ETHNIC

Well well well...

You said you do not blame others but you just blamed Islam and Iran's Turkic rulers.

Had islam/(turkic) rulers had not led us to the humiliation of a 3rd world country that we have today, I would not have blamed them. Pahlavis have their own share of blame too, but at least they disrupted the ghajar rule who had lost generous part of our geography and were in the process of losing more.

It is shame that YOU and many other like you hang on the 1.400 plus history so much. I don't :)

Your shame is my pride since that period was as iranian as it could get, and was quite successful too. I could not say it any better, except that you don't say why: maybe because you don't have a sense of belonging to that period. Your iranian history apparently starts with when turks migrated in, mine starts 7000+ years ago.

I think even after Islam we have had quite plenty to be proud of.

I already mentioned this, but except for the few scientists, the rest is literature in "persian" language that you want to curb. I already said that if we ignore the 1400+ years ago, then there is not much remaining to work with, and what remains (predominately, literature and geography) are being curbed or ripped apart by your article and likes of it. You don't see the contradiction in your words, do you? You are proud of post-islamic iran (only), yet you want to displace its main components one way or the other.

Re: 'history'

I hope I won't repeat too much of the same!

1) Let me again say it, when you say someone is jealous that person must NOT have something that you have in order to be jealous. While I am no less an Iranian than you then it is literally incorrect to say that I am jealous.

2) I do not consider idolising the rulers of 1.400 plus years beneficial. That is something that does not give us much of a moral ground in today's civilisation, or civilisation in general. However I don't want to erase any history. It is something great that the Iranian plateau has had such a long history. The same is true for Iraq, China, Palestine/Israel, Mexico, Peru, Greece, Italy etc.

3) You said you do not blame others but you just blamed Islam and Iran's Turkic rulers. It seems that you make a clear distinction between Turkic Iranians and non-Turkic Iranians. Have the Safavid, Afshars, or the Qajar been any less Iranian than the Pahlavi? You are blaming Iran's ills on its Turkic rulers. Don't you think that is wrong?

4) It is shame that YOU and many other like you hang on the 1.400 plus history so much. I don't :) I think even after Islam we have had quite plenty to be proud of. Ferdowsi, Raazi, Ibn Sina, Khayyam, Saadi, Hafez, Nizami and many many other men of great achievements, that have given us what we can indeed cherish. We have also had freedom-fighters that we can be proud of. Tyrants? I'm not proud of them. Not all they did were bad, but I'm not proud of tyrants.

5) I feel belonging to Iran, its bad and good. I hope you can read my text with more open-ness. Thank you for your comment!

Aha...

I could not be jealous of something you may have while I have in an equal share.

Yeah, but what you have an equal share of, you don't want! You want something else in its place, don't you?

One thing I can say is that if all a nation can be proud of goes back 1.400 years then that is so little and so sad.

Unfortunately that is true, and you even want to get rid of that "so little" too, as you do not consider belonging to that history. I have news for you: beyond that "so little", we don't have much to show for 1400 years of islam and mostly-turkic rule, do we? All we have are (1) a piece of geography, (2) persian-language literature, and (3) some lingering customs; and all three are under attack by pan-minorities or islamists. Had it not been for the oil money and pahlavi regime, who disrupted ghajar rule, we would be looking at a carbon copy of afghanistan/pakistan in iran.

Maybe we should learn from westerners who cherish their age-old founders and founding documents on a daily basis. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson, an american founding father, had "two" copies of Xenophon's "education of cyrus" in his possession, one in english, one in original greek? It appears that the "so little" that you discredit is still cherished by others, even after 2500 years.

And in case one wants a modern Iran that will not be achieved by blaming others but by working on current defects rather than apparent qualities of 1.400 years ago.

I do not blame others, I blame iranians who failed to confront all those invaders, let them be Omar and his arab army, various turkic/mongol/tatar invaders, or imposed khomeini/islamic fascism.

And yes it is a shame that we have to hang on to 1400+ years ago as we were better off then in so many ways than we are today. But that is a bitter reality that we do not have much to show for except for what we had 1400+ years ago. Even our top-notch post-islamic literature is often based on what we had pre-islamic (ferdowsi, poems of hafez and attar and nezami,...: endless lyrics of simorgh, vis-o-ramin, khosro-va-shirin, ...).

You really don't feel like belonging to the historical iran that we know of, do you? You only want the land, but something else in its cultural place, don't you? Please be honest, just this one time!

This is typical of them!

a lot of turks from turkey and Rep. of Azerbaijan have the same views that Ben Madadi has about the history of persians/iranians.

I dont even know why Ben continues to identify himself w/ iranians,,,he obviously has no interest in being iranian.

Anonymouss

I’m not going to elaborate on that as it will take me a lot of time to write. I will write an article about that in future with all the details about Iranian Kurds (past and present). But let me ask you this, if the Pahlavi, the previous regime treated the Iranian Kurds fair, then how come majority of Kurds which was an unfortunate, supported this Shia Islamic revolution, even though, most of them were Sunnis. I believe they were desperate for freedom, which again they were let down and lied too. Pahlavi regime was good for some but bad for many. Did you know that Reza Shah and his father were trying to Persianize all Iranians with diffrent methods. As for this new government, well there are no words to describe these animals.

Re: 'history'

I replied that I could not be jealous of something you may have while I have in an equal share. The rest I am not sure I have WRITTEN HERE anything that would contradict your opinion.

One thing I can say is that if all a nation can be proud of goes back 1.400 years then that is so little and so sad. And in case one wants a modern Iran that will not be achieved by blaming others but by working on current defects rather than apparent qualities of 1.400 years ago.

Kurdish...

Did you know that the most under developed areas in Iran is where the minority lives. And as for prosecutions, the minorities specifically Kurds has been the most victims who suffered during the last regime and the current regime.

I believe, most if not all, persians are well aware of these facts and saddened by them. But I would like to ask you to elaborate on the part "suffered during the last regime" if you have any reliable and quantifiable data. I am really curious about if kurdish areas were equally neglected then or if they disproportionately suffered by atrocious behavior from the central government. Thx!

Less Iranian?

You are less iranian than I am only if you want to. However, iran is a country, a nation, with a long history, with good and bad, and you want part of its culture taken away: its historically rooted language in its own historical territory. Iran without persian language is like egypt without its Coptic language (an arabic nation), or asia minor or central asia without persian language (turkish nations of turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, ...). Do you know why Bukhara, the heart of once-iranian culture, is iranian no more?

You were the one who called whatever iranian glory as "BS". And that glory is all that remains of iran today; otherwise it is a 3rd-world country in turmoil, being ripped apart by islamists on one hand and pan-minorities on the other hand, catalyzed by left-over leftists and internationalist intellectuals.

Maybe you should look at the civilized countries of europe or america to see how emphatic they are on survival of their language as a major tool of unity amongst them, or maybe look at canada to see how language has placed the country on the verge of partition for the past 30 years.

You are welcome to be as much iranian as anyone else, but you can't be both iranian and act like a 5th columnar. Then what is the difference between you and those iraqi arabs who just can't tolerate seeing an iranian identity next door. Only you can decide if you really want to be iranian or not. But you should realize that iran and its culture go hand in hand and at the core of that culture is the persian language and its various dialects. You cannot be iranian, associated with an iran that never existed or you wish to reinvent. That would be iran no more (like turkey), or iran by name only (like egypt). Of course, part of that iranian culture is respect for minority rights and cultural flavors, including local languages. But as you see in europe and america, a nation is not a hodgepodge of whoever wants to do whatever; rather it is a people sharing a common history and a common way of communicating. You do not seem to see the emphasis that there is, in modern democracies more than dictatorships, on a common language as well as the same set of laws and cultural norms, albeit with some local variations.

Once Bahar, the famous azari poet, was asked about separation of Azarbaijan and its possible enjoining with the country of Azerbaijan. His response was that within the context of cultural history, not only that such a separation does not make sense, but rather it makes sense that the country of Azerbaijan, once separated by force, to enjoin its cultural roots, the country of iran.

Kamal Ataturk may have made a lot of contributions to turkish nation, but harmed turkish identity by reinventing its alphabet, thus making its history and literature far less accessible. Maybe similar is what you have in mind?

Amin287

You make it sound like I’m a separatist. I have mentioned over and over and quite to be honest with you I’m sick and tired of explaining myself. I’m totally against any type of separation. I’m proud Iranian Kurd. What I criticize is all those governments (secular) or religious who failed to treat all Iranian citizens fairly. Did you know that the most under developed areas in Iran is where the minority lives. And as for prosecutions, the minorities specifically Kurds has been the most victims who suffered during the last regime and the current regime. I don’t understand why some of you want to ignore these facts and try to avoid discussing it. If we all are going to leave in peace with each other then we need to start listening to each other rather than branding or accusing one and another.

Re: 'history'

Why should I be jealous? I can be no less Iranian than you, or anybody else? And I am no less Iranian than you. Why would I be jealous? :)

If I wasn't Iranian I would have probably been... jealous, or maybe your assertion may have had some logic. But I am an Iranian, no less than you are. Why should, or would, I be jealous?

Your problem is...

actually don't give a damn about Turkish, Turkic, Azeri, Azerish, Persian, Farsi or any other sort of nationalism or anything like that. I prefer English anyway ;)

I was so tired to have read so much BS about glory of Iran, imperialistic BS, hidden riches of all sorts, and thoughts of superiority (which were not just Persian, but IRANIAN as whole). Where is that damn glory? 2.500 years ago? 1.000 years ago? 500 years ago? BS and BS all over the place! Not that there is no glory now, there wasn't all glory even back then.

What culture you may ask. Yes, iran is not much of anything these days, after a thousand years of being beaten by islamic values and brutal rulers. But no, iran was glorious before islam. You only need keen eyes to see that, as it is older than we can imagine, and need knowledge about our own human history, specially of recent history, specially of western history that we all happily live under.

What glory you may ask? The glory of ruling without defeating, that is the biggest achievements of all. Why has there not been any genocide at any level by iranians in their long history, likes of was implemented by likes of Ashurbanipal to Nebuchadnezzar, from Turkey against Armenians to Nazi Germany against jews, or against American indians or by Pal pot's rule. Even when Xerxes set fire to a greek town, as shameful as it may have been, it was set to an "empty" town devoid of people in response to a similar act by greeks to an iranian town in asia minor "full" of people.

The glory that likes of slavery that was practiced up until a hundred years ago in the civilized west was not practiced in iran...

The glory that women who had no identity of their own up until some decades ago in the west, were rulers, land owners, army generals, etc. in iranian civilization...

The glory that the only iranian religion that we know of has nothing of hidden mambo jumbo and legalized atrocities that all three major Abrahamic religion have had...

The glory that at the time of invasion of Omar, the first thing that he did was to set fire to the royal library in Ctesiphon with some 60,000 books on sheep skin. Visit any library and see what greeks had in the same period which did not survive that fire...

And on and on and on...

However, there is something unique about iranian language and persian identity. It is that it pretty much remains in only ONE country (no offense to tiny countries of Tajikistan and northern Afghanistan), and that is why it should be jealously guarded. Turks have multiple countries, and so do arabs, to maintain their language and culture; but not iranians.

You are just irrationally jealous, and you back it up with your incomplete and biased knowledge of iranian history, backed up by the disaster that the fake revolution of 1979 brought upon us. Yes, you are jealous and want to get rid of anything iranian, you just do not want to come out any say it loud.

My question to all those who really do not want to be iranian, turks or arabs, is this: why bother with beating the drums so loud on the only remaining cradle of iranian civilization while there are easier solutions: there are lots of turkish or arab countries to become citizen of if you are more pan-turk/arab than pan-iranian. Why so much destructive trouble do you have to go through when the solution that you seek is just next door?

Re: Amin

I have sent another article to JJ that will appear some time soo, this year ;) We can discuss further there.

The only TRUE reason (behind having the hobby) for me writing things like this is because we are an stigmatised and paranoid community and I feel that people like me can, challenging the mythgs and prejudices, reduce these social negativities.

I actually don't give a damn about Turkish, Turkic, Azeri, Azerish, Persian, Farsi or any other sort of nationalism or anything like that. I prefer English anyway ;)

I was so tired to have read so much BS about glory of Iran, imperialistic BS, hidden riches of all sorts, and thoughts of superiority (which were not just Persian, but IRANIAN as whole). Where is that damn glory? 2.500 years ago? 1.000 years ago? 500 years ago? BS and BS all over the place! Not that there is no glory now, there wasn't all glory even back then. The thing is that others have moved on and we are stuck. The ony glory I have seen in Iran is literature. Iranian people (including me) are generally not so honest, to each other and others and arrogant. Somebody needs to say these things! The more the better ;)

About ethnic issues. Many people have not read my articles with good faith but with their own hidden prejudices, believing that if they feel they are this or that, then I must be the opposite. My writings about these ethnic issues have also been related to fallacies. At the same time I have also brought up issues about human rights that have often been ignored, due to many prejudices and fallacies.

Would Iranians become conflicting because of somebody like me? I could only be a pretext, and I cannot do anything about that. Having verbal conflicts now is better than letting them add up for the future to have a much bigger flare.

!!

Kurdish Warrior writes:
>After all as navid mentioned none of us want another
>Yugoslavia which be a disaster for all of us.

In one of my arguments in another article of Ben I wanted to talk about Yugoslavia, but I kept myself. I thought we shouldn't even talk about it. I am sorry for you guys. Don't worry, we won't shoot our brothers and neighbours. If we will become on the verge of being something like Yugoslavia, I, as one, surrender to you and let you have Kurdistan and Azerbaijan.

@ Ben:

I think it is not "free will" yet, but it may become. More and more you will write these articles you bring doubts in the minds of more Azeris that "Are we really Iranian or not?", then the genie will have come out (as per your wish), and people of Azerbaijan should choose. That is what you want by writting these kind of articles, isn't it?! What will be your vote then?

@ Navid

Navid writes:
>As far as i know my Dad was a 100% Azeri. So why
>do you say i am an ANTI -TURK

>AMIN you are Silly

Sorry. Then you are actually defeating Ben here. Think about it, you will undestand why.

Reference:
Navid writes:
>I disagree with you. Over the past Glorious FIFTY years you
>mentionsed how many Baluchis, Kurds, Azeri, Turkmen,
>Arabs, Sunnis, Bahais, jews, Christians, Lurs, etc have
>been BUTCHERED by the central goverment in IRAN because
>they happend not to be PERSIAN and SHIA Muslim

Re: Choghok; Excellent point!

Thank you for your objective reasoning!

Iranian identity

The comments here alone show how much important this discussion is. I myself am Persian from Khorasan with some Kurdish mix and may be Arab (mom is "seyyed"). I have Iranian Kurdish and Azeri friends.

It is tragic that some people want to reduce the importance of this very important issue. If we do want to have a thriving democracy in Iran we should start by acknowleging the shortcoming of Iran and do not blame these problems on English, Americans and Mullahs. "Az mast ke bar mast, chon digari nist".

For those of you saying things like Iranians were not barbarians, tell me one war which was won without bloodshed. Cyrus, Xerxes, Nader Shah, Shah Abbas and so one increased the size of the Persian empire not by sitting and reading poems for their enemies but by killing a lot of people. Nader shahs troops for example killed 10s of thousands of people in Delhi for 3 consequent days. People like to brag how he stold peacock throne and Koh-e noor instead. Another king was the Lur Karim Khan Zand which wanted to serve the people and not rule, during his time there was a calm and prosperity in Iran. Not many nationalist Iranian would think of him as a great king though although he might have been the greatest.

But that is ancient history and do not solve any of todays problems. For todays problems we need to pay lots of respect and embrace our differences. It does not matter whether we are Persian, Azeri, kurd or Lur. We all need to keep in touch with our culture and identity and respect others.

Bidar bash ke ma bekhabim

Re: navid

I know!

Ben I was disagreeing with ARA. not YOU

AMIN you are Silly

AMIN

As far as i know my Dad was a 100% Azeri. So why do you say i am an ANTI -TURK

The Fear about Azeri Rights

"Some among the secular nationalist elites as well as
Islamists in Iran have been wary about ethnic rights,
especially language diversity. They worry that teaching
in ethnic languages may threaten Iran's territorial
integrity and national unity. Yet Iran's history offers
little basis for this apprehension. Azeris, for example,
have played major roles in every turning-point of Iran's
modern history.
This was true even during the constitutional revolution
(1905-1911) when the overwhelming majority of Azeris
could not even speak Farsi. Another example is the
popular satirical paper Mulla Nasr al-Din (edited by
an Azeri-Turk, Mohammad Jalil Qulizadah) that was
crucial in enlightening people in Iran and across the
Caucasus at the turn of the 20th century; its sharply
anti-clerical and anti-despotic cartoons were originally
published in Azeri-Turkic as well as Farsi."

The above is from a paper by Nayereh Tohidi

Navid, thank you for pointing out;

You are absolutely right that Iran has had poor history of treating its minorities for centuries. That is why many of us believe that one of the best options for all Iranians to have their rights and prevent any more suppression is to follow the same path and structure that Switzerland has done. Unfortunately some of us Iranians are so radicals that as soon as we talk about this issue,we get accused for being separatists, traitors, zionist agents and etc. If we all are going to be united for a better and strong Iran in future, we need to start listening to each other and find ways to resolve our problems. After all as navid mentioned none of us want another Yugoslavia which be a disaster for all of us.

Re: Amin

1) Yes, maybe, we need some proof. Did the Greek justifiably call Persians (Iranians of the time) Barbarians? Who is going to be the judge? We, Iranians? ;) They, the Greek? Anyway, but if you and I are unbiased, we shall agree that they were right in their own time and mind to call others who wanted to invade their land barbarians. And they did invade their land, killed so many and put so much on fire and tried to subdue them!

2) It hasn't always been free will, but it was free will when all the propaganda I mentioned started. It is free will now because if you do some polling the majority will say that they belong to Iran. They want to belong to Iran on free will :)

3) I don't think Navid had that intention though this is the first time I saw this ID.

Some Related articles and comments

Ben,

Anybody can call any other a "Barbarian" (present day meaning), but it needs proof.

>Azeri Turks did not all-the-sudden feel they

> were part of Iran after
all the Pahlavi-era propaganda about Iran's

> Aryan supremacy or the
glorification of the pre-Islamic Persian

> Empire. They already felt very
strongly about Iran based on their

>FREE WILL.

It hasn't been "FREE WILL". We haven't chosen our culture according to free will as we never did it with our mothers.

Navid write:
>I disagree with you. Over the past Glorious FIFTY years you
>mentionsed how many Baluchis, Kurds, Azeri, Turkmen,
>Arabs, Sunnis, Bahais, jews, Christians, Lurs, etc have
>been BUTCHERED by the central goverment in IRAN because
>they happend not to be PERSIAN and SHIA Muslim

Now it is getting funny. Navid, are you Iranian at all!? Or you are a anti-Turk who wants to defeat Ben the other way.

Regarding the word 'barbarian'

The Greek term meant foreigner, or ignorant, or probably simply unknown. But they didn't only use that term to describe Persians of that time. Of course they were enemies. They usually descirbed their Persian foes with worst possible terms their language could permit.

Some Related articles and comments

To make the accessibility of the related articles simpler. I am adding the links here:
//iranian.com/main/2007/hear-other-side
//iranian.com/main/2008/origins-azeri-tur...
//iranian.com/main/2007/azerbaijan-iran
//iranian.com/main/2008/not-pan-turkism

I suggest the viewers to read the articles and comments.

The word "Barberian"!

If I remember correctly, watching a programme on History channel: Barberian is a Greek word, meaning someone or a group of people who speak a forign language. It was not used to insult other people or nations, but, to tell that. Of course these days it's used to bring others down.

regards

Ummmm

I think having discussion about these issues are very pointless, and I do not understand why should we waste out time in this situation to argue how we should talk, our women are being stone to death for God sake and all you guys can come up with is deciding which language we should talk, I have always spoke farsi in my life and do not know any other languages, but if I go to school tomorrow and they tell me from today I should study in Turkish or Kurdish I will gladly do without any objection, I need the language to communicate with my people, to live with them happily, as long as I can do that, I have no other problem and I think we Iranian should think like that, use the language as being happy and for communication.

Good Luck from I R A N

Hey Ben,

I just wanted to make sure you wont feel offended with the comment I left. That was not my intention. That was just my personal opinion. Sorry for any unintentional bitterness :)

I am waiting for much better articles from you.

Best :)

"...that language only...(not English at all)..." !...!!!

Ben, You have said:

" If the people of one of American states spoke a local language and would choose to establish that language, and that language only, as the official language (not English at all) then that would be the reality."

This is totally baseless. You can refer to only two states: New Mexico and Louisiana which over there,BESIDES ENGLISH(I DO KNOW IT FOR SURE, IT IS BESIDES ENGLISH), Spanish and French are ALSO served. so there is no such states any other languages would be considered as the ONLY NON-ENGLISH OFFICIAL language. nevertheless what you claim is not even practical and would not serve the needs but makes further problems as it would make it even harder for society as a whole to communicate while running the country as a whole!!!

The issue is you are asking more than what is fair and even based upon a democratic system is not disputable. All regional languages should have the absolute right of education and instruction supports for the local languages besides the first language; .Every region also should have the right of establishing the private higher educational institutes where the local language may be considered as the main one besides the general state and public ones where the main language is the national one; this is the realistic solution serves all needs fairly. But respectively we have no right even in a deomcratic system to suppress Persian language as the language of this ever existed country under the pretext of promoting our whatever favorite local one; This is not serving us any better but is as much wrong as what the IR is doing and totally unacceptable.

I used to think you was a fair guy with unbiased judgments but the more you write, the more I get to believe I was wrong... I hope I am wrong.

Regardless of the fact that you're talking about a country like the US where has been established solely by the population of Immigrants where the native Americans been actually the owner of the land... ofcourse the immigrants who all of them occupied this country should have some sort of compromise among them as a portion of the whole population who just took over the land but yet if you want to go beyond the federal government as well as if you're to pursue your education at a school, college or university no matter if its state or a significant private one, there is only one language to take you where you want which is ENGLISH. There is no place in the US, English is not served. English is the only interstate language and the only one running the country as the lingo of national education, media and politics.

In the United States, English is the de facto national language. Although there is no official language at the federal level, some laws—such as U.S. naturalization requirements—standardize English. Some Americans advocate making English the country's official language, as it is in at least twenty-eight states. Both Hawaiian and English are official languages in Hawaii by state law. While neither has an official language, New Mexico has laws providing for the use of both English and Spanish, as Louisiana does for English and French. Other states, such as California, mandate the publication of Spanish versions of certain government documents including court forms. Several INSULAR territories grant official recognition to their native languages, ALONG WITH ENGLISH...

Considering this undeniable fact that almost all the Spanish language regions in the U.S. including Californian, Uta, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado - called "The Mexican Cession" - had been originally a part of MEXICO lost in 1848 treaty when the war between the U.S. and Mexico was over, Yet the language policy there is not the way you have claimed.

These are only few individuals who constantly talk about Turks and Persians... We do not consider people of Azarbayjan as Turks the same way people of Africa are not French or English due to the language spoken there but if you yourself recognized your identity as Turk, I should respect your own personal recognition but yet Iran can not let Turks impose their own minor issues to the land and culture ever existed in this plateau.

Iranians historically have not ever blamed a monarch's failures and brutality due to his so called ethnic background(which I don't believe in Iran) like when they judge the Qajar dynasty when one of them lost almost a quarter of historical Iran in its dumbest way some one may ever imagine; it is all because Iranians do not believe in Turk and Fars divisions which is nothing but a language profile you are so insisted on and obsessed with...( You have the absolute right to be obsessed with that language and have so much passion to get the rights to promote that language though but fairly )

We as people born and lived in this land generations after generations can not plot the same with the same pretext! Here is Iran. Been always Iran as long as history remember so no one can hijack this land. Iran is not occupying any other nation's territory; Iran with its current territory been constantly shrinking and now holding its smallest size as history ever remember.

We do not need to make Iran, another Israel-Palestine.

Fortunately there is a country called Turkey watching and embracing the Turkish nation which you can join in case you love to develope Turkish as the ONLY language and NOT PERSIAN AT ALL!!!( Like you said!!!)

By the way you don't have to ridicule Persian language to promote your favorite one by your odd "!" these are the hidden signs you yourself can not help to ignore showing some kind of insincere intentions.

Re:

David, I agree with you. However I don't always understand why so much radicalism among our fellow Iranians. Saying that the regime is all the problem is not solving anything. I see all these articles as nothing but articles, and we write them because we like writing, and those who read them seem to be liking to read. That's all. But many Iranians radicalise so many things and interpret everything to be either hateful or dangerous etc. Probably because this is the way they are themselves. We need to chill and have normal discussions, or ignore each other in case we can't.

Rostam-e-Dastan, I am always trying ;)

Ara Serjoie, I propose to view people's opinions and writings with good faith, I included. Thanks!