“probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut”

In the unlikely circumstance that Michael has not learnt of ‘Avestan’, I shall attempt a short description, in the same generous spirit with which Michael so kindly defined ‘pat’ and ’sarcasm’.

Avestan is an ancient Iranian language. The ‘Avesta’ is the holy book of Zoroastrianism, and the language of this holy book is referred to as Avestan. Avestan was a purely oral language for millennia due to a Zoroastrian suspicion of the written word. It was not written down until about 1600 years ago.

‘Avesta’ is linguistically related to ‘Veda’, the ancient Hindu holy writings. The Avesta and the Vedas are close in language and content. They represent some of the earliest Indo-European languages, and the only ones to have survived in some form until the present day. The Avesta and Vedas are still revered today in India by the Parsis and Hindus, respectively.

That is why ‘Avesta’ is mentioned in the definition of “sarcasm”, as Latin, Greek, English, French and German are Indo-European languages, like Avestan and Sanskrit (the language of the Vedas). For the curious, there is a short Wikipedia article on Avestan.

I hope my post is at least as educational as Michael’s deeply erudite writings.

You’re kind of a sock yourself…maybe you’re Mi-wha–come on, fess up.

By the way, this is:
sarcasm

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: ’s?r-”ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm

Michael

Such impolite slurs are shameful. Mi-hwa is expressing a position that is quite reasonable. These distasteful ad-hominem attacks made by critics of the sunshine policy are all too common.

There is a deafening silence when miscreants on these boards resort to vile mud-slinging. Where are all the noble defenders of truth and morality?

But I thank Michael for so clearly identifying himself as somebody not to be taken seriously.

Vershbow defied credulity when he said:
“And we can’t somehow remove our sanctions as a political gesture when this regime is engaging in dangerous activities such as weapons exports to rogue states…”
from BBC News

How can one refuse to see the sheer hypocrisy in such words? All nations bend their laws when it is convenient. I remind you that the US lifted sanctions on Pakistan and is now selling fighter jets to the same “non-criminal” military dictatorship. Pakistan supported al Qaeda and the Taliban, developed nuclear weapons, exported nuclear weapons technology to rogue nations, and is still promoting Islamist terrorism. I also point out the case of the Lybian terrorist madman Qaddafi, who recently bought his way clear of sanctions.

The reality is that all nations make exceptions to laws, policies and morality when it suits their purpose. Pretending otherwise is just hypocrisy. Let’s drop the boy scout act and face the realities of world politics. There is a good debate to be had on the proper approach to North Korea without these distractions.

I can see an argument against this tradition, but you can’t deny the existence of a norm amongst diplomats for extreme circumspection. This tradition developed partly in response to the ease with which an international incident could arise just from the errant behavior of individual diplomats.

The recent souring of relations between South Korea and the US over remarks made by Vershbow and Lefkowitz demonstrate this, although I have no doubt these diplomats were instructed to make such statements by the US government.

This is a case where Americans are happily following the North Korean model. Diplomats spout controversial and threating remarks regularly and unapologetically. Nowadays, people are getting quite used to threats from the US against North Korea, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. So much so that the US’s statements are seen like we see North Korea’s statements: generally empty posturing, that is nonetheless disturbing.

Whatever happened to the good, old-fashioned speak softly and carry a big stick.

http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/S.....160006.asp

After applauding Vershbow for his energy (but in a way that is also rather condescending of his extra-curricular activities, he KH credits Versbow for reminding Koreans waht the NORK regime is really like. But it them goes on in the strange mixture of arrogance and whimpering that one runs across in Korea so often to remonstrate with him that he needs to learn and reflect more on Koreans’ point of view and Korean “realities” rather than “what he learned from his tutors in DC”.

A pretty back-handed “defense”. Can you imagine the howls that would rise up if anyone, especially American, purported to preach to Korea’s US representative in such a fashion? What pious hyprocisy.