[blackjackblax]

I've noticed you've made an excuse of all the long posts and your confused ambiguity concerning Turkish genetics so I've started this thread to make it clearer and more straightforward, where I ask no one else to become involved so this issue can be settled. Please disregard this part of the post so we can get straight to the point.

What is it you are arguing Curioscat?

The first argument I am making is that people such as myself, who have no identity other than Turkish and speak only Turkish as their mother tongue are ethnic Turks. I have provided a source which you have not even mentioned. When a source is provided, you have every right to reject it, however you must explain why. The Encyclopedia Britannica is a well respected source and agrees with me on the concept of ethnic Turks.

The second argument I am making is that ethnic Turks are considered Turkic, another well-known fact which is supported by the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I would like to know, clearly and directly, what your arguments against my two assertions are?

[bxxasxxa]

*Never mind. 8-) I won't get involved.

[lierro]

http://forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=17253

[LomodiorCon]

I asked no one to get involved for a reason. If she can respond she will. The only way to prevent her from going on a tangent is by keeping the discussion locked onto the original subject, that is why I started a thread for it. I am aware of the existence of the thread you linked.

From this point onwards, I ask no one to become involved. I would like to see how far Curioscat can argue when the discussion is confined to knowledge and intelligence.

[Thunderzee]

As much as I appreciate a thread "dedicated" to my opinions, I do think that this should be a part of the thread that Evon posted. However, I shall try to answer as simply as I can for you.

I've noticed you've made an excuse of all the long posts and your confused ambiguity concerning Turkish genetics so I've started this thread to make it clearer and more straightforward, where I ask no one else to become involved so this issue can be settled. Please disregard this part of the post so we can get straight to the point.

What is it you are arguing Curioscat?

The first argument I am making is that people such as myself, who have no identity other than Turkish and speak only Turkish as their mother tongue are ethnic Turks. I have provided a source which you have not even mentioned. When a source is provided, you have every right to reject it, however you must explain why. The Encyclopedia Britannica is a well respected source and agrees with me on the concept of ethnic Turks.

The second argument I am making is that ethnic Turks are considered Turkic, another well-known fact which is supported by the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I would like to know, clearly and directly, what your arguments against my two assertions are?

Thanks kindly for your gesture.
However, I haven't argued anything with you.

I have stated my own opinion, which you have disagreed with.
In my opinion ethnicity can be traced by ancestry.
Others trace ethnicity using genetics.
Other people such as yourself trace ethnicity through historical linguistic association.


As far as I am concerned.

1: The people that make up the modern state of Turkey are not in any significant way genetically linked to the Central Asian Turks.

*see Cinnioglu et al*

2: The majority of people that make up the modern state of Turkey do not have a historical linguistic "Turkic" association.

Turkish only became the state language in 1923 after 600 years of no official use. The elite used Ottoman, whilst the various different ethnicities living in Anatolia and the Ottoman lands used their own languages.

As for your argument, you can Identify as a Turk, however, unless you have a genetic affiliation or a historic linguistic association to "Turkic" you cannot officially be classified so.
You can be a "Turkish National" not ethnically Turkish.
It gets further messy, when we consider for 600 years the term Turk referred to all Muslims under the Ottoman empire.


Your argument is like saying a Congolese man is ethnically Chinese because he is 2nd/3rd generation in China and speaks mandarin and only identifies with his Chinese identity.
That is his personal identification, not a historic nor genetic connection.

As for the 2nd Argument you are making, I have no issue with "ethnic Turks" such as the Uighur, Tatar, Ozbeks are indeed Turkic.

The Turkish people in Turkey are not composed of only "ethnic" Turks. They are a mixture of many different ethnicities.

You are asserting that all people living in Turkey are ethnic Turks. I just stated that the majority of people living in Turkey are not Ethnic Turks.

This is your own quote:

Of course you're confused. You weren't not-confused to begin with. Turkish people, i.e ethnic Turks are native to Anatolia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. You can't swap around 'Turkish' and 'Turkic' at your leisure. Anatolian Turks are still Turks, perhaps not genetically the same as central Asian Turks, but then central Asian Turks aren't genetically identical to Siberian Turks. That is the reason Turkic is a language group and not a genetic marker Do you have proof that people were speaking a Turkic language in Anatolia prior to the Central Asian Turks coming through?
Do you have any proof genetically that the native people of Anatolia were Turks?
(not that it is possible)

If you do, please do share your findings.

In addition, for those of you that tried to deny of any connection to Europe, the Cinnioglu study clearly shows a more significant genetic connection to Europe than to central asia, through the study they produced.


To be honest after I asked you:


Those people include Albanians, Greeks, Assyrians, Arabs, Kurds, Bosnians, Bulgarians among others.

Are you suggesting that these people are to be held under the "Turkic Spectrum"
? and you answered:

Do you know what 'Turkic' is? Do you think it is a genetic term? 'Turkic' is a linguistic term that encompasses the Turkish language of the Republic of Turkey hence it also covers everyone who identifies as an ethnic Turk. So yes, I and every sensible linguist are not only suggesting but also asserting that 'these people' are to be held under the Turkic spectrum. I realised you couldn't decipher the difference between a Turkish citizen of X ethnicity and an Ethnic Turk.

If an Albanian has no historic linguistic link to the Turkic language. If he has no genetic link to the Turk people (central asia) and he is only speaking Turkish since 1925 for example, how can you class him as an "ethnic Turk"?

[KaterinaNJq]

I asked no one to get involved for a reason. ... The only way to prevent her from going on a tangent is by keeping the discussion locked onto the original subject

Sorry, but I can't stand by with her BS. I promise I will post strictly on topic though.

1: The people that make up the modern state of Turkey are not in any significant way genetically linked to the Central Asian Turks.

Actually, there is an obvious link between Turkish and other Turkic people in autosomal DNA by both "admixture" and "structure" methods, as I understand them.

It's kinda funny (and rather telling) how people who whine about Turkish nationalism put genetics in the center of their argument though.

2: The majority of people that make up the modern state of Turkey do not have a historical linguistic "Turkic" association. .

Yes, they do. The majority identifies Turkish not only in the national, but also in the ethnic sense. Because they have a tribal-ethnic/ethnic-linguistic connection to the people who did the same as them in history.

Oh and, as a Turkish-speaker, how can you not know that Turkic-Turkish dichotomy in English doesn't even exist in Turkish? Why the fixation on the former then?

Turkish only became the state language in 1923 after 600 years of no official use. The elite used Ottoman, whilst the various different ethnicities living in Anatolia and the Ottoman lands used their own languages.

Getting desperate?

The name of the language is Ottoman Turkish. And the chief and, by far, the most important ethnicity in the Ottoman Empire, which was also known as Turkish Empire, were Turks.

You are asserting that all people living in Turkey are ethnic Turks. I just stated that the majority of people living in Turkey are not Ethnic Turks.

No, he is saying that ethnic Turks are ethnic Turks and that they are a majority (about 80%), which is perfectly true.

I realised you couldn't decipher the difference between a Turkish citizen of X ethnicity and an Ethnic Turk.

You are the one who pretends not to be able to do that, pitifully similar to some rabid anti-Turks in these fora.

[dogdesign]

Thanks kindly for your gesture.
However, I haven't argued anything with you.

I have stated my own opinion, which you have disagreed with.
In my opinion ethnicity can be traced by ancestry.
Others trace ethnicity using genetics.
Other people such as yourself trace ethnicity through linguistic association and self identification.

You can't have an opinion on what an 'ethnic Turk' is. It is a definition. It's like arguing that 'my opinion is that soldier means someone who cooks food in restaurants'. It's not up for debate, it is a definition. 'Ethnic Turk' is a term defined by reliable sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

What you don't understand is I'm not arguing my opinion, I'm arguing in favour of a clear cut, objective definition.

As far as I am concerned.

1: The people that make up the modern state of Turkey are not in any significant way genetically linked to the Central Asian Turks. This can be argued, though it does not alter the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'.

2: The majority of people that make up the modern state of Turkey do not have a historical linguistic "Turkic" association. Please define 'historical linguistic Turkic association'. Are you implying that language is passed on through blood?

Turkish only became the state language in 1923 after 600 years of no official use. The elite used Ottoman, whilst the various different ethnicities living in Anatolia and the Ottoman lands used their own languages. Ottoman was structurally a Turkish language, just with many more influences. Turkish as spoken in Turkey is relatively new in its final form, but then so is modern English, are you implying that just because ethnic English people spoke a different form of English prior to this form that they cannot be considered 'ethnic English'?

As for your argument, you can Identify as a Turk, however, unless you have a genetic affiliation or a historic linguistic association to "Turkic" you cannot officially be classified so.
You can be a "Turkish National" not ethnically Turkish. So you believe the Encyclopedia Britannica is mistaken? Please explain why.

Its like saying a Congolese man is ethnically Chinese because he is 2nd/3rd generation in China and speaks mandarin and only identifies with his Chinese identity.
That is his personal identification, not a historic nor genetic connection. That's not what I'm describing at all. The Congolese would have to be the ruling class of China who had introduced their language and culture over a stretch of 1000 years for what I'm saying to be anything similar. Every person who has only a Turkish identity in Turkey and is native to Anatolia is an ethnic Turk. This is a definition, it is not based on opinion.

Let me give you a better example of what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the biological descendant of a Viking in Yorkshire is considered ethnic English regardless of his ancestry. What you're arguing would imply that every single person in the world needs to take a genetic test and turn out to be overwhelmingly part of one ethnicity to consider themselves 'ethnic' anything. That is unfeasible and contradicting of the term 'ethnic'.

As for the 2nd Argument you are making, I have no issue with "ethnic Turks" such as the Uighur, Tatar, Ozbeks are indeed Turkic. They are not 'ethnic Turks', they are ethnic Uygurs, ethnic Tatars or ethnic Ozbeks. The only nationality that refer to themselves as 'Turks' is that of the Republic of Turkey. Every person belonging to the majority of that country is an ethnic Turk by definition.

The Turkish people in Turkey are not composed of only "ethnic" Turks. They are a mixture of many different ethnicities. You're still disputing the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'. Ethnic Turk is a term that does not confine ethnicity to genetic ancestry. Do you think every other country in the world is genetically homogeneous apart from Turkey?

You are asserting that all people living in Turkey are ethnic Turks. I just stated that the majority of people living in Turkey are not Ethnic Turks. Well that is a wrong statement. I'm not stating opinion while you are. I'm stating clear cut definition, as stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica, you're insisting that the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, with no explanation as to why, while you've also admitted that you're arguing your opinion. That's all well and gravy, if of course we weren't arguing about an accepted definition of something. If this is your stance you must clearly state that you oppose the universal definition of 'ethnic Turk'.

These are your own quotes:

Do you have proof that people were speaking a Turkic language in Anatolia prior to the Central Asian Turks coming through?
Do you have any proof genetically that the native people of Anatolia were Turks?
(not that it is possible) No, because I'm not saying that at all. Again you're confusing the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'.

Another quote of yours:



In addition, for those of you that tried to deny of any connection to Europe, the Cinnioglu study clearly shows a more significant genetic connection to Europe than to central asia, through the study they produced.


To be honest after I asked you:

and you answered:

I realised you couldn't decipher the difference between a Turkish citizen of X ethnicity and an Ethnic Turk. No, it's you that cannot differentiate between an ethnic Albanian and an ethnic Turk of Albanian descent. Please refute what is said by the Encylopedia Britannica. There is no progress to this discussion if you cannot understand the concept we are discussing.

If an Albanian has no historic linguistic link to the Turkic language. If he has no genetic link to the Turk people (central asia) and he is only speaking Turkish since 1925 for example, how can you class him as an "ethnic Turk"? Assuming you mean someone with only a Turkish identity of Albanian descent; because he has lost his Albanian identity completely. Ethnic Turk refers to the ethnic majority of the Republic of Turkey, not to Kazakhstan.

The major problem in this discussion is you refuse to acknowledge the formal meaning of ethnic Turk. If you reject the universal definition of ethnic Turk there is nothing to argue, but you're not even aware that you are arguing opinion against fact.

[j2Y6Ysmb]

You can't have an opinion on what an 'ethnic Turk' is. It is a definition. It's like arguing that 'my opinion is that soldier means someone who cooks food in restaurants'. It's not up for debate, it is a definition. 'Ethnic Turk' is a term defined by reliable sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

What you don't understand is I'm not arguing my opinion, I'm arguing in favour of a clear cut, objective definition.



This can be argued, though it does not alter the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'.
What do you mean I cannot have an opinion? Of course i can and i do.

Ethnicity can be defined in many different ways.

According to Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983), Seidner,(1982), Ethnicity, Language, and Power from a Psycholinguistic Perspective, pp. 2-3, and Smith 1987 pp.21-22.

a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.

Hello, do you think that Turkish people of Armenian/Greek/Kurdish descent believe there ancestor is a wolf? That they came from the steppes, that they are a part of the Huns... etc etc...

So, now according to your Encyclopeda Brittanica

Turkic peoples, any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. They are historically and linguistically connected with the T’u-chüeh, the name given by the Chinese to the nomadic people who in the 6th century ad founded an empire stretching from Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...Turkic-peoples

I fail to see how Bosnians, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, etc etc have a Historic and Linguistic connection to the T’u-chüeh.
I wasn't going to use your encyclopedia Brittanica definiation, since I feel my own opinion is sufficient, but since you are hellbent on their definition, please do explain the above.


Please define 'historical linguistic Turkic association'. Are you implying that language is passed on through blood? No I am not. I mean, that the persons ancestors would have come from a family that spoke a Turkic language and has ancestors from the steppes.

Ottoman was structurally a Turkish language, just with many more influences. Turkish as spoken in Turkey is relatively new in its final form, but then so is modern English, are you implying that just because ethnic English people spoke a different form of English prior to this form that they cannot be considered 'ethnic English'? Ottoman Turkish, called simply Osmanlica in Turkish, gradually absorbed a great many Arabic and Persian words and even grammatical forms and was written in Arabic script.
Ottoman Turkish today cannot be understood by the modern Turkish people of Turkey. It was a whole new language.
The whole reason we have new modern Turkish, is because Ataturk wanted to purge out all the arabic and persian words and somehow go back to the Pre ottoman times Turkish, since the father of Modern Turkish people didn't accept Ottoman as a Turkish language, I think you will find you are mistaken.


So you believe the Encyclopedia Britannica is mistaken? Please explain why. The Encyclopedia Brittanica offers the same description:
They are historically and linguistically connected with the T’u-chüeh,



That's not what I'm describing at all. The Congolese would have to be the ruling class of China who had introduced their language and culture over a stretch of 1000 years for what I'm saying to be anything similar. Every person who has only a Turkish identity in Turkey and is native to Anatolia is an ethnic Turk. This is a definition, it is not based on opinion. Please share the source of the definition in bold.
As far as I am concerned, Turks are NOT native to Anatolia. The people of Anatolia where in themselves a mix of other peoples.
Turks are native to central asia.


Let me give you a better example of what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the biological descendant of a Viking in Yorkshire is considered ethnic English regardless of his ancestry. What you're arguing would imply that every single person in the world needs to take a genetic test and turn out to be overwhelmingly part of one ethnicity to consider themselves 'ethnic' anything. That is unfeasible and contradicting of the term 'ethnic'. Not really, because a person from Yorkshire would have more than 80 years of history to identify his "Englishness"




They are not 'ethnic Turks', they are ethnic Uygurs, ethnic Tatars or ethnic Ozbeks. The only nationality that refer to themselves as 'Turks' is that of the Republic of Turkey. Every person belonging to the majority of that country is an ethnic Turk by definition. According to your Encyclopedia Britannica they certainly are

You're still disputing the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'. Ethnic Turk is a term that does not confine ethnicity to genetic ancestry. Do you think every other country in the world is genetically homogeneous apart from Turkey? No I am not disputing, I have stated my opinion on what I think an Ethnic Turk is, thanks very much.



Well that is a wrong statement. I'm not stating opinion while you are. I'm stating clear cut definition, as stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica, you're insisting that the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, with no explanation as to why, while you've also admitted that you're arguing your opinion. That's all well and gravy, if of course we weren't arguing about an accepted definition of something. If this is your stance you must clearly state that you oppose the universal definition of 'ethnic Turk'. I have clarified to you that:
Article 66 of the Turkish Constitution defines a "Turk" as anyone who is "bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship"; therefore, the legal use of the term "Turkish" as a citizen of Turkey is different from the ethnic definition

As far as I am concerned, legally all residents of Turkey are Turkish, however, ethnically (ancestry) they are not.


No, because I'm not saying that at all. Again you're confusing the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'. You haven't answered my question....

Do you have proof that people were speaking a Turkic language in Anatolia prior to the Central Asian Turks coming through?
Do you have any proof genetically that the native people of Anatolia were Turks?
(not that it is possible)

If you do not, how can you claim the natives of Anatolia as Turks, please explain.


No, it's you that cannot differentiate between an ethnic Albanian and an ethnic Turk of Albanian descent. Please refute what is said by the Encylopedia Britannica. There is no progress to this discussion if you cannot understand the concept we are discussing. You, can refer to the encyclopedia Britannica...
Turkic peoples, any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. They are historically and linguistically connected with the T’u-chüeh, the name given by the Chinese to the nomadic people who in the 6th century ad founded an empire stretching from Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea.
Assuming you mean someone with only a Turkish identity of Albanian descent; because he has lost his Albanian identity completely. Ethnic Turk refers to the ethnic majority of the Republic of Turkey, not to Kazakhstan. You haven't answered my question.

If an Albanian has no historic linguistic link to the Turkic language. If he has no genetic link to the Turk people (central asia) and he is only speaking Turkish since 1925 for example, how can you class him as an "ethnic Turk" Would this man not then be an "ethnic Albanian" ?

The major problem in this discussion is you refuse to acknowledge the formal meaning of ethnic Turk. If you reject the universal definition of ethnic Turk there is nothing to argue, but you're not even aware that you are arguing opinion against fact .

I have already stated what i think "ethnicity" is and it is confirmed by your own source that people should have a historic connection.

Please do answer the questions you jumped

[goldcigarettes]

Ottoman Turkish, called simply Osmanlica in Turkish, gradually absorbed a great many Arabic and Persian words and even grammatical forms and was written in Arabic script.
Ottoman Turkish today cannot be understood by the modern Turkish people of Turkey. It was a whole new language.
The whole reason we have new modern Turkish, is because Ataturk wanted to purge out all the arabic and persian words and somehow go back to the Pre ottoman times Turkish, since the father of Modern Turkish people didn't accept Ottoman as a Turkish language, I think you will find you are mistaken.

I think you will find you don't know jack shit about this matter.

The name of the language is Ottoman Turkish in litterateur.

"Ottoman Language" in Google = 27,900 Results

While "Ottoman Turkish Language" = 370,000 Results

You should know a language doesn't become something else when it's written in a certain script (even if it cannot be read by people who don't know that script), unless you are as stupid as to think modern Turkish is a Latin language.

Turks, like everyone else, know this; the reason why they/we call it "Osmanlıca" is for the sake of simplicity.

I fail to see how Bosnians, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, etc etc have a Historic and Linguistic connection to the T’u-chüeh.

Now, you are either dim witted, or ill intentioned, or perhaps both.

Turks aren't Bosnians, Kurds, Armenians or Greeks, Turks are Turks. And they have as much to with their ancient counterparts as any of these people you listed.

Now, some ethnic Turks can have non-Turkish/Turkic ancestry to a degree, but their situation is exactly the same as ethnic Bosnians who have non-Bosnian/Slavic ancestry, or Kurds who have non-Kurdish/Iranic one and so fucking on.

[Pyuvjzwf]

This is utterly fruitless. You don't know the difference between an ethnic Turk and Siberian shaman. You don't know the first thing about linguistics, history, genetics or anthropology yet you try to challenge established scientific facts on the issue with your 'opinions'. You misunderstand the Encyclopedia Britannia and assert your strange interpretation as fact. Here is the definition of 'ethnic Turk' as defined by every single person other than yourself:

Turk (tûrk)
n.
1. A native or inhabitant of Turkey.
2. A member of the principal ethnic group of modern-day Turkey or, formerly, of the Ottoman Empire.
3. A member of any of the Turkic-speaking peoples.
4. Obsolete A Muslim. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ethnic+Turk

You're asking me to prove the most trivial stuff that I don't even know where to find a source for such idiotically simple factual knowledge. It's like challenging me to give you a peer-reviewed scientific paper explaining specifically that the moon is not made of cheese.

Everyone who is considered a Turk is linguistically considered 'Turkic', I don't know how else to explain this. This isn't opinion. It's in the definition. It is an analytic truth for god's sake. It is like arguing that a bachelor is not a married man. A bachelor is a married man by definition. It is a tautology, it is circular, it is not synthetic. It is not a matter of opinion.

You're continuously trivialising the discussion through focusing on silly little details that don't prove anything, turning the argument into a discussion in which it takes an hour and a half to respond to all the little pointless details that don't affect the wider argument.

Now you're going to go 'oh yawn', 'oh this', 'oh that', 'oh off-topic' but you are an idiot and that is almost as established as any of these facts I've been trying to explain to you. Clear and simple. You cannot understand the most basic concepts but feel you have the skill to argue about them. I will not be continuing this discussion because it is pointless arguing with an imbecile who can focus on everything other than the point of discussion. You will lie, deceive, twist and turn just not to admit defeat, it is truly nauseating. I am sickened. Please don't change your personality, knowing that you're such a nasty piece of work will at least give me the peace of mind that your punishment is in being you.

I don't know if you will be able to comprehend this, but here's to hoping you will:

Goodbye

[wCYvMKAc]

This is utterly fruitless. You don't know the difference between an ethnic Turk and Siberian shaman. You don't know the first thing about linguistics, history, genetics or anthropology yet you try to challenge established scientific facts on the issue with your 'opinions'. You misunderstand the Encyclopedia Britannia and assert your strange interpretation as fact. Here is the definition of 'ethnic Turk' as defined by every single person other than yourself:



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ethnic+Turk

You're asking me to prove the most trivial stuff that I don't even know where to find a source for such idiotically simple factual knowledge. It's like challenging me to give you a peer-reviewed scientific paper explaining specifically that the moon is not made of cheese.

Everyone who is considered a Turk is linguistically considered 'Turkic', I don't know how else to explain this. This isn't opinion. It's in the definition. It is an analytic truth for god's sake. It is like arguing that a bachelor is not a married man. A bachelor is a married man by definition. It is a tautology, it is circular, it is not synthetic. It is not a matter of opinion.

You're continuously trivialising the discussion through focusing on silly little details that don't prove anything, turning the argument into a discussion in which it takes an hour and a half to respond to all the little pointless details that don't affect the wider argument.

Now you're going to go 'oh yawn', 'oh this', 'oh that', 'oh off-topic' but you are an idiot and that is almost as established as any of these facts I've been trying to explain to you. Clear and simple. You cannot understand the most basic concepts but feel you have the skill to argue about them. I will not be continuing this discussion because it is pointless arguing with an imbecile who can focus on everything other than the point of discussion. You will lie, deceive, twist and turn just not to admit defeat, it is truly nauseating. I am sickened. Please don't change your personality, knowing that you're such a nasty piece of work will at least give me the peace of mind that your punishment is in being you.

I don't know if you will be able to comprehend this, but here's to hoping you will:

Goodbye

LOL.... such a weak little personality that retorts to insulting when he cannot actually converse intelligently.

I KNEW you wouldn't be able to answer any of the questions on my last post

Turks native Anatolians Indeed.

Armenians/Kurds/Greeks all under the Turkic spectrum

etc etc....

your OWN source defies your definitions LOL

GAME OVER KYTE...

Give up...

pull up ur pants and stop pooing all over your own topics.....

[9V4i8xw1]

You will lie, deceive, twist and turn just not to admit defeat, it is truly nauseating. I am sickened. Please don't change your personality, knowing that you're such a nasty piece of work will at least give me the peace of mind that your punishment is in being you.

Seriously, all that name-calling just because she has different opinions on Turkishness?

[DianaDrk]

As for Altay I notice you have replied to the topic also, I haven't been reading your posts, as from your previous behavior I see you just follow Kyte around like a pubic lice, same as Arshina. I only replied to Kyte so he would stop his stalking behaviour.

Hopefully it worked

[kabelshik]

You are a certified moron. Anyone that reads the discussion can see that. It's like throwing your shit around in the middle of an intellectual moot and proclaiming victory because everybody left. You are no more intelligent than a chimp. Your arguments are a joke for one thing and I'm not actually using it as an insult when I call you an imbecile. You are literally an imbecile. You don't know shit about any of the subjects you talk about.

I am completely serious when I say I cannot understand how you survived for 31 years with that piece of shit for a brain in your head. You are an idiot, I cannot say it enough. I've demolished you intellectually you baboon, keep pretending you actually achieved something.

---------- Post added 2011-06-23 at 00:21 ----------

Seriously, all that name-calling just because she has different opinions on Turkishness?

Have you even read the discussion?

[Larisochka]

Yea yea, until you can answer any of the questions I asked please refrain from trying to converse with me.

You start a conversation and when you cannot even answer the simplest of questions you have a tantrum and retort to insulting, how "civilised"

I'm still pondering how the natives of Anatolia were Turks LOL and then the Central Asian Turks came and Re-Turkified them lmao...

[zbckFNlW]

As for Altay I notice you have replied to the topic also, I haven't been reading your posts, as from your previous behavior I see you just follow Kyte around like a pubic lice, same as Arshina. I only replied to Kyte so he would stop his stalking behaviour.

In other words, you don't have the skills or the knowledge to debate with me. Can't say I'm surprised.

[Japakefrope]

Yea yea, until you can answer any of the questions I asked please refrain from trying to converse with me.

You start a conversation and when you cannot even answer the simplest of questions you have a tantrum and retort to insulting, how "civilised"

I'm still pondering how the natives of Anatolia were Turks LOL and then the Central Asian Turks came and Re-Turkified them lmao...

Right ok, since you haven't understood the first 20 times I'll explain again. 'Turkish' only refers to 'A member of the principal ethnic group of modern-day Turkey or, formerly, of the Ottoman Empire.' and also refers to 'A native or inhabitant of Turkey.'. What are Turks today had different identities a millenium ago but when the central Asian Turks arrived, there was a language shift, and the Anatolian natives began to refer to themselves as 'Turks' losing all other identity. For that thousand years the majority of those who identify as Turkish today identified as Turkish then too. For that reason, Anatolian Turks have little Mongoloid ancestry but are considered Turks by every anthropologist and linguist.

Do you understand?

[zoolissentesy]

Aww,,, has your little tantrum finished? got your pacifier in? attempting to behave like a human again... good boy

Right ok, since you haven't understood the first 20 times I'll explain again. 'Turkish' only refers to 'A member of the principal ethnic group of modern-day Turkey or, formerly, of the Ottoman Empire.' and also refers to 'A native or inhabitant of Turkey.'. What are Turks today had different identities a millenium ago but when the central Asian Turks arrived, there was a language shift, and the Anatolian natives began to refer to themselves as 'Turks' losing all other identity. For that thousand years the majority of those who identify as Turkish today identified as Turkish then too. For that reason, Anatolian Turks have little Mongoloid ancestry but are considered Turks by every anthropologist and linguist.

Do you understand?

So what you actually meant when you said this:

In other words, you don't have the skills or the knowledge to debate with me. Can't say I'm surprised.

In other words, "who are you?"

I haven't ever conversed with you before... stop the mosquito act, you bore me.

[Muesrasrs]

Aww,,, has your little tantrum finished? got your pacifier in? attempting to behave like a human again... good boy

Yeah it's over, I sometimes forget how much people can differ in intelligence. It really is wrong to get angry with someone because they cannot understand something, regardless of how much one has simplified it.

So what you actually meant when you said this:



was this:

So the ANATOLIAN NATIVES became TURKS- WHEN THE CENTRAL ASIAN TURKS CAME. The Natives weren't Turks to start with. Yes, that is what I meant, as is clearly explained in both posts. The natives did not have a Turkish identity before the arrival of central-Asian Turks, no.

Yet, you claim afterwards that Armenians/Greeks/Albanians are all under the Turkic spectrum



you answered: Yes, because by 'those people' we were referring to Turks of genetically identical origin to the populations you mention. Is it becoming more understandable for you now?

So which is it to be, the ones with no other background or the ones with? LOL The reference is to people of, say, an identical genetic background to an Armenian, who has no identity other than a Turkish identity. That person is considered an 'ethnic Turk'.

Anyway.. you can try and answer the last post I made before you went into drama queen mode. However, I think its clear you cannot accept people to have their own opinions and try to force your beliefs onto them. There is no point answering that post as you could not comprehend what I was saying. You were essentially having a discussion with yourself, portraying me to have said things I didn't say.

As for my acceptance of opinions; I cannot accept idiotic ones, I am very happy to accept viable ones. As for what constitutes an idiotic opinion, an example would be challenging the nature of established facts with no evidence to back it up. You see my frustration arises from your lack of grasp for the subject.

Also the insulting words that you use, clearly portray what an ugly character you have. I just have a very low tolerance for low intelligence. I don't mind being classified by yourself as having an ugly character, the mere fact that our personalities conflict shows me that I differ from yourself, which is cause for happiness in itself.

[SteantyjetMaw]

Yeah it's over, I sometimes forget how much people can differ in intelligence. It really is wrong to get angry with someone because they cannot understand something, regardless of how much one has simplified it. Yea, thats really intelligent



Yes, that is what I meant, as is clearly explained in both posts. The natives did not have a Turkish identity before the arrival of central-Asian Turks, no. See, its easy to clarify, why didn't you clarify the last 3 times I asked you? would have saved you getting your knickers in a twist.



Yes, because by 'those people' we were referring to Turks of genetically identical origin to the populations you mention. Is it becoming more understandable for you now? No, I was clearly referring to Albanians/Greeks/Kurds and not to those of "genetically identical origin" as is seen in that post.
However, thats ok, I have got used to you misinterpreting what is written.


The reference is to people of, say, an identical genetic background to an Armenian, who has no identity other than a Turkish identity. That person is considered an 'ethnic Turk'. You mean, the people that don't know their "real" historic heritage can be considered ethnic Turks. Similar to that singer that recently found out he was Armenian and immediately went to the SE to find out more about his roots.


There is no point answering that post as you could not comprehend what I was saying. You were essentially having a discussion with yourself, portraying me to have said things I didn't say. Because you can't.

As for my acceptance of opinions; I cannot accept idiotic ones, I am very happy to accept viable ones. As for what constitutes an idiotic opinion, an example would be challenging the nature of established facts with no evidence to back it up. You see my frustration arises from your lack of grasp for the subject. Really, so when the source that you posted (and found all by yourself lol) Contradicts what you are saying about Turks, you will have a meltdown and start insulting. How very not idiotic of you



I just have a very low tolerance for low intelligence. I don't mind being classified by yourself as having an ugly character, the mere fact that our personalities conflict shows me that I differ from yourself, which is cause for happiness in itself Good boy, finding happiness from an internet forum, very intelligent of you.