funny i never thought that it is elementary to find the original author of some phrase to understand it properly.

I also never knew that “thick” is a synonym for “not knowing a name”. I guess if someone (like Ramanujan) is a genius in mathematics but doesnt know Euclid’s or Euler’s name, then according to you he is “thick”. Interesting concept. How do you call someone who knows the guy’s name, but doesn’t know how he looks like? Semi-thick? If i know the names and CVs of all Nobel prize laureates, does this make me some kind of non-thick super-scientist?

PS ok Im sorry for the excursus, i just had to answer to this…

Who is Plevris and his 4th August Political formation rather than a fringe remnant of the past as colourful and bizarre as other fruits that parade the Greek political scene as the Hunters Party, Ouranio Toxo, The Fishermen’s Party, The Golfers, OSE, OAKE and the rest! How many other than a handful of pathetic existences listening to him and taking him seriously! He has no more credit than Leventis and Nakratzas and Co even though this entire colourful bunch strives very hard to be taken seriously! People may find his writing offending! I can very well understand them why! But what the reaction chosen resulted may indeed has elevate him to a level not only he does not deserve but also at a level that he himself may never imagined! Although it may have been their right of those self appointed knights of Human Rights to choose this course, in practical terms may have been a blunder of immense proportion! Here we have it Mr Plevris the archangel and martyr of Human Rights! How stupidly bizarre! In practical terms to my opinion two should had the options of reaction: (A) Ignore him! (B) Confront him straight forwardly in the field he chose: Provide the ample counter evidence confront him with this face to face! Defeat him fairly and straightforwardly. Why this course of action was not chosen perplexes me! Either those who professionally shout for ‘Human Rights’ don’t have the guts or even worse don’t have the knowledge! If they had choose this course its should had been easy-peasy to fatally discredit him saving in between some trees that would be freshly sacrificed as trophies for his apparent ‘victory’ in terms of increased circulation for his collection of revisionist nonsense he call books! Or is it due to the rising petrol prices and these can serve as an alternative low cost fuel for the remaining cold winter days?

You dont get it. By a long shot.

One would expect that someone who refers to a quote has checked to whom it’s attributed, whether he / she said it or not. My guess is that you (and others) just memorised the phrase somewhere between the 2nd Junior High and 2nd Senior High School and then locked it in your head, only to recall it in the context of any discussion that appears germane.

In short, people who think that this is an important phrase but do not go at any legnth to further investigate it strike up as, well, thick. How can one say that this phrase is dear to him but not make an even half-arsed effort to locate it. A very simple example: DD’s motto as it appears on the top of her page, is ofter attributed to Endmund Burke. The minute I read it, I was stunned so naturally (for me but not you) I sought to find out more about him, his work and particularly the text where he had written that quote. I quickly found out that the quote was falsely attributed to him. And you know, now with the internets, it’s soooo simple.

But let me get down all dirty and personal: suppose that I write and publish a text about you. Suppose that in the text, I say that my impression of your family is that all of you are a bunch of no-good doers, that your father has never worked a day in his life but took advantage of other people and that’s how he good rich and that therefore you’re bound to be the same since the apple falls under the apple tree. Suppose that I sent this letter to your employer who then fires you. Confronted with the above, I merely say to you that this is what I think about you because eg you have a blog and you regularly post on it even on business hours, meaning you’re slacking off your work.

To boot, I publish a short porn comic book relating to Jesus. In my comic book, I portray Jesus as a homosexual who has sexual intercourse with various persons. Naturally enough, the comic strips vividly depict these encounters.

Let me know where you would draw the line for freedom of expression. Just to make it easy, I am not including a host of other parameters. Suppose for example that in scenario A) my comic book is published but then a group of zealots comes over and burns it (and me in the process) with the police idly standing by and B) a court, after a trial where I was given all possible means of defending myself, orders the seizure and burning of my book.

Firstly, I have never felt that I should provide a CV merely to utter an opinion on a blog and, of course, I will not do so in this case. Secondly, I fail to see what good an argument would do: how can you discuss with people who discredit others merely on the grounds that they are Greek, have had a Greek education, live in the Balkans etc. Thirdly, I am duty-bound to protest against such blind prejudice and never tolerate this sort of behaviour. In addition, I find this attitude rather sad: the educated people I know do not argue by providing links to a University of Oxford website as a proof of advanced scholarship, offering arguments from authority because ‘I have written books’ and recycling pathetic stereotypes that do not differ, in principle, from a Plevris-like belief that ‘all Jews are sub-human’. In this case, of course, it is we Greeks that are not intelligent and educated enough to discuss with Drowsy.

And I can’t help wondering, my friends, what kind of free speech you have in mind. Plevris cannot speak against the Jews because he is contaminated with prejudice and ignorance and his views are unpleasant and insulting to the Jews. Indeed they are, but were we to put in jail anyone whose views met these criteria Drowsy might be a very good candidate for imprisonment. So would anyone who openly speaks against short or bald people: his views would be equally stupid and both short and bald peoples’ feelings would be hurt. In addition, it would also be a sign of bad character: one should not judge people form their religion, nationality, looks etc. However, his speech would not be as unpleasant as Plevris’ to the rest of us and this is why no one thinks that fitness instructors who criticize junk food eaters should be punished. So, it seems to me that you seek to ban opinions that you find unpleasant rather than inaccurate or offensive - unless, of course, you are seriously proposing to ban anti-shortness speech! I suggest that if we wish to live in a tolerant society we will need to speak against these views yet not ban them, so long as they do not cause harm. In conclusion, I find both Plevris’ and Drowsy’s views profoundly prejudiced and their attitude offensive but would not tolerate their prosecution.

I think that we can safely say that everyone here is educated (to varying degrees perhaps) but that the level of that education has no bearing on this or any of the discussions here. We are all capable of thinking and of having opinions. The way the comments here have descended to the level of personal sniping at people’s intelligence is not helpful and is, in fact, rude and disrespectful. Can we move on from that ?

In an attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand, I do want to say that this urgent action has been brought by international human rights bodies because people are being threatened and abused for bringing (and winning) this lawsuit.

The issue at the heart of the case was not about freedom of speech but about hate speech and incitement to violence. And now the people who brought the case to court are being threatened and attacked. As I stated in a previous post, Plevris has published another book with the addresses of the activists who were involved. This is extremely dangerous and frightening and I think is illegal in itself (Panayote can probably tell us for sure).

The YouTube video that was posted and the threatening comments that followed was also illegal.

There are laws in place to protect ALL of us from this type of situation and I think it is urgent that we stand up to ensure that these protections are not undermined.

Well, since we agree on that, why don’t you and your types come back to Greece and petition the government to stop the nonsense and reward and value folks such as yourself.

You need to tell them that you expat Greeks have money to invest and for them to give you reasons as to why you should invest your money in a country which is controlled by the Church and labor unions?

It’s time for the Greeks to mature and hear the hard truth–babying them will not accomplish anything.

I have to give Mr. Karamanlis credit as I believe he has addressed the brain drain where others seem to treat it as the invisible 400 lb gorilla.

Greeks of the Diaspora (like you John C.) have the power in your wallets.

So if I can interpret the largely arrogant reply of yours since you feel that Voltaire did not say this with his own mouth they are no issue for you to reply! My question then is entirety transcendental! A rather childish and pedantic way avoiding giving straight answers I may say! Especially when the attachment you sent clearly indicates that this phrase entirely reflects his attitude! But then again ideas as the one discussed exist in their own right and they would still be valid points of view or references either Voltaire said so or Mr X or Mr Y or none!
And as for the kind of education a fellow commentator may or may not have I would suggest to be a bit more modest when you passed opinions as I can detect a certain lack of judgment! For instance I am in the physical sciences where we never work with dictatums nor have been trained in reciting and memorising. Mother Nature can be very unforgiving to us! We need to exercise judgment in a fair coherent and in many cases innovative way! So if I may, keep your void criticism for the kind of education we received to yourself.
And coming back to the issue at hand Mr Drowsy can you please enlighten us on what you perceive the CORRECT cultural and historical context of Voltaire’s ideas (as he may have said or implied alike) on the issues discussing at present????

Can you now Mr Drowsy offer us your interpretation of CORRECT (or revisionist maybe…) cultural and historical context of Voltaire’s words in the present context?

You fell for it hook, line and sinker. People keep quoting a dictum not found in any of Voltaire’s writings (see http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/w.....nt_say.pdf)
Not that, naturally enough, I would have expected you to have read anything by Voltaire in order to know this. Heck, I bet that this is only thing you “know” about Voltaire.

You see JC, things are simple: much like what you did in school, you memorised sthng and then kept repeating it as a sort of enchanting (and encahnted) spell. And on top of that, you thing you’re saying sthng clever.

Now do yourself a favour: read about Helvetius and let’s start a serious discussion on censorship, freedom of thought etc.

So messiah MBE I hit the sensitive nerve! Wasn’t difficult and I can assure you it was intentional.
Well I will neither making your life any easier nor I will make the convenient to you statesmen by admitting hating the British. I am NOT! I am actually working for the Bitish prosperity for more than 30 years and the well been of my host country and I am doing it far more effectively and sincerely as the likes of you are doing for us the poor peasant Greeks! I also know the feelings of respect loyalty and gratitude far better than pompous individuals like you. But my substantially in depth knowledge of both worlds allow me to see things and exposing double standards especially when I smell the rats of you