Macedonian Human Rights Movement International (MHRMI)

[fyrOM]

As I have said, no name change that would compromise our National Identity, clearly Greece wishes to do just that, so therefor no name change. It is merely political positioning, a cheap trick in wording that fools people who don't bother to put 2 and 2 together.

Well said Buktop. Maybe this will put and end to this discussion as entertaining as it has been.

It reminds me of a I think Macedonian joke
A poor guy travelling from town to town stops at a café and looks at the menu. Looking at the prices he looks into his pocket disappointedly.
The waiter asks may he take his order.
To which the guy asks is there anything cheaper he could order than what’s on the menu.
The waiter looks down at him and replies Today you pay with money…tomorrow its free.
Delighted the guy come back the next day.
The waiter sees him and before he has had a chance to sit down the waiter asks the guy if he has any money.
The guy says to the waiter You told me today with money and tomorrow its free.
The waiter replies Exactly…tomorrow its for free.

[Bratot]

No, if you actually read my posts instead of trying to measure your manhood, you might have understood the point.

The examples provided by Rogi dealt with domestic national movements choosing their name, the situation with Macedonia deal's with a foreign presence dictating not only the name of the country, but the identity of it's people. Two completely different situations.

Buktop, cut the drama and try to give CLEAR answer on what I asked you.

It's not different situation, the referendum you suggest is highly democratic mechanism of choosing the name, no one dictate your choice.

Or you have started to doubt?

[Vangelovski]

You always were keen on taking the easy way out, it's very revealing of your character...

Well, if you consider a brain transplant easy...then yes.

[Buktop]

Buktop, cut the drama and try to give CLEAR answer on what I asked you.

It's not different situation, the referendum you suggest is highly democratic mechanism of choosing the name, no one dictate your choice.

Or you have started to doubt?

are you saying that we could freely change the name of our country without harming our identity?

No

Read my posts or stop commenting on them...

[Buktop]

Well, if you consider a brain transplant easy...then yes.

Apparently for you a brain transplant is easier than telling me what is wrong with my definitions, so can you tell me?

I know definitions may be difficult for someone who doesn't really understand the english language, but you seem so confident, I would have thought you could spare 5 minutes of your time...

[Bratot]

Read my posts or stop commenting on them...

So why do you support the referendum on the name when you don't want to harm the identity, I don't understand why do you wish to risk it, respectivelly to the anational political figures we have as I showed to you before!?

Why do you chose to trust them(politicians), when there is much more safe variant by not giving them the opportunity to disapoint you?

[fyrOM]

Bratot I know that what Gruevski is saying could sound alarming. It is the governments double speak because they do not want to say No to any negotiations nor Yes to lets go and do the name change. The referendum option is part of the overall negotiations so technically the government cannot say no to any referendum ever happening but neither does this mean there will be one.

The only reason to ever have a referendum is IF you want a result whatever that may be. No one is going to hold a referendum without knowing the result beforehand. It is just a technicality not to rule out a referendum because immediately it creates the question then what are you saying Mr Gruevski are you saying no point in negotiating because there will be no referendum to confirm any decision or are you saying you will make this decision yourself and can you do this and maintain stability in the country. It opens a can of worms by saying no to the possibility of any referendum. By saying there could be one but never doing one it just avoids having to answer inconvenient questions. That’s all there is to it and why the government will not publicly rule out a referendum but privately never intend to have one.

I can understand people saying if you leave the door ajar instead of closing it shut firmly you are running the risk of walking through the opening or being pushed through it. A very correct observation in itself but to asses the level of risk a wider view needs to be taken. Is the government standing at the threshold and looking like they will walk through. Is there anyone around who could seriously push the government through the door and how could they do this and how can this be countered. Most of the people on this site seem to take the approach No chance of something ever happening is the best form of risk management and in terms of safety from the risk they are absolutely right but in real world terms the practicality of such an approach is unworkable. A parent might be worried about their child getting run over crossing the street. Making a blanket ban on crossing any street is the only absolute safe option but in practical terms unworkable. In a similar vein it is the only reason the government has not and will not rule out the possibility of a referendum.

[Bratot]

You are speculating OziMak, and such important national interest can NOT be guided by any speculations. Sorry, it's not about your or mine good intentions and the positive thinking, we should simply AVOID any risk, and the only safe way is to exclude the potential possibilities of such treacherous act.

I don't think any healthy thinking person would need further convincing.

[fyrOM]

Bratot it has nothing to do with speculation but with the logical order of questions that will immediately follow a decision to rule out the possibility of a referendum. I was trying to show that the question of a referendum cannot be seen in isolation and that it goes directly to the prime question do you have negotiations going.

It is not possible to say No we don’t want a referendum so we are ruling it out completely then end.
There immediately puts into play the then what question and this is what the government is avoiding because the then what forces the government one step closer to spelling things out which might be what you and others on this site want but not a practical course of action and certainly not desirable. It is the grey elephant in the corner no one wants to talk about.

For argument sake say you were the government and as you say ruled out the possibility of a referendum the immediate question is how do you see the negotiations proceeding and at which time if a suitable name can be found don’t read too much into this how will this decision be confirmed and at the same time give such decision legitimacy while maintaining stability. Do you think that you as the government can make a decision on your own and confirm it to give it legitimacy and assure that stability will be maintained PM Bratot or would you rather not answer these questions. Remember Not as you but PM Bratot.

Don’t confuse these questions with we don’t want a new name so if the referendum question leads directly to the prime question of do we have negotiations going so lets say no to this too. If this is your course of action then you as PM would have sold the negotiation question in a few minutes. I could tell you a joke about double twisted questions like this but I wont waste your time now.

[fyrOM]

Spell check error
Sold should be solved

[Bratot]

Aha it's a logical speculation than.

What you have to remember, you or me are not the PM nor we can rely upon such comparison.

[Risto the Great]

The only reason to ever have a referendum is IF you want a result whatever that may be. No one is going to hold a referendum without knowing the result beforehand.

Macedonia does not have an untarnished history in relation to referendums. We cannot rule out the external influences which have been proven to exist in the past.

[Vangelovski]

Apparently for you a brain transplant is easier than telling me what is wrong with my definitions, so can you tell me?

I know definitions may be difficult for someone who doesn't really understand the english language, but you seem so confident, I would have thought you could spare 5 minutes of your time...

Yes, a brain transplant is easier than explaining to YOU key concepts in nationalism. Seeing as I'm no brain surgeon, imagine the difficutly I am having teaching you something. Its been two years and still no success.

As to what is wrong with your definitions - EVERYTHING. That is why you need to read some basic texts to give you a basic background in the field. I cannot provide you with specific quotes because you do not have a basic understanding of the terminology and concepts used in those sentences.

[fyrOM]

Bratot again it is not speculation. The discussions you this site and other Macedonian organisations have had to reach the conclusion which has been the impetus for the current stop the name negotiations add campaign are all in real world and not hypothetical. Likewise the response Gruevski gave to the adds was real world and not hypothetical. I hope you can see that the discussions on this site and others may appear small scale but I think many people do read them and may influence peoples thinking which could lead to real life actions. No one should be lulled into discounting sites like this one but by the same token lets not be egotistic and overstate our relevance.

The topic being discussed is the add campaign to stop the name negotiations and the majority of the diasporas desire for their success. This discussion has spawned related subtopics such as why Gruevski wont rule out a referendum and the members on this forum discussing the merits of such action. This may appear hypothetical but it does deal with real world questions which without any doubt are the next logical step should the adds achieve their desired end. You are right that neither you nor I or any to the best of my knowledge on this forum are part of the government although Prolet appears to sometimes know too much too quickly on current events…mmm…but neither were we part of the government when the discussions which lead up to the add campaign and here we are collectively as the diaspora lecturing the government on a preferred course of action.

In my previous post I am questioning the forum have they consider what next if the add campaign is successful or what next if Gruevski were to rule out a referendum as has been suggested as a course of action. There undoubtedly is a need the discuss any the what next because as it currently stands it really looks like a half bake idea and I can understand why someone would not take them and consequently anyone presenting them seriously.

I tried to introduce the idea that issues like the add campaign the name negotiations and the question of a referendum cannot be taken in isolation as they directly and critically affect each other.

In my previous posts I argued why it is Not possible for the government to publicly rule out the possibility of a referendum even if the government never intended to nor did ever call one. This is not hypothetical. It is logical consequences. The name negotiations and related issues are not the type of issues where one can say do you want x and answer No and that is the end of it. They do not exist in isolation of each other nor are they in a vacuum. If No then there HAS TO BE a then what.

In my previous posts I put it to you but in reality to all members what you saw as the what next and you conveniently brushed it off by calling it logical speculation and that none of us being part of the government can we rely upon such a comparison. News Flash none of us were part of the government when you collectively cooked up the plan for the add campaign but it didn’t stop anyone from discussing it because it dealt with real world question which we all could understand their meaning and the most likely consequences. It is exactly this ability to understand that has been the driving force behind the creation and implementation of the real world add campaign. You cannot hide behind calling the what next question hypothetical or speculation or we are not part of the government. The add campaign proponents need to have a what next if the adds are successful as they desire them to be otherwise their ideas look half baked and juvenile. Did you notice the brevity of the reply Gruevski gave to the reporter when asked about the diasporas add campaign. Do you think it was because he was blown away by the adds and left speechless or he is not intelligent enough to give a better response. He blew off the diaspora in one paragraph and had the good sense not to add go and play grownups are talking.

I have been following this thread and others where the name issue crops up and the general vibe one can surmise is that the diaspora are not happy and have become more suspicious of the government if they weren’t already and child like bitch an moan Not Fair. No wonder some hold a low view of the diaspora. Many times it is unwarranted and it is their stuck up nature looking down on the diaspora but sometimes diasporata si pokazuva rogojte.

Reread the previous posts and have a think about the consequences if the government ruled out the possibility of a referendum as some seem to want. I realise there is an inherent danger in having this option still on the table and the government does also well before it was discussed here. Think about the governments actions and then realise what measures the government has taken ie discussed in other threads should a referendum be forced on Macedonia by eg Crvenkovki or his cronies even if the government never intends to have one unless it is in their stated favour ie NOT to damage the Macedonian identity.

[Vangelovski]

OziMak,

You are a vassal of gigantic proportions. The clever, yet deceptive, what next question. This says much more about your ability and maturity as a “free” man than any argument against ending negotiations.

In a nutshell, the answer to what next is simply self-determination. This of course needs further explanation, as its obvious few people understand the concept, let alone the practical implications – or they refuse to admit they understand it and continue to confuse the impressionable.

Self-determination, in this sense, literally means that a group of individuals, collectively, decide on a minimum set of rules that they will all abide by, what goals they will pursue to benefit the whole and how they will work together to achieve these goals. For example, this group may decide that it does not want to be a part of the socialist EU system and want to develop a competitive free market economy. To achieve this, they would need to start at the beginning – by reforming their mindset and their illogical and highly bureaucratic legal system, removing their addiction to socialist subsidisation, stamping out corruption at all levels of society, encouraging innovation, private entrepreneurship, strong work ethics etc, etc.

Another example is ending the name negotiations. An extremely deceptive vassal would ask what next, as if we are proposing something outside of the universally accepted norm found only in the realms of fantasy. Can you imagine that – the Macedonian state NOT negotiating away its sovereignty!? It beggars belief that someone would even ask what next. The very question of what next is in actual fact stepping into the realms of fantasy, suggesting that a people do not have the maturity to live as free people. But here is what next – the Macedonians, for the first time in centuries would live as a free people, determining for themselves how they live, what they do, how they do it, when they do it and why they do it. It does not matter what ‘it’ is, what matters is that the Macedonian people freely choose.