600,000 Bulgarian Families Live In Poverty

[poiuytrewq0987]

Nearly 27% of households in Bulgaria live below the poverty line, relying on a monthly income of less than BGN 205 per person, according to results of a survey of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB) on prices and monthly allowances in June and in Q2, 2012.

The results of the CITUB survey indicate that around 600 000 families live in poverty and their number has increased by 3% from Q1, 2012.

During the reporting period, prices of electricity and heating steadily increased, the tariff increase reaching almost 11% for the whole year.

Monthly allowance per household member amounted to BGN 547 in June.

According to forecasts of CITUB, the monthly allowance will reach BGN 556 per person by the end of 2012 and the annual increase will amount to BGN 20.

CITUB predicts that by end-2012, the monthly allowance of a 4-member household will increase by BGN 80, the main reasons being the higher prices of electricity and the related price spikes.

"This will push up the inflation rate from the level of 1.9% in mid-2012. We believe that the inflation rate will approach 4%," said Plamen Dimitrov, CITUB President.

In the period March-June 2012, prices of cooking oil, electricity, clothing and shoes and healthcare services went up.

Meanwhile, the increased productivity in sectors like pharmaceuticals and tobacco products did not lead to a growth in workers' payments.

"Metal ore mining registered a 17% increase in industrial production, which was accompanied by a 6.4% growth in employees and a mere 2.9% real wage growth," Dimitrov noted.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=141691

[Crn Volk]

Nearly 27% of households in Bulgaria live below the poverty line, relying on a monthly income of less than BGN 205 per person, according to results of a survey of the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions in Bulgaria (CITUB) on prices and monthly allowances in June and in Q2, 2012.

The results of the CITUB survey indicate that around 600 000 families live in poverty and their number has increased by 3% from Q1, 2012.

During the reporting period, prices of electricity and heating steadily increased, the tariff increase reaching almost 11% for the whole year.

Monthly allowance per household member amounted to BGN 547 in June.

According to forecasts of CITUB, the monthly allowance will reach BGN 556 per person by the end of 2012 and the annual increase will amount to BGN 20.

CITUB predicts that by end-2012, the monthly allowance of a 4-member household will increase by BGN 80, the main reasons being the higher prices of electricity and the related price spikes.

"This will push up the inflation rate from the level of 1.9% in mid-2012. We believe that the inflation rate will approach 4%," said Plamen Dimitrov, CITUB President.

In the period March-June 2012, prices of cooking oil, electricity, clothing and shoes and healthcare services went up.

Meanwhile, the increased productivity in sectors like pharmaceuticals and tobacco products did not lead to a growth in workers' payments.

"Metal ore mining registered a 17% increase in industrial production, which was accompanied by a 6.4% growth in employees and a mere 2.9% real wage growth," Dimitrov noted.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=141691

Fat load of good the EU has done for Bulgaria!

[TheNepenthe]

So it is with most countries in Balkans and, yes, most countries that took the 'helping hand' of EU and have thieves as leaders.

[Bugarash]

Fat load of good the EU has done for Bulgaria!

Please educate youreself fyromian

Learn how the EU work.
Go look at what is the situation in FYROM.

[Crn Volk]

Please educate youreself fyromian

Learn how the EU work.
Go look at what is the situation in FYROM.

The situation is improving and Pirin will be ours soon.....:p:thumb001:

[forsaken]

Pirin is as much Macedonian as Macedonia is Bulgarian. All of it is land that was once populated by people who identified as one and the same (ie. ethnic Bulgarians) who are presently divided by past politics.

[Crn Volk]

Pirin is as much Macedonian as Macedonia is Bulgarian. All of it is land that was once populated by people who identified as one and the same (ie. ethnic Bulgarians) who are presently divided by past politics.

Not really, Macedonia has always been a mixed region since ancient times (Illyrians, Thracians, Macedonians, Greeks) later Celts, Goths, Slavs, Serbs and perhaps some Bulgars. Bulgarians do not have Serbian, ancient Macedonian or Illyrian blood. Your alphabet was not influenced by Vuk Karadzic, you follow a different religious calender, you don't celebrate Slava, your language is different to modern Macedonian....is this sinking in?

[forsaken]

Not really, Macedonia has always been a mixed region since ancient times (Illyrians, Thracians, Macedonians, Greeks) later Celts, Goths, Slavs, Serbs and perhaps some Bulgars.
The Balkans in general have "always" been a mixed region. I'd say it comes down the the identity that the population developed over time that is of any significance.


Bulgarians do not have Serbian, ancient Macedonian or Illyrian blood.
The Bulgarian historic domain extended over Serbia for quite a while. There was a time when the whole of modern day Serbia was a province within the First Bulgarian Empire. This being said, I'd say it's highly probable that there is some percent of Serbian blood in Bulgarians and vice-versa.

As for Ancient Macedonian and Illyrian blood.. let's not be silly. From what I've read, it seems the Albanians have the strongest claim to the ancients on an ethnic basis (ie. the Illyrians). All the rest of these 'ancient blood' claims are nothing more but political fairy tales.


Your alphabet was not influenced by Vuk Karadzic, you follow a different religious calender, you don't celebrate Slava, your language is different to modern Macedonian....is this sinking in?
Ahh the notorious "modern day Macedonian language"..

[Crn Volk]

As for Ancient Macedonian and Illyrian blood.. let's not be silly. From what I've read, it seems the Albanians have the strongest claim to the ancients on an ethnic basis (ie. the Illyrians). All the rest of these 'ancient blood' claims are nothing more but political fairy tales.

You've read alot of Albanian propaganda, and Bulgars and Albos are allies.

[forsaken]

You've read alot of Albanian propaganda,
Fortunately I've read enough to distinguish fact from fiction. And from what I've read, all of the ancient peoples (be they Ancient Macedonians, Thracians etc.) have been displaced throughout the history of the Balkans so much so that these ancient identities disintegrated many centuries ago. It is recent political propaganda that brought them back to the forefront of similar history discussions.

Having said that, if we were to draw any sort of ethnic continuation claims.. it seems that the Albanians have the strongest claim to the ancients; but, that's a completely different topic and I'd prefer to talk about our shared Macedono-Bulgarian history. :)


Bulgars and Albos are allies.
Yup, Bulgars and Greeks are allies. Bulgars and Albanians are allies. And on top of all that, Bulgars have a bunch of secret alliances that you have absolutely no idea about.. and all these were formed with the intent of opposing the existence of the independent Republic of Macedonia.

And at the same time, Bulgaria has always supported the existence of the independent Republic of Macedonia; recognizing the independent country first, and recognizing it by its constitutional name.

[Crn Volk]

And at the same time, Bulgaria has always supported the existence of the independent Republic of Macedonia; recognizing the independent country first, and recognizing it by its constitutional name

But not it's constituent people or language, and therefore undermining our existence for the purpose of dividing our land between Albania and Bulgaria.

[forsaken]

But not it's constituent people or language, and therefore undermining our existence for the purpose of dividing our land between Albania and Bulgaria.
An ethnic Macedonian identity exists today, it is the newest ethnic identity in Europe, but none the less it does exist.

If the government of the Republic of Macedonia presents an accurate and truthful depiction of its history, I'm sure that all your neighbors will be more than willing to officially recognize your ethnic identity. I believe this would also resolve your issues with Greece.

And so it seems an objective representation of your country's history is the solution to all your political disputes.

[Lithium]

I still dont understand why you call us Bulgars? Perhaps we should call you Ancient Macedonians then, who were Hellenic :/

[Midori]

I still dont understand why you call us Bulgars?

Perhaps they do it because it's shorter :lol:

[forsaken]

I still dont understand why you call us Bulgars? Perhaps we should call you Ancient Macedonians then, who were Hellenic :/
In western sources from the 19th and early 20th c. the use of the term 'Bulgars' seems to be synonymous with the term 'Bulgarians'.

I'd say that Bulgar = Bulgarian. If one is to refer to the 'old' Bulgars from the time of Kubrat, they should be labeled as such to avoid confusion.

[Lithium]

In western sources from the 19th and early 20th c. to use of the term 'Bulgars' seems to be synonymous with the term 'Bulgarians'.

I'd say that Bulgar = Bulgarian. If one is to refer to the 'old' Bulgars from the time of Kubrat, they should be labeled as such as to avoid confusion.

My people are called Bulgarians, not Bulgars (who are the proto-Bulgarians) and we should be called Bulgarians to avoid confusion.

[Europa]

Yet another retarded thread....:picard2:

[forsaken]

My people are called Bulgarians, not Bulgars (who are the proto-Bulgarians) and we should be called Bulgarians to avoid confusion.
In English. In Bulgarian there are no such issues.

I'd say Bulgar/Bulgarian is like Serb/Serbian or Croat/Croatian.

[Lithium]

In English. In Bulgarian there are no such issues.

I'd say Bulgar/Bulgarian is like Serb/Serbian or Croat/Croatian.

There is a difference between bulgari and prabulgari (in Bulgarian)

[morski]

In English. In Bulgarian there are no such issues.

I'd say Bulgar/Bulgarian is like Serb/Serbian or Croat/Croatian.

In the English of our time Bulgars means прабългари, while Bulgairans stands for българи.

There is a distinction in Serbian between srbin, an ethnic Serb, and srbijanac (citizen of Serbia), which term was originally introduced in order to mark the difference between the actual Serbs and the Torlaks (analytical Balkan Slavs aka Bulgarians in Pomoravie).

[forsaken]

There is a difference between bulgari and prabulgari (in Bulgarian)
Indeed. Though the label 'Pra-Bulgari' is a remnant from the history that was taught during Communism.

It is tied in with the same history that claimed the old Bulgars to have been an Asiatic-Mongolic horde of which Asparuh lead a mere 15,000 men South of the Danube, defeating the mighty East Roman Empire in battle and at war; and, later becoming assimilated into "the sea of Slavs" that resided in the Balkans.

Today we know that the only accurate part from this version of our history is our victories against the East Roman Empire.

Anyway, for the time being I think its best to focus on getting this whole 'Macedonian history' anomaly sorted.

[forsaken]

In the English of our time Bulgars means прабългари, while Bulgairans stands for българи.

Agreed. Though, for me personally it's one and the same. :)

[Crn Volk]

Indeed. Though the label 'Pra-Bulgari' is a remnant from the history that was taught during Communism.

It is tied in with the same history that claimed the old Bulgars to have been an Asiatic-Mongolic horde of which Asparuh lead a mere 15,000 men South of the Danube, defeating the mighty East Roman Empire in battle and at war; and, later becoming assimilated into "the sea of Slavs" that resided in the Balkans.

Today we know that the only accurate part from this version of our history is our victories against the East Roman Empire.

Anyway, for the time being I think its best to focus on getting this whole 'Macedonian history' anomaly sorted.


Why concentrate on our history? Why not sort out your own history first? Were Bulgars Turkic or Iranian, and how much did they influence the genetic make up of today's Bulgarians?

[ioan assen]

^ Because its our history too. Like it or not.

[Crn Volk]

^ Because its our history too. Like it or not.

And what about the other points;


Were Bulgars Turkic or Iranian, and how much did they influence the genetic make up of today's Bulgarians?

[ioan assen]

I dont care if they were Turkic, Sudanic, Finnic, Iranic. Whats the point? I ve read alot on them and there are arguments that support the Turkic and the Iranian teory. I dont know if we d ever have a sure answer. In the end I call them Bulgars: people who created our state. Bulgarians today speak slavic language so we were, are and will be slavic, because thats what our language indicates. We created the first written slavic culture.

[forsaken]

Why not sort out your own history first? Were Bulgars Turkic or Iranian, and how much did they influence the genetic make up of today's Bulgarians?
Bulgarian history is well sorted and those who have a well rounded knowledge on the subject are aware of this. There are multiple theories on the origin of the old Bulgars and the language they spoke, each of which is about as relevant as the next.


Why concentrate on our history?
I welcome anyone interested in the history of my people and my country to read as much as possible, to talk about it as much as they like, and to even debate it if they see fit. Personally, I'd be proud of this.

On the other hand, you appear concerned. But then again, how could you not be concerned when the history of your country is nothing more but a political fairy tale.

[Crn Volk]

I dont care if they were Turkic, Sudanic, Finnic, Iranic. Whats the point? I ve read alot on them and there are arguments that support the Turkic and the Iranian teory. I dont know if we d ever have a sure answer. In the end I call them Bulgars: people who created our state. Bulgarians today speak slavic language so we were, are and will be slavic, because thats what our language indicates. We created the first written slavic culture.

The point is that you don't know the history of your own state creating people, and yet you seek to tell your neighbours about their history.

[Crn Volk]

Bulgarian history is well sorted and those who have a well rounded knowledge on the subject are aware of this. There are multiple theories on the origin of the old Bulgars and the language they spoke, each of which is about as relevant as the next.


I welcome anyone interested in the history of my people and my country to read as much as possible, to talk about it as much as they like, and to even debate it if they see fit. Personally, I'd be proud of this.

On the other hand, you appear concerned. But then again, how could you not be concerned when the history of your country is nothing more but a political fairy tale.

I am not concerned. Your history was politically altered by the pro-Soviet authorities, and still by others. Again, learn your own history first.

[Midori]

I am not concerned. Your history was politically altered by the pro-Soviet authorities, and still by others. Again, learn your own history first.

And they say our history was written in Belgrade :lol:

[forsaken]

The point is that you don't know the history of your own state creating people, and yet you seek to tell your neighbours about their history.
As Descartes once said.. is it not better to be ignorant of something than to know a false truth?


I am not concerned. Your history was politically altered by the pro-Soviet authorities, and still by others. Again, learn your own history first.
Let's stick to neutral and objective sources. In fact, how about we do away with Balkan sources altogether.

And thanks for the advice, I've already learned my history quite well. I've also learned yours, and wouldn't you know it was one and the same until very recently.


And they say our history was written in Belgrade :lol:
My my Pigeon, you're a sassy one. :thumbs up

[Crn Volk]

As Descartes once said.. is it not better to be ignorant of something than to know a false truth?


Let's stick to neutral and objective sources. In fact, how about we do away with Balkan sources altogether.

And thanks for the advice, I've already learned my history quite well. I've also learned yours, and wouldn't you know it was one and the same until very recently.


My my Pigeon, you're a sassy one. :thumbs up

You say you now your history very well. Can you please tell me then what race the proto-Bulgars were. What language did they speak, and what religion did they practice? Why did they do away with all of this in favour of the Slavic tongue and Christian religion?

[forsaken]

This is a rather extensive topic as each of your questions requires in-depth discussion. My country's history itself is quite extensive and most of all it is real; as such, there are parts of it that are not clear-cut.

The answers to your questions are not black and white as my history has not been composed in a classroom by a handful of people; it is a compilation of materials recorded by authors, scholars, and travelers throughout the centuries, some of whom have differing opinions on certain matters.

And so it comes down to being acquainted with all the theories that exist. It is only then that one can get closer to the actual truth as opposed to believing a truth that satisfies someone's political agenda.

Anyhow, your interest flatters me and so I'll give you a summary of what you asked for.


Can you please tell me then what race the proto-Bulgars were.
There are multiple theories regarding the ethnic origin of the old Bulgars:

1. They were of Asiatic-Mnogol type; this theory was quite popular back in the day. It was based on the unearthed grave of an old Bulgar warrior, which displayed Asiatic features. Later, however, it was discovered that the grave actually belonged to a Mongol warrior. The theory was discarded, though there are still some outdated materials floating around.

2. They were Turkic. This theory was very popular during Communism as at that time the aim was to use the dislike Bulgarians expressed toward Turks in order to strengthen the supposed 'Slavic brotherhood', especially that between Bulgaria and Russia. And so the contributions of the old Bulgars to our history were minimized or even concealed and it was mainly the contributions of the Slavs that were emphasized. This theory is still popular with authors who do not specialize on the matter and merely make references to the theories that came before them. It seems that as of recently this theory has started to lose credibility as its foundation lies in linguistics alone. The theory is based on a handful of terms, mostly military titles and personal names along with some cultural similarities between the old Bulgars and Turkic tribes in the Caucasus region. And it now appears that these linguistic and cultural elements have quite possibly been adopted by the old Bulgars when they were subjugated by the Gok Turk Empire well before the time of Kubrat.

3. They were Irannic. This is presently the most popular theory on the origins of the old Bulgars. It is this theory that seems to be gradually displacing the Turkic theory. The basis of this theory lies mainly in cultural similarities, most notably the elongation of the skull, between the old Bulgars and Irannic tribes from the Caucasus region. This theory too makes links between the old Bulgars and Irannic tribes on the basis of linguistics and the approach to military style.

4. They were mixed. The old Bulgars themselves were quite numerous and ruled over many different tribes. They seem to have shared some cultural similarities with both Turkic and Irannic tribes. It is quite possible that they were in fact an amalgamation of Irannic and Turkic tribes.

5. They were an ethno-linguistic group independent from the Slavic, Irannic, and Turkic ones. This theory has the least support and its foundation, again, is based on linguistics. It goes back to the time of the Huns, Attila's Huns in particular. At that time the main striking forces of the Huns were Bulgar tribes and their language has been recorded to have been like no other, and nearly impossible to understand.


What language did they speak, and what religion did they practice?
The language of the old Bulgars is extinct, and unfortunately there are very few remnants of it available to us today. It is believed that the language of the Chuvash people in Russia is the closest relative to it. However, their close association and amalgamation of surrounding Turkic tribes (most notably the Kipchaks) diverts it into the Turkic category, which in itself has lead to confusion with the Turkic theory of origin of the old Bulgars.

As for their religion, it was most probably some form of paganism. Today, there are materials floating around about them worshiping Tangra.. though this is largely tied in with the Turkic theory of origin, which is gradually losing credibility. As far as I know, there are differing opinions on this and time will tell how scholars choose to alter their theories and the conclusions they reach.


Why did they do away with all of this in favour of the Slavic tongue and Christian religion?
The Slavic tongue may have evolved naturally and it may also have been pushed into mass acceptance by the political elite of the First Bulgarian Empire. However, this did not necessary happen on the Balkans alone. As mentioned above, the old Bulgars were quite numerous and ruled over vast territories. It is highly likely that by the time of Kubrat the old Bulgars had assimilated a significant amount of Antes (a large confederation of Slavic and Irranic tribes).

As for the mass acceptance of the Christian faith, that was nothing more but a political move to get political legitimacy of Tsar Boris' Bulgarian Empire across Europe. It is speculated that this moved intended to do away with differences between citizens of the First Bulgarian Empire, and it may have helped, though it's unlikely that this was the main objective.

[Crn Volk]

This is a rather extensive topic as each of your questions requires in-depth discussion. My country's history itself is quite extensive and most of all it is real; as such, there are parts of it that are not clear-cut.

The answers to your questions are not black and white as my history has not been composed in a classroom by a handful of people; it is a compilation of materials recorded by authors, scholars, and travelers throughout the centuries, some of whom have differing opinions on certain matters.

And so it comes down to being acquainted with all the theories that exist. It is only then that one can get closer to the actual truth as opposed to believing a truth that satisfies someone's political agenda.

Anyhow, your interest flatters me and so I'll give you a summary of what you asked for.


There are multiple theories regarding the ethnic origin of the old Bulgars:

1. They were of Asiatic-Mnogol type; this theory was quite popular back in the day. It was based on the unearthed grave of an old Bulgar warrior, which displayed Asiatic features. Later, however, it was discovered that the grave actually belonged to a Mongol warrior. The theory was discarded, though there are still some outdated materials floating around.

2. They were Turkic. This theory was very popular during Communism as at that time the aim was to use the dislike Bulgarians expressed toward Turks in order to strengthen the supposed 'Slavic brotherhood', especially that between Bulgaria and Russia. And so the contributions of the old Bulgars to our history were minimized or even concealed and it was mainly the contributions of the Slavs that were emphasized. This theory is still popular with authors who do not specialize on the matter and merely make references to the theories that came before them. It seems that as of recently this theory has started to lose credibility as its foundation lies in linguistics alone. The theory is based on a handful of terms, mostly military titles and personal names along with some cultural similarities between the old Bulgars and Turkic tribes in the Caucasus region. And it now appears that these linguistic and cultural elements have quite possibly been adopted by the old Bulgars when they were subjugated by the Gok Turk Empire well before the time of Kubrat.

3. They were Irannic. This is presently the most popular theory on the origins of the old Bulgars. It is this theory that seems to be gradually displacing the Turkic theory. The basis of this theory lies mainly in cultural similarities, most notably the elongation of the skull, between the old Bulgars and Irannic tribes from the Caucasus region. This theory too makes links between the old Bulgars and Irannic tribes on the basis of linguistics and the approach to military style.

4. They were mixed. The old Bulgars themselves were quite numerous and ruled over many different tribes. They seem to have shared some cultural similarities with both Turkic and Irannic tribes. It is quite possible that they were in fact an amalgamation of Irannic and Turkic tribes.

5. They were an ethno-linguistic group independent from the Slavic, Irannic, and Turkic ones. This theory has the least support and its foundation, again, is based on linguistics. It goes back to the time of the Huns, Attila's Huns in particular. At that time the main striking forces of the Huns were Bulgar tribes and their language has been recorded to have been like no other, and nearly impossible to understand.


The language of the old Bulgars is extinct, and unfortunately there are very few remnants of it available to us today. It is believed that the language of the Chuvash people in Russia is the closest relative to it. However, their close association and amalgamation of surrounding Turkic tribes (most notably the Kipchaks) diverts it into the Turkic category, which in itself has lead to confusion with the Turkic theory of origin of the old Bulgars.

As for their religion, it was most probably some form of paganism. Today, there are materials floating around about them worshiping Tangra.. though this is largely tied in with the Turkic theory of origin, which is gradually losing credibility. As far as I know, there are differing opinions on this and time will tell how scholars choose to alter their theories and the conclusions they reach.


The Slavic tongue may have evolved naturally and it may also have been pushed into mass acceptance by the political elite of the First Bulgarian Empire. However, this did not necessary happen on the Balkans alone. As mentioned above, the old Bulgars were quite numerous and ruled over vast territories. It is highly likely that by the time of Kubrat the old Bulgars had assimilated a significant amount of Antes (a large confederation of Slavic and Irranic tribes).

As for the mass acceptance of the Christian faith, that was nothing more but a political move to get political legitimacy of Tsar Boris' Bulgarian Empire across Europe. It is speculated that this moved intended to do away with differences between citizens of the First Bulgarian Empire, and it may have helped, though it's unlikely that this was the main objective.

And so there are many theories about the origin of the old Bulgars, which you have presented yourself. I suggest you concentrate your energies on finding out the definitive history/origin of your people. I will concentrate on the history/origin of my people, and we will all be happy.

[Lithium]

I doubt that anyone here thinks there is a change of unity between the two "nations". It's pointless to claim such things, we are separate ethnicities from a very long time :D

[forsaken]

And so there are many theories about the origin of the old Bulgars, which you have presented yourself. I suggest you concentrate your energies on finding out the definitive history/origin of your people.
A definitive theory on the origin of the old Bulgars is not necessary. We pride ourselves in the actions and achievements of our forefathers. Their ethnic origin is irrelevant.



I will concentrate on the history/origin of my people, and we will all be happy.
I too concentrate on the history of my people. As for the history of your country past 1945; well, I'm not really focusing on that as you can probably tell by my posts.

[Midori]

I doubt that anyone here thinks there is a change of unity between the two "nations". It's pointless to claim such things, we are separate ethnicities from a very long time :D

Bulgarian nationalists do. And it's getting really tiresome :bored:

[morski]

Bulgarian nationalists do. And it's getting really tiresome :bored:

You and I def belong to different ethnicities.:icon_cheesygrin: And, to be perfectly honest, I have no desires what so ever to be associated with fyromians. Just stop claiming Bulgarian history as Macedonian and it will all be right, Ok? Then you can join in with Serbia and have a new Yugoslavia.

[ioan assen]

We are obsessed with the fact that you falsify our history and historic heroes. You present them as ethnic Macedonians which they weren't.

[Archduke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PW2_7u2rA8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQxVYO6AqA&feature=related

:picard1:

седумдесет и седум иляди години !!!!!! :lol00002:

How could somebody say that these people are not obsessed?!

[Midori]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PW2_7u2rA8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQxVYO6AqA&feature=related

:picard1:

седумдесет и седум иляди години !!!!!! :lol00002:

How could somebody say that these people are not obsessed?!

Well, you just proved my point. The videos are made by Bulgarians.

[Archduke]

Well, you just proved my point. The videos are made by Bulgarians.

Well, what can i say? We can't stand such Macedonian "historians".

Everybody laugh at Macedonians, not only we.

[east]

I don't want to repeat myself :)

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1002836&postcount=33