As a rule, I have I always been pretty quick to write people off when they piss me off. I just can't help it. My relationships with co-workers, family, boyfriends, neighbors - you name it - piss me off and they are dead to me. I realize at this age that it is a highly immature approach to life and relationships, but I continue to do it anyway.
I don't know if it's because I am Turkish or because "you can't take the girl outta Brooklyn". I don't tolerate those who lie to me or betray me. There are no second chances. Once I see what I see that doesn't go over well with me, I bolt and never look back. My parents are this way as well. Is it genetic? Is it learned behavior? I don't know. But the strange thing is that I sometimes have a high tolerance for crap thrown my way. I allow some people to test me and test me until I lose it. And then it is OVER.
The question is, "can I change?" or, rather, "should I change?". I am still good friends with people from way back when, but it's difficult for me to establish close relationships with anyone these days. I am not a very trusting person by nature. I'm sure that this plays into all of this. I simply don't have patience to deal with any one's bullshit. Soooo, I may not come right out and tell people to go screw themselves, but my actions clearly say "you suck, get away from me".
Here's an example: I have a cousin with 2 small kids. Every time she would call me she just start talking to her kids as if I weren't on the phone with her. And, it was always petty and stupid shit. It was as though the kids were in harms way or was something important. I got sick and tired of her rude behavior and wrote her off because talking to her became a painfully boring and annoying experience to me. This went on for months before I decided that enough was enough. I emailed her and told that I didn't want to speak with her anymore and she knew exactly why. She semi-apologized by saying "I'm sorry YOU feel this way" - NOT "sorry for my being rude to you every single freaking time I talk to you". She took no ownership for HER actions.
How many chance should we give people to treat us the right way? Should we confront people every time they piss us of or should we just cut them off?
Friday, May 16, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
Armenians...are you listening??
No Evidence of Ottoman Intent to Destroy Armenian CommunitybySelcuk Gultasli
Brussels (ZAMAN)- Gunter Lewy, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, argues in his latest book ‘The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey:
A Disputed Genocide’ that what happened in 1915-16 was a huge tragedy but was not genocide as the Ottomans had no intention of exterminating the Armenian race. The Armenian lobby in the US tried hard to prevent the publication of the book, but Prof. Lewy does not want to go into details about the Diaspora’s efforts to block his book. Though Prof. Lewy gives the details of the massacres and accuses some Turkish authorities of distort history by denying significant massacres, Prof. Lewy has been attacked by Armenian hardliners as a “denier.” Here are the excerpts from Prof. Lewy’s interview with ZAMAN:
Though you reach a figure of 642,000 Armenians killed in 1915-16, you argue that there was no intention to wipe out the Armenian race. Is lack of intention on its own sufficient not to call the incidents genocide?
According to Article II of the Genocide Convention of 1948, “intent to destroy” is a precondition of genocide. A large number of dead alone is not sufficient. Thus, for example, collateral casualties of an aerial bombing do not constitute genocide, no matter how large the number of victims. There exists no evidence that the Ottoman regime had intent to destroy the Armenian community.
The Armenian Diaspora claims that you wrote this book with the help of the Turkish government, implying that you are serving Turkey’s interests. What is your reaction?
I am a retired professor of Political Science, the author of 10 other books published by prestigious publishing houses such as Oxford University Press. I wrote this book as I wrote all of my previous books – with the help of American foundations such as the American Council of Learned Societies. I also had a travel grant from the German Academic Exchange Service. I did not receive financial support from the Turkish government or any other government. I have not seen the allegation you refer to but it is part of the campaign of vilification Armenians wage against anyone who questions their version of the tragic events of 1915.
Armenian “genocidier” scholars argue that ‘you are not even an expert; you do not even speak Turkish’. They also accuse Jewish origin American scholars of distorting history by denying the so-called genocide.
I came to this topic as part of a planned comparative study of genocide. I am not a Middle East expert (even though I lived 8 years in the Middle East) and I do not read Ottoman Turkish. However, the archival materials and other original sources in Western languages are more than adequate to research this topic. The reports of American, German, Austrian consular officials who were on the spot in Anatolia, as well as the accounts of foreign missionaries who witnessed the deportations are richer and better sources than what is contained in the Turkish archives. A requirement that only persons fluent in the Turkish language be considered competent to write about this topic would, disqualify most Armenians who also do not know Turkish. The argument that Jewish scholars deny the genocide because they are Jewish and want to defend the uniqueness of the Holocaust is indecent as well as irrelevant. A book has to be judged by its content and not by the motive of its author.
The West was not at all concerned about the Muslim cleansing of the Balkans, but charities exist to help Ottoman Armenians all over the Western world. How do you explain the West’s astonishingly different reaction to the Muslim atrocities in the Balkans in 1912-1913 and the Armenian atrocities of 1915?
Obviously, all human life should be of equal worth. The West took its time in reacting to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, but it did eventually react forcefully and halted these atrocities. Armenian misdeeds during World War I were often ignored because Armenian propaganda was well orchestrated and the Western world did not expect Christians to behave this way. The horrendous events of World War II have since taught us that no nationality, no matter what its religion or cultural achievements, is immune to outrageous criminal conduct in war.
You quote in your book (pg. 246) that “massacre, outrage and devastation have always been congenial to Turks.” Do you think this prejudice was pivotal in the Western attitude to Armenian massacres?
The allegation often made by Armenians that Turks love massacres and devastation because of their national character was indeed shared by many in the West who likewise condemned the “terrible Turk.”
Can you compare and contrast Shoah and the Armenian massacres?
Hitler’s Final Solution of the Jewish Question – the Holocaust or Shoah – aimed at the total destruction of the Jewish people. The Armenian massacres of World War I were not committed at the behest of the Ottoman government, and that fact alone makes a crucial difference. The fact that the large Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo were exempted from the deportation is another important indication that the Young Turks had no genocidal designs against the Armenian minority of their country.
You argue that Salahi Sonyel put the number of Armenians deported at 800,000, Kevorkian at 870,000, Bogos Nubar Pasha at 600,000-700,000. How is it possible that Armenian scholars reach a figure of 1,500,000 killed (not even deported) and that the West seems to agree with this number?
Unfortunately many Western scholars and parliamentary bodies simply repeat the Armenian allegations without critical examination as to their veracity.
Why do you think Armenians waited until 1965 to call what happened in 1915 genocide?
I am not sure why the Armenians waited until 1965 before they alleged genocide. It is said that the impact of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 was deeply demoralizing. Also, the early 1960s brought a lot of scholarship on the Jewish Holocaust of World War II, and the Armenians may have sensed an opportunity to cash in on this aroused humanitarian conscience.
What is the West and Russia’s share of the responsibility in the massacres?
Western governments and Russia had often made promises of Armenian autonomy or even independence. These promises undoubtedly encouraged Armenian revolutionaries to go on the attack, cause large casualties among the innocent, and thus provoke Western or Russian intervention on their behalf. By making promises that were not kept the West probably shares some of the responsibility for the events of 1915-16.
In more than several pages you accuse Dadrian, a renowned scholar on the Armenian ‘genocide,’ of either of exaggerating the facts or excluding documents. How widespread and ingrained is this attitude among Armenian origin scholars in terms of being selective?
Many Armenian scholars use selective evidence or otherwise distort the historical record, but V.N. Dadrian is in a class by himself. His violations of scholarly ethics, which I document in my book, are so numerous as to destroy his scholarly credentials.
Do you think the Armenian Diaspora’s tactics i.e. making as many countries as possible recognize the 1915 incidents as genocide, will have any affect on Turkey to recognize it as a“genocide” without a court ruling?
It is the business of legislatures to legislate and not to decide contested historical questions. Turkey should insist on this principle and not give in to outside pressure with regard to the alleged Armenian genocide.
What is the way out? You argue that there are some Armenians who will be satisfied “with an official statement by the Turkish government that it deeply regrets the great suffering of the Armenians during World War I” (pg 269) How plausible is this argument?
Since writing the book and expressing in it some optimism about Turkish-Armenian reconciliation I have been to Turkey, and I am now more pessimistic in this regard. European pressure has caused a nationalistic backlash among many Turkish intellectuals, and I think it extremely unlikely that the Turkish government will be willing to make a statement of regret of the kind that has been proposed. The Armenian Diaspora, too, appears to be getting more demanding and extreme.
How shall Turkey approach the issue? Should Turkey do more, other than offer to establish a joint commission, which was immediately refused by the Armenians?
The idea of a joint historical commission is a good one. In order to be credible, it will be important for the Turkish historical scholars to do better than the work of the Turkish Historical Society has done so far. The fact that the president of this society, Yusuf Halacoglu, is a person who does not even read English is a scandal
Brussels (ZAMAN)- Gunter Lewy, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, argues in his latest book ‘The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey:
A Disputed Genocide’ that what happened in 1915-16 was a huge tragedy but was not genocide as the Ottomans had no intention of exterminating the Armenian race. The Armenian lobby in the US tried hard to prevent the publication of the book, but Prof. Lewy does not want to go into details about the Diaspora’s efforts to block his book. Though Prof. Lewy gives the details of the massacres and accuses some Turkish authorities of distort history by denying significant massacres, Prof. Lewy has been attacked by Armenian hardliners as a “denier.” Here are the excerpts from Prof. Lewy’s interview with ZAMAN:
Though you reach a figure of 642,000 Armenians killed in 1915-16, you argue that there was no intention to wipe out the Armenian race. Is lack of intention on its own sufficient not to call the incidents genocide?
According to Article II of the Genocide Convention of 1948, “intent to destroy” is a precondition of genocide. A large number of dead alone is not sufficient. Thus, for example, collateral casualties of an aerial bombing do not constitute genocide, no matter how large the number of victims. There exists no evidence that the Ottoman regime had intent to destroy the Armenian community.
The Armenian Diaspora claims that you wrote this book with the help of the Turkish government, implying that you are serving Turkey’s interests. What is your reaction?
I am a retired professor of Political Science, the author of 10 other books published by prestigious publishing houses such as Oxford University Press. I wrote this book as I wrote all of my previous books – with the help of American foundations such as the American Council of Learned Societies. I also had a travel grant from the German Academic Exchange Service. I did not receive financial support from the Turkish government or any other government. I have not seen the allegation you refer to but it is part of the campaign of vilification Armenians wage against anyone who questions their version of the tragic events of 1915.
Armenian “genocidier” scholars argue that ‘you are not even an expert; you do not even speak Turkish’. They also accuse Jewish origin American scholars of distorting history by denying the so-called genocide.
I came to this topic as part of a planned comparative study of genocide. I am not a Middle East expert (even though I lived 8 years in the Middle East) and I do not read Ottoman Turkish. However, the archival materials and other original sources in Western languages are more than adequate to research this topic. The reports of American, German, Austrian consular officials who were on the spot in Anatolia, as well as the accounts of foreign missionaries who witnessed the deportations are richer and better sources than what is contained in the Turkish archives. A requirement that only persons fluent in the Turkish language be considered competent to write about this topic would, disqualify most Armenians who also do not know Turkish. The argument that Jewish scholars deny the genocide because they are Jewish and want to defend the uniqueness of the Holocaust is indecent as well as irrelevant. A book has to be judged by its content and not by the motive of its author.
The West was not at all concerned about the Muslim cleansing of the Balkans, but charities exist to help Ottoman Armenians all over the Western world. How do you explain the West’s astonishingly different reaction to the Muslim atrocities in the Balkans in 1912-1913 and the Armenian atrocities of 1915?
Obviously, all human life should be of equal worth. The West took its time in reacting to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, but it did eventually react forcefully and halted these atrocities. Armenian misdeeds during World War I were often ignored because Armenian propaganda was well orchestrated and the Western world did not expect Christians to behave this way. The horrendous events of World War II have since taught us that no nationality, no matter what its religion or cultural achievements, is immune to outrageous criminal conduct in war.
You quote in your book (pg. 246) that “massacre, outrage and devastation have always been congenial to Turks.” Do you think this prejudice was pivotal in the Western attitude to Armenian massacres?
The allegation often made by Armenians that Turks love massacres and devastation because of their national character was indeed shared by many in the West who likewise condemned the “terrible Turk.”
Can you compare and contrast Shoah and the Armenian massacres?
Hitler’s Final Solution of the Jewish Question – the Holocaust or Shoah – aimed at the total destruction of the Jewish people. The Armenian massacres of World War I were not committed at the behest of the Ottoman government, and that fact alone makes a crucial difference. The fact that the large Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo were exempted from the deportation is another important indication that the Young Turks had no genocidal designs against the Armenian minority of their country.
You argue that Salahi Sonyel put the number of Armenians deported at 800,000, Kevorkian at 870,000, Bogos Nubar Pasha at 600,000-700,000. How is it possible that Armenian scholars reach a figure of 1,500,000 killed (not even deported) and that the West seems to agree with this number?
Unfortunately many Western scholars and parliamentary bodies simply repeat the Armenian allegations without critical examination as to their veracity.
Why do you think Armenians waited until 1965 to call what happened in 1915 genocide?
I am not sure why the Armenians waited until 1965 before they alleged genocide. It is said that the impact of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 was deeply demoralizing. Also, the early 1960s brought a lot of scholarship on the Jewish Holocaust of World War II, and the Armenians may have sensed an opportunity to cash in on this aroused humanitarian conscience.
What is the West and Russia’s share of the responsibility in the massacres?
Western governments and Russia had often made promises of Armenian autonomy or even independence. These promises undoubtedly encouraged Armenian revolutionaries to go on the attack, cause large casualties among the innocent, and thus provoke Western or Russian intervention on their behalf. By making promises that were not kept the West probably shares some of the responsibility for the events of 1915-16.
In more than several pages you accuse Dadrian, a renowned scholar on the Armenian ‘genocide,’ of either of exaggerating the facts or excluding documents. How widespread and ingrained is this attitude among Armenian origin scholars in terms of being selective?
Many Armenian scholars use selective evidence or otherwise distort the historical record, but V.N. Dadrian is in a class by himself. His violations of scholarly ethics, which I document in my book, are so numerous as to destroy his scholarly credentials.
Do you think the Armenian Diaspora’s tactics i.e. making as many countries as possible recognize the 1915 incidents as genocide, will have any affect on Turkey to recognize it as a“genocide” without a court ruling?
It is the business of legislatures to legislate and not to decide contested historical questions. Turkey should insist on this principle and not give in to outside pressure with regard to the alleged Armenian genocide.
What is the way out? You argue that there are some Armenians who will be satisfied “with an official statement by the Turkish government that it deeply regrets the great suffering of the Armenians during World War I” (pg 269) How plausible is this argument?
Since writing the book and expressing in it some optimism about Turkish-Armenian reconciliation I have been to Turkey, and I am now more pessimistic in this regard. European pressure has caused a nationalistic backlash among many Turkish intellectuals, and I think it extremely unlikely that the Turkish government will be willing to make a statement of regret of the kind that has been proposed. The Armenian Diaspora, too, appears to be getting more demanding and extreme.
How shall Turkey approach the issue? Should Turkey do more, other than offer to establish a joint commission, which was immediately refused by the Armenians?
The idea of a joint historical commission is a good one. In order to be credible, it will be important for the Turkish historical scholars to do better than the work of the Turkish Historical Society has done so far. The fact that the president of this society, Yusuf Halacoglu, is a person who does not even read English is a scandal
Monday, April 14, 2008
Reunions
How were your days back in high school? For me, it was 4 years of a hellish experience. I grew up in a small town where everyone knew everyone else's business. I couldn't wait to bust out of that small town. As far as I was concerned, I was going to leave my small town and go out see the rest of the world without ever looking back. I disliked virtually everyone I knew. I never felt that I really fit into any particular click. And "clickish" it was.
For some odd reason I recently joined Classmates.com where you can find and contact old high school friends. I don't have any clue as to why I suddenly cared to be in contact with the very people that I was in a hurry to get away from back in high school. Anyway, several people contacted me and wanted to know what I had been up over the years. I was also strangely curious about their lives as well. Where had life taken them?
What I found was that I was comforted in emailing them or talking to them over the phone. I have to say, however, I couldn't help but feel some the same adolescent insecurities that I had back in the day. Was anyone interested in knowing where I was or what I have been up to? Would they just ignore me? Did they ever really like me?
Do we ever really get over what we experienced during our formative years? I'm still not sure. What was interesting was that the folks that reached to me were not the same people that I did hang out with. Nevertheless, I was happy to hear from them. There are those that I still wish not to have contact any longer because I can't get past the way that they treated others. But had they grown up? Are they the same?
I'd like to think that I have changed. In some ways, I feel that I am the same person. In some ways I feel that I don't even know or remember the person that I was. In any case, I do enjoy being in contact with those that I grew up with but I still can't bring myself to attend any reunions. I guess I feel that that would somehow be too traumatic. Why I would feel this way is beyond me.
For some odd reason I recently joined Classmates.com where you can find and contact old high school friends. I don't have any clue as to why I suddenly cared to be in contact with the very people that I was in a hurry to get away from back in high school. Anyway, several people contacted me and wanted to know what I had been up over the years. I was also strangely curious about their lives as well. Where had life taken them?
What I found was that I was comforted in emailing them or talking to them over the phone. I have to say, however, I couldn't help but feel some the same adolescent insecurities that I had back in the day. Was anyone interested in knowing where I was or what I have been up to? Would they just ignore me? Did they ever really like me?
Do we ever really get over what we experienced during our formative years? I'm still not sure. What was interesting was that the folks that reached to me were not the same people that I did hang out with. Nevertheless, I was happy to hear from them. There are those that I still wish not to have contact any longer because I can't get past the way that they treated others. But had they grown up? Are they the same?
I'd like to think that I have changed. In some ways, I feel that I am the same person. In some ways I feel that I don't even know or remember the person that I was. In any case, I do enjoy being in contact with those that I grew up with but I still can't bring myself to attend any reunions. I guess I feel that that would somehow be too traumatic. Why I would feel this way is beyond me.
Friday, March 21, 2008
How NOT to quit your job
The mere thought of going to my job each day literally made me sick to my stomach. My bosses have a tendency to select an employee of the month to harass, and this time it was my turn to be on the receiving end of their unjustifiable wrath. NO JOB is worth being abused on a daily basis. I just could not take it anymore.
I was pushed to my limit when they wanted to call for a meeting to discuss the alleged complaints they had about me. However, I - at no time - had anyone complain about my work until this fat, lazy and incompetent person was assigned to work with me. I had enough.
I went to my office an broke down, wondering if I could finish out the day. A switch went off in my head and there was turning back. I made the decision to quit - without giving notice. I took my ID and pager and went to the Directors office and slapped it on her desk and as I turned away, I said, "I'm quitting". I didn't have another job lined up so it was probably not the best way to exit. ALWAYS have a job lined up when you essentially tell your employer to go screw themselves. But God it felt good at the time.
The good news is that I was offered another position elsewhere.
Why is it that bosses enjoy making peoples lives hell? Here we are trying to the best job possible and these idiots just want to beat us down? What's with these people?
I was pushed to my limit when they wanted to call for a meeting to discuss the alleged complaints they had about me. However, I - at no time - had anyone complain about my work until this fat, lazy and incompetent person was assigned to work with me. I had enough.
I went to my office an broke down, wondering if I could finish out the day. A switch went off in my head and there was turning back. I made the decision to quit - without giving notice. I took my ID and pager and went to the Directors office and slapped it on her desk and as I turned away, I said, "I'm quitting". I didn't have another job lined up so it was probably not the best way to exit. ALWAYS have a job lined up when you essentially tell your employer to go screw themselves. But God it felt good at the time.
The good news is that I was offered another position elsewhere.
Why is it that bosses enjoy making peoples lives hell? Here we are trying to the best job possible and these idiots just want to beat us down? What's with these people?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Time to Meet the Mom
Well, the time has come for my boyfriend to meet my mother (the week after Thanksgiving). So far my mother seems to be receptive or she is, at least, acting like she's looking forward to the meeting. I should add that my mother never really takes such meetings seriously since I tend to bore quickly and move on to the next guy. Plus, she knows that I met him online. So "just how serious can this relationship be", she must be thinking. I can't say that I would blame her.
Jeff (the boyfriend) and I have been together since the day we met. He is practically living with me. I believe that couples should maintain separate residences for the relationship to work. One never really knows how things are going to work out, after all. I have a greater sense of security knowing that I have my own apartment. Jeff and I have talked about living together but I am not sure that I am totally on board with that yet. I have lived with an ex in the past and when that relationship ended, it was a messy break-up. Had we not have been living together, it would have been a clean and easy break up.
Man, these relationships are difficult to figure out. In the mean time, we'll let Mom have her say - that's always interesting.
Jeff (the boyfriend) and I have been together since the day we met. He is practically living with me. I believe that couples should maintain separate residences for the relationship to work. One never really knows how things are going to work out, after all. I have a greater sense of security knowing that I have my own apartment. Jeff and I have talked about living together but I am not sure that I am totally on board with that yet. I have lived with an ex in the past and when that relationship ended, it was a messy break-up. Had we not have been living together, it would have been a clean and easy break up.
Man, these relationships are difficult to figure out. In the mean time, we'll let Mom have her say - that's always interesting.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Just How Honest Should We Be?
As many of you already know, I have been in a relationship with someone I really care for. It's been almost 3 months and we are still getting to know each other. When people are in the process of getting to know each other in a romantic relationships, we have a tendency to ask questions about the other persons past. It's a dangerous territory to get into because you never really know how the other person is going to react to what you have to say. You also don't know how you are going to react to what they have to say.
So just how honest should we be about our past relationships? Should we even dare to talk about them? I personally had some relationships that ended acrimoniously and I would prefer not to talk about those disastrous relationships. Jeff (my boyfriend) had asked me about my ex-husband (a real asshole) and I don't really see the point in talking about him or anyone else I have had a relationship with. But naturally, when he asks me about my ex-boyfriends, I then ask about his ex-girlfriends and all it does is get on my nerves to hear about how beautiful, smart or funny some of them are.
Before you know it, you start to compare yourself to all the people they have dated. I start to make myself insecure by making those comparisons. Am I as pretty, smart or funny as the people he used to be with? What are my deficiencies? Am I adequate, average or better than those other women? It goes on and on in my head. So long as these other people don't come up in conversation, I am okay. But when they do...oh, how pathetic I become!
Maybe because it's early in the relationship that I don't feel completely secure with what we have. I will admit that he has said that he never felt quite as connected to any of them as he does with me. But still, I wonder. Is honesty about our past really the best policy??
So just how honest should we be about our past relationships? Should we even dare to talk about them? I personally had some relationships that ended acrimoniously and I would prefer not to talk about those disastrous relationships. Jeff (my boyfriend) had asked me about my ex-husband (a real asshole) and I don't really see the point in talking about him or anyone else I have had a relationship with. But naturally, when he asks me about my ex-boyfriends, I then ask about his ex-girlfriends and all it does is get on my nerves to hear about how beautiful, smart or funny some of them are.
Before you know it, you start to compare yourself to all the people they have dated. I start to make myself insecure by making those comparisons. Am I as pretty, smart or funny as the people he used to be with? What are my deficiencies? Am I adequate, average or better than those other women? It goes on and on in my head. So long as these other people don't come up in conversation, I am okay. But when they do...oh, how pathetic I become!
Maybe because it's early in the relationship that I don't feel completely secure with what we have. I will admit that he has said that he never felt quite as connected to any of them as he does with me. But still, I wonder. Is honesty about our past really the best policy??
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Armenian Story Has Another SIde
Armenian story has another side
By Norman Stone, a historian and the author of "World War I: A Short History"
October 16, 2007
All the world knows what the end of an empire looks like: hundreds of thousands of people fleeing down dusty paths, taking what was left of their possessions; crammed refugee trains puffing their way across arid plains; and many, many people dying. For the Ottoman Empire that process began in the Balkans, the Crimea and the Caucasus as Russia and her satellites expanded. Seven million people -- we would now call them Turks -- had to settle in Anatolia, the territory of modern Turkey.
In 1914, when World War I began in earnest, Armenians living in what is now Turkey attempted to set up a national state. Armenians revolted against the Ottoman government, began what we would now call "ethnic cleansing" of the local Turks. Their effort failed and caused the government to deport most Armenians from the area of the revolt for security reasons. Their sufferings en route are well-known.
Today, Armenian interests in America and abroad are well-organized. What keeps them united is the collective memory of their historic grievance. What happened was not in any way their fault, they believe. If the drive to carve out an ethnically pure Armenian state was a failure, they reason, it was only because the Turks exterminated them.
For years, Armenians have urged the U.S. Congress to recognize their fate as genocide. Many U.S. leaders -- including former secretaries of state and defense and current high-ranking Bush administration officials -- have urged Congress either not to consider or to vote down the current genocide resolution primarily for strategic purposes: Turkey is a critical ally to the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan and adoption of such a resolution would anger and offend the Turkish population and jeopardize U.S.-Turkish relations.
Given this strong opposition, why would Congress, upon the advice of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, make itself arbiter of this controversy? What makes the Armenians' dreadful fate so much worse than the dreadful fates that come with every end of empire? It is here that historians must come in.
First, allegedly critical evidence of the crime consists of forgeries. The British were in occupation of Istanbul for four years after the war and examined all of the files of the Ottoman government. They found nothing, and therefore could not try the 100-odd supposed Turkish war criminals that they were holding. Then, documents turned up, allegedly telegrams from the interior ministry to the effect that all Armenians should be wiped out. The signatures turned out to be wrong, there were no back-up copies in the archives and the dating system was misunderstood.
There are many other arguments against a supposed genocide of the Armenians. Their leader was offered a post in the Turkish Cabinet in 1914, and turned it down. When the deportations were under way, the populations of the big cities were exempted -- Istanbul, Izmir, Aleppo, where there were huge concentrations of Armenians. There were indeed well-documented and horrible massacres of the deportee columns, and the Turks themselves tried more than 1,300 men for these crimes in 1916, convicted many and executed several. None of this squares with genocide, as we classically understand it. Finally, it is just not true that historians as a whole support the genocide thesis. The people who know the background and the language (Ottoman Turkish is terribly difficult) are divided, and those who do not accept the genocide thesis are weightier. The Armenian lobby contends that these independent and highly esteemed historians are simply "Ottomanists" -- a ridiculously arrogant dismissal.
Unfortunately, the issue has never reached a properly constituted court. If the Armenians were convinced of their own case, they would have taken it to one. Instead, they lobby bewildered or bored parliamentary assemblies to "recognize the genocide."
Congress should not take a position, one way or the other, on this affair. Let historians decide. The Turkish government has been saying this for years. It is the Armenians who refuse to take part in a joint historical review, even when organized by impeccably neutral academics. This review is the logical and most sensible path forward. Passage of the resolution by the full House of Representatives would constitute an act of legislative vengeance and would shame well-meaning scholars who want to explore this history from any vantage point other than the one foisted upon the world by ultranationalist Armenians.
By Norman Stone, a historian and the author of "World War I: A Short History"
October 16, 2007
All the world knows what the end of an empire looks like: hundreds of thousands of people fleeing down dusty paths, taking what was left of their possessions; crammed refugee trains puffing their way across arid plains; and many, many people dying. For the Ottoman Empire that process began in the Balkans, the Crimea and the Caucasus as Russia and her satellites expanded. Seven million people -- we would now call them Turks -- had to settle in Anatolia, the territory of modern Turkey.
In 1914, when World War I began in earnest, Armenians living in what is now Turkey attempted to set up a national state. Armenians revolted against the Ottoman government, began what we would now call "ethnic cleansing" of the local Turks. Their effort failed and caused the government to deport most Armenians from the area of the revolt for security reasons. Their sufferings en route are well-known.
Today, Armenian interests in America and abroad are well-organized. What keeps them united is the collective memory of their historic grievance. What happened was not in any way their fault, they believe. If the drive to carve out an ethnically pure Armenian state was a failure, they reason, it was only because the Turks exterminated them.
For years, Armenians have urged the U.S. Congress to recognize their fate as genocide. Many U.S. leaders -- including former secretaries of state and defense and current high-ranking Bush administration officials -- have urged Congress either not to consider or to vote down the current genocide resolution primarily for strategic purposes: Turkey is a critical ally to the U.S. in both Iraq and Afghanistan and adoption of such a resolution would anger and offend the Turkish population and jeopardize U.S.-Turkish relations.
Given this strong opposition, why would Congress, upon the advice of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, make itself arbiter of this controversy? What makes the Armenians' dreadful fate so much worse than the dreadful fates that come with every end of empire? It is here that historians must come in.
First, allegedly critical evidence of the crime consists of forgeries. The British were in occupation of Istanbul for four years after the war and examined all of the files of the Ottoman government. They found nothing, and therefore could not try the 100-odd supposed Turkish war criminals that they were holding. Then, documents turned up, allegedly telegrams from the interior ministry to the effect that all Armenians should be wiped out. The signatures turned out to be wrong, there were no back-up copies in the archives and the dating system was misunderstood.
There are many other arguments against a supposed genocide of the Armenians. Their leader was offered a post in the Turkish Cabinet in 1914, and turned it down. When the deportations were under way, the populations of the big cities were exempted -- Istanbul, Izmir, Aleppo, where there were huge concentrations of Armenians. There were indeed well-documented and horrible massacres of the deportee columns, and the Turks themselves tried more than 1,300 men for these crimes in 1916, convicted many and executed several. None of this squares with genocide, as we classically understand it. Finally, it is just not true that historians as a whole support the genocide thesis. The people who know the background and the language (Ottoman Turkish is terribly difficult) are divided, and those who do not accept the genocide thesis are weightier. The Armenian lobby contends that these independent and highly esteemed historians are simply "Ottomanists" -- a ridiculously arrogant dismissal.
Unfortunately, the issue has never reached a properly constituted court. If the Armenians were convinced of their own case, they would have taken it to one. Instead, they lobby bewildered or bored parliamentary assemblies to "recognize the genocide."
Congress should not take a position, one way or the other, on this affair. Let historians decide. The Turkish government has been saying this for years. It is the Armenians who refuse to take part in a joint historical review, even when organized by impeccably neutral academics. This review is the logical and most sensible path forward. Passage of the resolution by the full House of Representatives would constitute an act of legislative vengeance and would shame well-meaning scholars who want to explore this history from any vantage point other than the one foisted upon the world by ultranationalist Armenians.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Man, it is so easy to HATE Armenians
So I generally use my blog to chronicle my personal life. However, in light of the recent events regarding Pelosi (a fool's fool) and the resolution that looks like is going to pass deeming the events of 1915 in the Ottoamn Empire as a so-called genocide, I felt compelled to write about it.
First off, since when in hell are politicians in a position to act as though they are an authority on history? This whole issue is best for historians to sort out. Am I right?
Secondly, why in the world won't the Armenians go to the Hague and make their case if they are DEAD certain that they have one.
Thirdly, why won't the Armenians open up their God damn archives the way that Turkey has? Again, if they are soooo certain that they were systematically exterminated, what are they so afraid of?
One more question: in 1984 a letter was drafted and signed by (literally) dozens of HISTORIANS (from the U.S. and England) stating that the events of 1915 were NOT a genocide. So tell me, why did Armenian terrorists go after those historians who made this statement? Well, hellooo, Armos, remember your terrorist organization called ASALA. For those of you not familiar with ASALA, they were an Armenian terrorist organization who murdered scores of Turkish Diplomats and civilians.
Yes, I now loathe Armenians who sole national identity has been to have the world feel sorry for them for betraying the very govenment that had long been on their side. That is, up until Armenians got greedy and thought that they could carve out land of their own out of the Ottoman Empire. You all suck. And I mean that from the bottom of my heart
First off, since when in hell are politicians in a position to act as though they are an authority on history? This whole issue is best for historians to sort out. Am I right?
Secondly, why in the world won't the Armenians go to the Hague and make their case if they are DEAD certain that they have one.
Thirdly, why won't the Armenians open up their God damn archives the way that Turkey has? Again, if they are soooo certain that they were systematically exterminated, what are they so afraid of?
One more question: in 1984 a letter was drafted and signed by (literally) dozens of HISTORIANS (from the U.S. and England) stating that the events of 1915 were NOT a genocide. So tell me, why did Armenian terrorists go after those historians who made this statement? Well, hellooo, Armos, remember your terrorist organization called ASALA. For those of you not familiar with ASALA, they were an Armenian terrorist organization who murdered scores of Turkish Diplomats and civilians.
Yes, I now loathe Armenians who sole national identity has been to have the world feel sorry for them for betraying the very govenment that had long been on their side. That is, up until Armenians got greedy and thought that they could carve out land of their own out of the Ottoman Empire. You all suck. And I mean that from the bottom of my heart
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Merging
Jeff and I have been together for a month now and we have been inseparable since the day we have met. I never thought that I could spend so much of my time with another human being without feeling claustrophobic. In the past, I was really protective of my personal space. I couldn't stand it when a guy would leave anything in my apartment that would be a reminder of him. It felt too much like they were moving into my personal space. Not so with Jeff. I have even made room for his personal belongings at my place.
I can remember a time when I was seeing someone else who used to leave his stuff in my apartment and I would freak out. I was too selfish to give up anything of mine for a guy. I guess I never really cared for or was in love with anyone else in the past. It's different for me now. I can happily walk around my apartment and love to see Jeff's things hanging around.
Realistically, I know that this high that we are on will eventually calm down, but my feelings for him continue to grow and deepen. If there is such a thing as a soul mate, then I have found mine. I actually feel optimistic about the future, and I have to say that sharing my life with someone this special makes each day terrific. I'll take the good and the bad with him which I was not willing to do with anyone else. When things got heated in the least bit with other men, I would run away as fast as I could. I'm in this relationship for the long haul - something that I could not say about any of the others.
I can remember a time when I was seeing someone else who used to leave his stuff in my apartment and I would freak out. I was too selfish to give up anything of mine for a guy. I guess I never really cared for or was in love with anyone else in the past. It's different for me now. I can happily walk around my apartment and love to see Jeff's things hanging around.
Realistically, I know that this high that we are on will eventually calm down, but my feelings for him continue to grow and deepen. If there is such a thing as a soul mate, then I have found mine. I actually feel optimistic about the future, and I have to say that sharing my life with someone this special makes each day terrific. I'll take the good and the bad with him which I was not willing to do with anyone else. When things got heated in the least bit with other men, I would run away as fast as I could. I'm in this relationship for the long haul - something that I could not say about any of the others.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Can I Fall in Love This Fast?
I recently met and fell in love with someone I met online. His name is Jeff. We began emailing each other, which obviously went well enough to go on a first date. We spoke on the phone for the first time on a Thursday night and it felt like there was a real connection there. We both decided to not go to work on Friday and had our first date. The date started on Friday at 1 p.m. and ended up going until Saturday morning - no, we didn't have sex (that night).
We spent our first date in Hoboken, New Jersey which probably has the most bars per capita in the world. We bounced around from bar to bar and just spent our time laughing and talking. The evening ended at Middle Eastern restaurant which also had a nargile bar. It was an amazing day and night. He left Saturday morning and I met up with again at a bar in New York City on Saturday night. After running around in lower Manhattan, we went back to my place. I am blown away by Jeff. I just love being with him. I knew that there was something special and different about him.
We spent Sunday at my place doing more of the same, just talking and laughing while we played a ton of music. It was great. It was soooo comfortable and easy to be with him. I wasn't self-conscious at all. Nor did I have to wonder what he was thinking or feeling. We were just being ourselves and enjoying each others company.
Jeff came over to my place during the week where we just spent more time getting to know each other. Things are moving along quickly and normally I would say that it's not possible to love someone this fast. I am a cynic by nature. However, Jeff makes me less cynical and more optimistic about the future. He is just a few years younger than me and we seemed to have made a wonderful connection. My hope is that this will last forever. He and I are mature enough to realize that there will come a time when we will both come down off of this "high" we are on. We even look forward to that. I have never fallen for someone like this before and I feel ready to make a committment to him. The best part of all of this is that he cares for me the way that I care for him.
We spent our first date in Hoboken, New Jersey which probably has the most bars per capita in the world. We bounced around from bar to bar and just spent our time laughing and talking. The evening ended at Middle Eastern restaurant which also had a nargile bar. It was an amazing day and night. He left Saturday morning and I met up with again at a bar in New York City on Saturday night. After running around in lower Manhattan, we went back to my place. I am blown away by Jeff. I just love being with him. I knew that there was something special and different about him.
We spent Sunday at my place doing more of the same, just talking and laughing while we played a ton of music. It was great. It was soooo comfortable and easy to be with him. I wasn't self-conscious at all. Nor did I have to wonder what he was thinking or feeling. We were just being ourselves and enjoying each others company.
Jeff came over to my place during the week where we just spent more time getting to know each other. Things are moving along quickly and normally I would say that it's not possible to love someone this fast. I am a cynic by nature. However, Jeff makes me less cynical and more optimistic about the future. He is just a few years younger than me and we seemed to have made a wonderful connection. My hope is that this will last forever. He and I are mature enough to realize that there will come a time when we will both come down off of this "high" we are on. We even look forward to that. I have never fallen for someone like this before and I feel ready to make a committment to him. The best part of all of this is that he cares for me the way that I care for him.
Monday, August 6, 2007
My Confessional for the Week
Okay, I'm just going to fess up and say it: I slept with that Turkish-American guy I met on our 3rd date. And yes, it was a BIG mistake. Not a mistake in that I didn't want for it to happen, not a mistake because I feel any shame, and definitely not a mistake because I did enjoy it. I deeply regret that we slept together too soon. I can't undo what's already been done. If I could turn back the clock, I would have held off.
I'll walk you through it...Things moved really fast between us. We talked and emailed each other everyday and started making plans for things far, far down the road, like New Years Eve. He was even making plan for us to go on a week long vacation this month. That was mistake number one. Never, EVER, talk about the future in that way when you first meet someone. But my experience with Turkish men has always been this way. They immediately stake their claim if they are interested in you or they'll blow you off rather quickly if they are not interested. In that way, it did not seem all that odd to me. American guys just don't talk this way.
THURSDAY: So we were at my place after having dinner together and one thing led to another. And BAM! He changed. It was almost like he was thinking "okay, I had her, now I don't need to pursue her as hard". Was it just my imagination? I wasn't really sure.
FRIDAY: We had plans to have dinner again and perhaps head over to his place. He emailed me at work and said that he was running behind schedule and would be a little later than usual. I had another bad feeling in my gut. But truthfully I was exhausted from the work week, so I cancelled our plans. He called me when he got home from work and our conversation just felt different (in a bad way). So I asked him if he was okay and he simply said that he had a few drinks after work and was just feeling mellow. Whatever...
I woke up on Saturday morning with a really bad feeling again and emailed him saying that I would like for us to just be friends and that we were not a good match for each other. It couldn't have been more brief. He immediately emailed me back and said that he was "surprised" and wish me luck too. End of story, right? Wrong!
That was last weekend and we did not speak or email each other at all. I figured what's done is done and it's time to move on. But last night I forwarded a GROUP email to friends and family and his email address was still hanging around, so he got the email as well. I was surpised this morning by his email to me saying "can a guy and a girl still be friends after they have been intimate?" I wrote him back and said that I meant what I said in my earlier email about us just being friends. The choice was his to make. I thought I was being a mature adult here, wouldn't you say?
He sent me another email saying he was packing for a trip and would contact me this Sunday "to catch up" I already knew he was leaving for this trip as he mentioned it to me when we were still seeing each other. He also wrote in his email that he had purchased a few new things in for his apartment which he wanted me to see.
CAN A GUY AND A GIRL BE "JUST FRIENDS" AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INITMATE, as he said? More specifically, can a Turkish guy still be friends with a girl after being intimate? I am still friendly with some of my old boyfriends (Americans), and we get along just fine when we run into each other. After all, we are all adults here and none of my relationships (except for my ex-husband) ended in a knock down drag out fight. Those relationships just ended. But I would like to think that he and I can be friends. Maybe I'm naive.
So maybe he'll call, maybe he won't. But if he does, it'll be interesting to see how this one plays out. I've never been in this situation before with a Turkish guy.
Did I mention that he is 9 years younger than me? Maybe he just likes the "older" woman thing, I don't know. Now do you see why I blog anonymously??
I'll walk you through it...Things moved really fast between us. We talked and emailed each other everyday and started making plans for things far, far down the road, like New Years Eve. He was even making plan for us to go on a week long vacation this month. That was mistake number one. Never, EVER, talk about the future in that way when you first meet someone. But my experience with Turkish men has always been this way. They immediately stake their claim if they are interested in you or they'll blow you off rather quickly if they are not interested. In that way, it did not seem all that odd to me. American guys just don't talk this way.
THURSDAY: So we were at my place after having dinner together and one thing led to another. And BAM! He changed. It was almost like he was thinking "okay, I had her, now I don't need to pursue her as hard". Was it just my imagination? I wasn't really sure.
FRIDAY: We had plans to have dinner again and perhaps head over to his place. He emailed me at work and said that he was running behind schedule and would be a little later than usual. I had another bad feeling in my gut. But truthfully I was exhausted from the work week, so I cancelled our plans. He called me when he got home from work and our conversation just felt different (in a bad way). So I asked him if he was okay and he simply said that he had a few drinks after work and was just feeling mellow. Whatever...
I woke up on Saturday morning with a really bad feeling again and emailed him saying that I would like for us to just be friends and that we were not a good match for each other. It couldn't have been more brief. He immediately emailed me back and said that he was "surprised" and wish me luck too. End of story, right? Wrong!
That was last weekend and we did not speak or email each other at all. I figured what's done is done and it's time to move on. But last night I forwarded a GROUP email to friends and family and his email address was still hanging around, so he got the email as well. I was surpised this morning by his email to me saying "can a guy and a girl still be friends after they have been intimate?" I wrote him back and said that I meant what I said in my earlier email about us just being friends. The choice was his to make. I thought I was being a mature adult here, wouldn't you say?
He sent me another email saying he was packing for a trip and would contact me this Sunday "to catch up" I already knew he was leaving for this trip as he mentioned it to me when we were still seeing each other. He also wrote in his email that he had purchased a few new things in for his apartment which he wanted me to see.
CAN A GUY AND A GIRL BE "JUST FRIENDS" AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INITMATE, as he said? More specifically, can a Turkish guy still be friends with a girl after being intimate? I am still friendly with some of my old boyfriends (Americans), and we get along just fine when we run into each other. After all, we are all adults here and none of my relationships (except for my ex-husband) ended in a knock down drag out fight. Those relationships just ended. But I would like to think that he and I can be friends. Maybe I'm naive.
So maybe he'll call, maybe he won't. But if he does, it'll be interesting to see how this one plays out. I've never been in this situation before with a Turkish guy.
Did I mention that he is 9 years younger than me? Maybe he just likes the "older" woman thing, I don't know. Now do you see why I blog anonymously??
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Back to Reality
Okay, so I just turned 42 years old. That's a grim fact that I can't change. I can't turn back the clock or live in the past. I guess I should appreciate that I'm in good health, have family and friends who care about me, and have a crazy job that I enjoy (on most days). The truth is that I am more comfortable in my own skin more now than I was when I was 22. Oh man, could it be that I am actually maturing?
What's different now is that I act more responsibly (usually), care so much more about the feelings of others (I was totally self-absorbed in my 20's), and I find that I have greater patience these days in almost every aspect of my life.
I don't need a life partner to validate who I am. But I certainly would enjoy the journey in this life of mine more if I could share it with someone whom I feel deeply connected to. That person may never show up in my life and I need to wrap my brain around that. What if I never have what I am looking for? Should my life come to a screeching halt? I can't just lay down and die, especially since there many things in life that I am so passionate about. It's high time that I come to my senses and live each moment and to truly be in the moment. No more of those silly pity parties when there are things in life that are more important than finding the one. It's a new era.
What's different now is that I act more responsibly (usually), care so much more about the feelings of others (I was totally self-absorbed in my 20's), and I find that I have greater patience these days in almost every aspect of my life.
I don't need a life partner to validate who I am. But I certainly would enjoy the journey in this life of mine more if I could share it with someone whom I feel deeply connected to. That person may never show up in my life and I need to wrap my brain around that. What if I never have what I am looking for? Should my life come to a screeching halt? I can't just lay down and die, especially since there many things in life that I am so passionate about. It's high time that I come to my senses and live each moment and to truly be in the moment. No more of those silly pity parties when there are things in life that are more important than finding the one. It's a new era.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Happy friggin' birthday to me
Remember when you were a kid and how excited you would become about your birthday approaching? I remember when I was 12 I was excited about turning 13 because I would officially become a teenager. I also recall how excited I was about turning 18 because I was about to be an "adult". And, of course, how could I forget about how excited I was when I turned 21 because I could finally drink legally in the United States (however, I was in Turkey on my 21st birthday).
Ah yes, those were the days. But now, getting a year older just depresses the hell out of me. It just reminds me that my youth is over and I am just one year closer to death. Morbid thought, I know. I look around me and think about all of the things I should and shouldn't have done with my life. I feel like the clock is ticking fast and I am simply running out of time to do the things that I wish to do. Time is just moving too fast.
I made the decision not to celebrate my birthday with friends or anyone else because I don't feel like celebrating. Instead, I will probably get 6 pack, a pack of smokes, and wallow in self-pity on this day (and wish this day would pass really fast).
Ah yes, those were the days. But now, getting a year older just depresses the hell out of me. It just reminds me that my youth is over and I am just one year closer to death. Morbid thought, I know. I look around me and think about all of the things I should and shouldn't have done with my life. I feel like the clock is ticking fast and I am simply running out of time to do the things that I wish to do. Time is just moving too fast.
I made the decision not to celebrate my birthday with friends or anyone else because I don't feel like celebrating. Instead, I will probably get 6 pack, a pack of smokes, and wallow in self-pity on this day (and wish this day would pass really fast).
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Men, Sex and Relationships
My sense is that most men seek out relationships for one reason and one reason only: sex. If they were getting sex regularly without being in a relationship, they would never look to be in a real relationship (men: feel free to weigh-in here). There is little doubt in my mind that this is the case. I think that monogamy is unnatural for men. If you asked a man "if you were getting it from multiple partners, would seek out a relationship?", the answer would invariably be "hell no!". I mean, who are we kidding here? Sex is what drives men in selecting a partner(s). Am I wrong? When/if a man finally decides to settle down and get married, the first thing they consider is this: Is this someone I would enjoy sleeping with for the rest of my life?
Ladies, let's not kid ourselves here, to some extent we do it too. But it's different for us. We look at the whole package. We consider his personality, character, appearance, brains, ambition, earning potential, etc... Sex with the guy does not rank first on our list as it does with most men when they seek out a partner. It's amzes me that we ever wind up in relationships at all given that our agendas are so different.
Ladies, let's not kid ourselves here, to some extent we do it too. But it's different for us. We look at the whole package. We consider his personality, character, appearance, brains, ambition, earning potential, etc... Sex with the guy does not rank first on our list as it does with most men when they seek out a partner. It's amzes me that we ever wind up in relationships at all given that our agendas are so different.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Another One Bites the Dust
So I never did go out with the Pakistani. Instead, I went out a Turkish guy from Turkish Personals. We spent last Saturday and Sunday together and it's over already. There was just something that didn't feel right about it. The only thing I was able to do was to email him and say that we are not a good match for each other. Simple. Done and over with. Why drag out something that just doesn't feel right? These days I actually prefer concentrating on work than on dating. As crazy as my job is, I at least get some satisfaction out it, unlike this dating B.S. It's a crazy world and sometimes I feel as though I'm not in harmony with it. There is only so much disappointment that a gal can take! |
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Lunch Date
I was off from work yesterday and had my first eHarmony lunch date. Now let me start by saying that this guy writes on his profile that he looks younger than his stated age (47). When he and I first met, I knew immediately that there was no physical attraction. And he does look his age. There was no chemistry whatsoever but I figured he only had an hour for lunch and and I can certainly manage to get through that. We spent time talking about healthy eating which I know very little about. It felt awkward for me because I tried very hard not to show the boredom I was experiencing. The conversation just seemed to get more and more boring until we started talking about music, which I love. Even so, I knew deep in my heart that this nice guy sitting across from me was not going to see me again. After an hour went by, I said "Gosh, look at that, it's been an hour and 15 minutes, you should be getting back to your office". He said, "oh, it's okay we can take our time". Yeah, I realized that I would have to somehow bring this thing to an end on my own. So 45 more minutes passed and I said, "I really think we should leave now" and as I started to get up, he followed my lead. It's easy to end a fun date. But how do you end it when you know you don't want to have contact with the person ever again? As we began walking, he said he had a nice time and wanted to get together again. I didn't want to hurt his feelings and simply said, "yeah". We had an awkward embrace and we parted ways. I came home to a nicely written email from him thanking me for meeting him for lunch. Now what do I do? What do I write back? Should I write back? Help! I decided to just say thank you back and that I, too, had a nice time. I kind of knew there was no chemistry with him over the phone when we were planning to meet, but I wanted to keep an open mind. In hindsight, I should have just trusted my instincts. Now tonight I will be going out with my Pakistani. He, unlike my lunch date, was very funny on the phone, and I am looking forward to meeting him this evening. It's not a time limited lunch date so I hope like hell we get along pretty well. |
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Let the Games Begin
So I've been emailing a couple of guys on this online dating service that I have been talking about. Unfortunately (or fortunately) you are supposed to give your real first name, and I came across a profile of a guy that I liked but his name was one of those names that could easily be Turkish or Arabic. Because of that, I "closed" that match immediately because I'm not interested in meeting any Turkish men at this time. I already tried out that gig, remember? Anyway, this guy emailed me saying that he felt that we may have some things in common and that he was interested in getting to know me. So I un-closed the match and we began our communication. It turns out that he has a pretty good sense of humor and is also easy on the eyes. What was interesting was that he was hesitant in telling me his ethnic origin. I asked point blank in one of my emails, but he blew it off. So I waited for a couple of emails to go by and he told me that he was not Turkish. What a relief! ( I couldn't stand the thought of being stood up again by a guy who got distracted and had to do his laundry when he was supposed to be out with me.) So what is he? He said he was a Pakistani mutt, and a good looking one at that. We made plans to go out for drinks next week. He lives in NYC which is very convenient. Strangely, I am actually really looking forward to meeting him in person. The down side here is that he is a physician. Let me explain. I have the utmost respect for doctors but rarely are they down-to-earth and fun to be around (minus the docs who are related to me, of course). But I guess I will soon find out how it's gonna go. In the mean time, I am still getting to know a couple of other people but I am in the early stages of this "guided communication" we are forced to go through on this site before being able to freely email each other. We shall see! |
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Rolling the Dice
Oh, what to do, what to do? I decided to bag the whole Turkish Personals business for awhile since I'm now officially with eHarmony ( you have all seen their commercials of their "success stories" where they show youall of those couples who are dizzy in love, I'm sure). They boast about how they match you up based on their 29 dimensions of compatibility, then they "send" you the matches that they think you are most compatible . I never knew that there were 29 dimensions...did you? You have very little control over your selection in that you are not afforded the opportunity to peruse through a million profiles. In a way, I think I prefer it because I am too damn tired to do it myself. So in away, they do the work for you. Plus, I get to decide on match-by-match basis who can view my picture. And I like that instead of putting myself out there. I am, after all, "Anonymously yours". It's all very new to me and different than Turkish Personals. And I resigned myself to the fact that I am not likely to meet Mr. Turkish-American. It just ain't gonna happen. So far I have come across some quality profiles, if you will. I'm in the beginning stages of meeting/communicating with these folks. Now it really just boils down to chemistry. Needless to say, they have been sending me profiles of men who are either around my age or up to 10 years older. Yup, some of my matches are in there 50's. When I was in my 20's I used to date men who were 10 to 15 years older than me. It was okay back then. But me with someone in their 50's? I never really considered that before but now I am warning up to idea of being paired up with someone who knows who he is and wants out of life. I'm just rolling the dice here. |
Saturday, June 30, 2007
My Silence Speaks Volumes
I made the decision not to respond to Bulent's email. I know that if I call him or write him, I am likely to tell him off. His email, though seemingly from "the heart", is meaningless to me. The damage was done and I saw enough of his true character to turn me off. What more do I really need to witness? And, based on what he wrote, he already knows that he is an asshole. The apology is worthless. I mentioned in a previous post that I am generally an unforgiving individual. I can hold a grudge forever. This doesn't mean that I won't be polite with people who piss me off. It just means that in the back of mind what keeps playing is what the person has said or done to me that has me disliking them. That reminder never leaves me. I am fully aware that this may not be the healthiest way of living. But it works for me. It's all about self-preservation. I generally try to avoid confrontation. But when put in that position, and once I open my mouth, I can give a person the verbal lashing of a lifetime. And I know this about myself. I am a pressure cooker. Therefore, when I am pissed (I mean really pissed) I actually say nothing at all. I just disconnect and pull the plug immediately. Most people learn this about me over time. Telling people off doesn't make me feel any better. And I find that it is a waste of time. I simply choose to ignore them and let them stew in their own crap. It's just so much more satisfying. |
Friday, June 29, 2007
Bulent's Email to Me
| I hope all is well with you. I was planning to call you earlier this evening but I could only make it back home from work around 9:35 PM and I did not want to disturb you this late. I do not know if it is going to change anything but I want to appologize for being impolite and late to call last weekend. I know that it might not be an excuse but I really am very busy at work these past few months due to a deadline on July 11th. I left you two voice messages earlier this week. Perhaps I should have expressed myself in a more polite manner. When I asked you to call me back that was not an order. It was a wish. You certainly have no obligation to do so. I did not express it but I felt close to you and made the mistake of addressing you as if we knew each other for a longer time. Thank you for meeting with me last week. Your pictures are good but I think you look prettier in person. We do have many things in common. I was hoping we could give each other more chances to get to know each other a little better. As I said I am somewhat sceptial about meeting people online and corresponding via e-mails. So I thought in our case -since we live within a walking distance- we could minimize that part and take a more real and direct approach. I hope I am mistaken but unfortunately currently this too looks likely to be one of those "easy come easy go" encounters. I could write much more to you with the intention of trying to convince you to write back and/or contact me somehow. However we are both experienced enough to know that it is hard to change things once the feeling is lost. I can talk a lot under certain settings and do give people the credit when I first meet them that they are good people. But I also know that most people are selfish and compromise honesty for personal gain. And that the probabilitiy of finding a compatible "infidel" such as myself for this sort of friendship is quite slim in a world of believers. As I mentioned I did gave up TP a few years ago. Now it's like deja vu all over again. Thanks to your flirt I became a member and now I have two more weeks of membership left. I would like to invite you for a dinner this Friday evening or another day of your choice. I can not read my personal e-mail from work but you have my cell number. Assuming this is what you want -unless I hear from you - I will no longer disturb you again at you home phone. I hope I will hear again from you. But there's also a good probability that you have other things going on for you. If that happens to be your preference I hope it turns out to be the right choice for you. In any case may happiness be with you. Bulent This is the email that Bulent sent me to "explain" himself. Remember, in his vm message he said he was in Manhattan and then had laundry to do which is why he did not call me until very late in the day. What would you do if you were me? Quite frankly, I have no desire to make room in my life for any B.S. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
