Slavic tribes, there has obviously been some evolving over time and developments in the south which have subsequently led to much greater similarities among the two.

[Philosopher]

The fact that Slavic-speaking tribes from the Danube area had arrived in Macedonia and the rest of the Balkans as far south as the Peloponnese is undeniable. What else is undeniable is the fact that there are several pieces of evidence which indicate a prior linguistic relation (before the Slavic tribes crossed south of the Danube) among the people of Macedonia, Illyria and Thrace - and between them and tribes located north of the Danube. To people like SS Cyril and Methodius, the term 'Slovianski' represented a linguistic commonality among a vast amount of peoples and lands, at that point in history it was a term in its glory years.

I don't agree with the overemphasis of this period by those uninformed or one's seeking to negate our identity, because Macedonia has other definitive periods in its history, but to deny that it took place is also not accurate. With regard to the 'wave of Slavs', this Romanian author is following a certain perception in reference to invasions during the 6th century, that cannot have been possible with a mere 100,000 or so tribal warriors, similar numbers of Huns, Avars and Bulgars also performed such acts in the Balkans yet their legacy in the local languages is insignificant. I think the verse as a whole is not far from the truth when it reads:

Interpretation is important. Although the languages on both sides of the Danube were related in varying degrees before the invasion of Slavic tribes, there has obviously been some evolving over time and developments in the south which have subsequently led to much greater similarities among the two.

I don't dispute that the ancient historians record the presence of Slavic speaking tribes in the southern balkans; but to suggest that because these Slavic tribes are mentioned in that region, that the ancient Macedonians were of another race, a fact commonly repeated in history, and that they mixed with the wave of Slavs, is lunacy. The Romanian is arguing that the ancient Macedonians were a non-Greek, non-"Slavic" race, and then waves of so called "Slavs" came to the region, and adopted Slavic as their language and identity, but still maintained their Macedonian heritage.

You maintain that in linguistic terms, the people south of the Danube, viz., Macedonians, Illyrians, and Thracians, had affinity with the people to the north of the Danube, before the so called Slavs crossed into the south.

Did the Slavic language or its proto-Slavic language version develop on its own, independent of one another, throughout the Danube region, north and south of it, or did it originate in a given place and time and spread?

Moreover, was there an ethnic relation between these peoples as well--or was it only linguistic?

You see I have a hard time reconciling some facts; if the Slavic wave went as far south as the Peloponnese, then how do we explain the high R1a levels of the Cretan population? Did Slavs make their presence in Crete? If not, from whence did the Cretan's procure their 15% R1a?

[Sarafot]

With regard to the 'wave of Slavs', this Romanian author is following a certain perception in reference to invasions during the 6th century, that cannot have been possible with a mere 100,000 or so tribal warriors, similar numbers of Huns, Avars and Bulgars also performed such acts in the Balkans yet their legacy in the local languages is insignificant. I think the verse as a whole is not far from the truth when it reads

My opinion is the same.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I don't dispute that the ancient historians record the presence of Slavic speaking tribes in the southern balkans; but to suggest that because these Slavic tribes are mentioned in that region, that the ancient Macedonians were of another race, a fact commonly repeated in history, and that they mixed with the wave of Slavs, is lunacy.

Slavic tribes from the Danube area did cross south and invade as far as the Peloponnese, this is recorded in contemporary and near-contemporary historical texts. Given the expanse of land which they came to take hold of in a relatively short period of time, a number of these authors either dramatized the event(s) or gave a reflection of what some of the East Roman citizens (or more likely nobles) felt at the time of the attacks, hence terms like 'waves of Slavs'. What is lunacy is when figures are propped up to give the impression that millions of 'Slavs' migrated from behind the Carpathian mountains and decided to settle in the Balkans.

You maintain that in linguistic terms, the people south of the Danube, viz., Macedonians, Illyrians, and Thracians, had affinity with the people to the north of the Danube, before the so called Slavs crossed into the south.

There is evidence that indicates kinship and linguistic relations, to what extent I do not know, but it is no secret that Illyrians and Thracians spread over both sides of the Danube well before invasions during the 6th century.

I cannot say for sure where the Proto-Slavic language originates.

You see I have a hard time reconciling some facts; if the Slavic wave went as far south as the Peloponnese, then how do we explain the high R1a levels of the Cretan population? Did Slavs make their presence in Crete? If not, from whence did the Cretan's procure their 15% R1a?

Slavs did indeed make their presence in Crete during the 620's, attacks and/or appearances by Slavic tribes were dispersed everywhere in the Balkans, Iranian/Turkic/Altaic tribes were also in many areas, yet only Slavonic sustained itself as a linguistic group as opposed to Iranian/Turkic/Altaic, and in lands generally corresponding to ancient Macedonia, Illyria and Thrace - not Greece. That in itself speaks volumes.

[Philosopher]

Slavic tribes from the Danube area did cross south and invade as far as the Peloponnese, this is recorded in contemporary and near-contemporary historical texts. Given the expanse of land which they came to take hold of in a relatively short period of time, a number of these authors either dramatized the event(s) or gave a reflection of what some of the East Roman citizens (or more likely nobles) felt at the time of the attacks, hence terms like 'waves of Slavs'. What is lunacy is when figures are propped up to give the impression that millions of 'Slavs' migrated from behind the Carpathian mountains and decided to settle in the Balkans.

There is evidence that indicates kinship and linguistic relations, to what extent I do not know, but it is no secret that Illyrians and Thracians spread over both sides of the Danube well before invasions during the 6th century.

I cannot say for sure where the Proto-Slavic language originates.


Slavs did indeed make their presence in Crete during the 620's, attacks and/or appearances by Slavic tribes were dispersed everywhere in the Balkans, Iranian/Turkic/Altaic tribes were also in many areas, yet only Slavonic sustained itself as a linguistic group as opposed to Iranian/Turkic/Altaic, and in lands generally corresponding to ancient Macedonia, Illyria and Thrace - not Greece. That in itself speaks volumes.

The states north of the Danube, Romania, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine; some of these are slavic and some are not. Why is this?

Supposing the ancient historians got it right and did not misunderstand what they saw, the question remains why the balkan states south of the Danube, to wit, Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania, and Greece, share no similarities in phyisical characteristics and, more importantly, in DNA haplogroup studies with the people north of the Danube.

More importantly, how does one define a Slav? How does one define a Latin or an Arab? Slavic presense in the Balkans is recorded but this record doesn't really explain some things.

At what figure would you put the Slavic presence in Crete in the 600s?

Do you agree with Alieni that northern slavic--east and west--is a product of the south? And that there is no independent northern slavic language, since it is a product of the south?

Do you believe the ancient Macedonians spoke a language similar to Slavic or proto-slavic?

The Slavic invasions or migration that crossed south of the Danube--at what figure would you place them? And prior to their arrival south of the Danube, did the balkan states south of the Danube have a Slavic or proto-Slavic language? If not, would it be fair to suggest that you are of the opinion that the Slavic language superceeded the status quo language of the time? If so, what was the language of the time--Greek or some other language?

Prior to their crossing of the Danube, were the states south of the Danube aware of an ethnic kinship with the people north of the Danube? Was there an ethnic kinship before the crossing?

What, in your opinion, is the reason why the Slavs crossed over the Danube?

[Sarafot]

Do you agree with Alieni that northern slavic--east and west--is a product of the south? And that there is no independent northern slavic language, since it is a product of the south?

Do you believe the ancient Macedonians spoke a language similar to Slavic or proto-slavic?

Hey i suport that teory,,that is the true one!!

[Soldier of Macedon]

The states north of the Danube, Romania, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine; some of these are slavic and some are not. Why is this?

Because Finno-Ugric (Hungary), Latin (Romania) and Germanic (Austria) peoples moved into these areas - And these are the states that separate the northern and southern Slavic-speaking groups.

Supposing the ancient historians got it right and did not misunderstand what they saw, the question remains why the balkan states south of the Danube, to wit, Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania, and Greece, share no similarities in phyisical characteristics and, more importantly, in DNA haplogroup studies with the people north of the Danube.

The number of the actual invaders couldn't have exceeded a few hundred thousand at the very most over the whole period of this activity. Sharing 'no' similarities at all is a bit of a stretch, some of these peoples are located on both sides of the river, for example, Croats, Serbs and Bulgars. Furthermore, I have met several Russians that could pass as Balkanites quite easily, and several Balkanites that would have no trouble fitting in Kiev or Moscow, I understand that these may be the exceptions and not the norm, but some DNA similarities would have to exist, to one degree or another.

More importantly, how does one define a Slav? How does one define a Latin or an Arab? Slavic presense in the Balkans is recorded but this record doesn't really explain some things.

One defines a Slav the same way they define a Latin or an Arab, by their linguistic group, as there are no ethnicities or nationalities called Arabic, Latin or Slavic.

At what figure would you put the Slavic presence in Crete in the 600s?

Can't comment on that, I haven't researched the event much.

Do you agree with Alieni that northern slavic--east and west--is a product of the south? And that there is no independent northern slavic language, since it is a product of the south?

Yes I do, in principle, but interpretation is important.

Do you believe the ancient Macedonians spoke a language similar to Slavic or proto-slavic?

Absolutely, I think I have made my stance on that point quite clear, however, the 'northern Slavic' influence in the language of the people south of the Danube had an impact which resulted in changes or alterations, that cannot be disputed.

Prior to their crossing of the Danube, were the states south of the Danube aware of an ethnic kinship with the people north of the Danube? Was there an ethnic kinship before the crossing?

I would say yes, for as I have earlier stated, the fact that Illyrian and Thracian tribes lived on both sides of the river is beyond doubt. Keep in mind though, there was often little unity among Thracian or Illyrian tribes that even neighboured each other, much the same situation as the fragmented states of ancient Greece.

What, in your opinion, is the reason why the Slavs crossed over the Danube?

There are multiple reasons, the more common may be Hunnic or Avar-led invasions which consisted of armies largely peopled by Slavs, pressure and escape from the Avar and other Asiatic (or Caucasoid) tribes north of the river, and revenge attacks against the East Rome.

[Philosopher]

Because Finno-Ugric (Hungary), Latin (Romania) and Germanic (Austria) peoples moved into these areas - And these are the states that separate the northern and southern Slavic-speaking groups.

The number of the actual invaders couldn't have exceeded a few hundred thousand at the very most over the whole period of this activity. Sharing 'no' similarities at all is a bit of a stretch, some of these peoples are located on both sides of the river, for example, Croats, Serbs and Bulgars. Furthermore, I have met several Russians that could pass as Balkanites quite easily, and several Balkanites that would have no trouble fitting in Kiev or Moscow, I understand that these may be the exceptions and not the norm, but some DNA similarities would have to exist, to one degree or another.

One defines a Slav the same way they define a Latin or an Arab, by their linguistic group, as there are no ethnicities or nationalities called Arabic, Latin or Slavic.

Can't comment on that, I haven't researched the event much.

Yes I do, in principle, but interpretation is important.

Absolutely, I think I have made my stance on that point quite clear, however, the 'northern Slavic' influence in the language of the people south of the Danube had an impact which resulted in changes or alterations, that cannot be disputed.

I would say yes, for as I have earlier stated, the fact that Illyrian and Thracian tribes lived on both sides of the river is beyond doubt. Keep in mind though, there was often little unity among Thracian or Illyrian tribes that even neighboured each other, much the same situation as the fragmented states of ancient Greece.

There are multiple reasons, the more common may be Hunnic or Avar-led invasions which consisted of armies largely peopled by Slavs, pressure and escape from the Avar and other Asiatic (or Caucasoid) tribes north of the river, and revenge attacks against the East Rome.

I know some Russians who could pass as Egyptians and Middle Easterners, let alone people from the Balkans. That is not the point. As you stated it, that is more of the exception than the rule; what's more, of course, there will be some similarity in DNA between all humans. But that is not the point.

To suggest that the Slavic people north of the Danube have a concrete connection to the people of the south, is not sustainable in light of science. There is a far greater kinship (in DNA) between Macedonians with Southern Greeks, Cretans, and Syrians, then with the Slavic people north of the Danube; there is a far greater connection between Macedonians and Romanians, then the Slavic people north of the Danube and even most Slavic nations south of the Danube--save for Serbia and Bulgaria, which are also close.


If the Southern Branch is the original, then is it not logical to suggest that the language spread to the regions north of the Danube and north into the regions of Croatia, etc? And if this is so, is it not logical to suggest that these peoples already had another language other than Slavic? If they had another language already, how can you suggest that the people south of the Danube had or were aware of an ethnic kinship with a people they shared no language with or as modern day DNA evidence suggests, little to no genetic similarities?

The few hundred thousand figure you give to the invaders north of the Danube--what percentage of that would you assume intermixed with the natives? Take a wild guess...

As for ethnicty and linguistics, my friend, you are quite mistaken about one thing. Arab is both a linguistic term and a ethnic one, for Arabians are Arabs in ethnic terms and Arabic in speech. Whereas Lebanese are Arabic in speech only and not in ethnic terms. Even the CIA World Fact Book states that 90% of Saudi Arabians are Arab in ethnicity.

So are you suggesting that Romania peoples came to the region they are now after the region was already populated by Slavs? On what do you base this argument on? What evidence?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here is another example of your courteous responses.

To suggest that the Slavic people north of the Danube have a concrete connection to the people of the south, is not sustainable in light of science.

Where have I suggested a concrete connection to the people of the south, in the manner in which you are suggesting that does not seem to be sustainable in light of historical truth? Point me to the quote.

If they had another language already, how can you suggest that the people south of the Danube had or were aware of an ethnic kinship with a people they shared no language with or as modern day DNA evidence suggests, little to no genetic similarities?

Again, who suggested what you said above? Your question was the following:

Prior to their crossing of the Danube, were the states south of the Danube aware of an ethnic kinship with the people north of the Danube? Was there an ethnic kinship before the crossing?

I responded with the following:

I would say yes, for as I have earlier stated, the fact that Illyrian and Thracian tribes lived on both sides of the river is beyond doubt. Keep in mind though, there was often little unity among Thracian or Illyrian tribes that even neighboured each other, much the same situation as the fragmented states of ancient Greece.

Where do I suggest what you have suggested?

As for ethnicty and linguistics, my friend, you are quite mistaken about one thing. Arab is both a linguistic term and a ethnic one, for Arabians are Arabs in ethnic terms and Arabic in speech. Whereas Lebanese are Arabic in speech only and not in ethnic terms.

Well, my friend, you have managed to pick a red pebble in a black quarry, congrats, really, an exception and not the norm, and generally speaking, the Arabs of Saudi Arabia are known as 'Saudi' or 'Saudi Arabians', not 'Arabians'. By the way, would that make you quite ignorant on everything else but the one thing?

So are you suggesting that Romania peoples came to the region they are now after the region was already populated by Slavs? On what do you base this argument on? What evidence?

Excellent, for once an assumption of yours with regard to my 'suggestions' is close to the mark. I am suggesting that the dominant Latin people came to Romania centuries after Thracian tribes were living in that area prior. I am suggesting the Thracians spoke a language related to the Slavic languages of today. I am suggesting your read some other parts of this forum where I have explicitly stated this several times. I am suggesting you look through the forum and do the research to find what you seek in terms of evidence and sources, rather than throwing in your 'arm-chair' opinions and questions.

[Philosopher]

SoM,

You wrote:

"The number of the actual invaders couldn't have exceeded a few hundred thousand at the very most over the whole period of this activity. Sharing 'no' similarities at all is a bit of a stretch, some of these peoples are located on both sides of the river, for example, Croats, Serbs and Bulgars. Furthermore, I have met several Russians that could pass as Balkanites quite easily, and several Balkanites that would have no trouble fitting in Kiev or Moscow, I understand that these may be the exceptions and not the norm, but some DNA similarities would have to exist, to one degree or another."

I responded with: "I know some Russians who could pass as Egyptians and Middle Easterners, let alone people from the Balkans. That is not the point. As you stated it, that is more of the exception than the rule; what's more, of course, there will be some similarity in DNA between all humans. But that is not the point."

What does "some DNA similarity have to exist" prove? I'm sure there is some similarity between Macedonians and Japanese people. What does this prove--that Japanese and Macedonians are kins people? You're trying to argue that because some Russians can pass for Balkans people in appearance that somehow this proves there is "some" connection in DNA and that there are "some" similarities that exist between people north of the Danube and those of the South. This is very superficial and illogical.

I then wrote:

"To suggest that the Slavic people north of the Danube have a concrete connection to the people of the south, is not sustainable in light of science. There is a far greater kinship (in DNA) between Macedonians with Southern Greeks, Cretans, and Syrians, then with the Slavic people north of the Danube; there is a far greater connection between Macedonians and Romanians, then the Slavic people north of the Danube and even most Slavic nations south of the Danube--save for Serbia and Bulgaria, which are also close."

My concrete connection was implied from your post; you seem to think that I'm "quoting you" when all I'm doing is interpreting your posts. I am free to interpret and not to quote you, am I Soldier? Will I be banned for standing up to you and not be intimidated or browbeaten by you?

When you speak in terms of Science and DNA, you are making a "concrete connection," to wit, there is a scientific link between Russians or (some Russians) and Macedonians. If Russians share DNA with Macedonians in a special sense (and not in a general human sense) that would indicate scientific "proof" of their being a ethnic connection, thus, it would be "concrete." Get it?


I wrote: "If the Southern Branch is the original, then is it not logical to suggest that the language spread to the regions north of the Danube and north into the regions of Croatia, etc? And if this is so, is it not logical to suggest that these peoples already had another language other than Slavic? If they had another language already, how can you suggest that the people south of the Danube had or were aware of an ethnic kinship with a people they shared no language with or as modern day DNA evidence suggests, little to no genetic similarities?"

You wrote: "Again, who suggested what you said above? Your question was the following:Prior to their crossing of the Danube, were the states south of the Danube aware of an ethnic kinship with the people north of the Danube? Was there an ethnic kinship before the crossing?"

You then stated: "I would say yes, for as I have earlier stated, the fact that Illyrian and Thracian tribes lived on both sides of the river is beyond doubt. Keep in mind though, there was often little unity among Thracian or Illyrian tribes that even neighboured each other, much the same situation as the fragmented states of ancient Greece.
Where do I suggest what you have suggested?"

You just suggested it. My question was how you can suggest an ethnic kinship and you said "yes," there is an ethnic kinship. What am I missing here? Were the Thracians and Illyrians native to the south of the Danube first or the north, Soldier? If to the south, and they crossed over to the north, would they not have brought this language to a region it yet had not existed? And if so, can we not argue that the people living north of the Danube had a foreign tongue? This would mean that those people north of the Danube, and I do not mean those who crossed the Danube from the South to the North, were an alien people with alien genes and speech?

You're claiming an ethnic connection, not me.

My problem with your posts, SoM, is that I don't understand anything you write. You seem to be contradicting yourself all the time.

[Risto the Great]

Philospher, do you see racial or ethnic kinship between the French and Italians?
What do we really know about Proto languages?
If many of our languages stem from Indo-European, surely the languages began a process of differentiation many many years ago ... but started from a similar point or linguistic kinship at some time.

Call me a pan slavist if you will but, given half of Europe still speaks a slavic language, I believe we are talking about a very old language of Europe that did not appear out of thin air. Particularly bearing in mind that we do not read about conquests of the same magnitude as the ancient Romans etc.

[Soldier of Macedon]

What does "some DNA similarity have to exist" prove? I'm sure there is some similarity between Macedonians and Japanese people. What does this prove--that Japanese and Macedonians are kins people?

Your views are extremist, you can't seem to grasp the concept of logic and you don't understand the historical circumstances. Your above example is completely irrelevant, the DNA similarities shared between Slavs on both sides of the river Danube far outweight that between the Balkan Slavs and Japanese people. Your evidently childish attempt at a rebuttal is at least insightful where it concerns your actual knowledge and rational thinking about this topic. But of course feel free to prove me wrong, we both agree that some Russians can pass for Balkanites easily, can you show me how many Japanese people would pass as Balkanites? This will at least lend some weight to your argument, I am looking forward to seeing how the natives of Nagasaki could pass as Bitolchani.

My concrete connection was implied from your post.....

Which post? Show me where I have proposed a 'concrete connection' in the manner you are suggesting? Or am I going to have to ask you the same question again in my follow up reply?

I am free to interpret and not to quote you, am I Soldier?

Yes you are, but when you claim that I have suggested something which I have not, because of your own inaccurate perceptions and assumptions, I will be there to correct it.

Will I be banned for standing up to you and not be intimidated or browbeaten by you?

Are you feeling ok mate? Are you Greek?

My question was how you can suggest an ethnic kinship and you said "yes," there is an ethnic kinship. What am I missing here?

You're missing logic and historical truth. Go and pick up a book about Thracians and Illyrians and educate yourself a little, there is plenty of information regarding these peoples on the threads in this forum, you're driving your argument blindly, basing everything on (a narrow view of) DNA evidence and nothing on historical reality and logic. These people were recorded thousands of years ago in the places which I speak of, and along comes Philosovski and his internet DNA studies to 'refute' everything because Japanese and Macedonian people may "share some similarities" also.

My problem with your posts, SoM, is that I don't understand anything you write.

The problem is that you don't understand history and the way it unfolded, therefore you cannot understand what I am writing, that at least makes sense. You have your facts jumbled, periods mixed up, opinions that you have not corroborated, etc.

In fact, you haven't seemed to corroborate anything at all, nor have you come out to make clear statements on what it is that you actually believe. I think your arm-chair comments are done, you should state your opinion now and provide all of the corroboration that you seek from others to support your view. Can you handle that? Or is the arm-chair too comfortable? Let me know if you need help, I can assist you.