11-23-2008, 04:21 PM
Quote:diegis:30cw9l92 Wrote:( unfortunately i didnt read anything from ones you tell me, but trust me, is not a wise thing to imediatly deny something because was writed long ago, or in comunist times, because 2+2=4 in those times too, so come with real arguments, so not become you "biased" ).
To use your analogy, 100 years ago, historians believed that 2+2=8. Today we believe 2+2=6. With some luck and lots of research, we might eventually refine that to 2+2=5 or even 2+2=3.5 but we are unlikely to ever figure out that in fact 2+2=4.
If it is how you say, what people believed then was true, then why do modern historians say things different? They had a different interpretation of the evidence. Partially because they had less information than we do, and also because they had (and some still today have) a personal agenda to prove. If you are so big a believer of that which the communists told you when you were a child, then you might also remember that Romanian is apparently derrived from Slavic and the Latin influence on our language is marginal. You still think that 2+2=4 in those times?
You should go to the library and read something modern. It is my advice to "not become you biased".
Hahahaha, i am not that old, to go to school in the 50`. And then was just a short period when soviets and some of their "followers" here tryied to "conect" somehow slavs with romanians, and was quickly abandoned soon. And trust me, i read "modern" stuff too, just i dont fall from an extreme to another like some peoples, just try to see what was good then, and how fits with new stuff. And not trying to "reinvent" all, just because is coming from the past, and some peoples dont like that :roll:
Razvan A.
