Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

I think you have reached the end of your spinning, twirling and mixing up of who said what to whom and your confabulations are so far removed from reality that they only exemplify how much you actually misunderstood (intentionally or due to Asperger's?) - including faulty deductions from the examples in print via wiki.

It's now looking like you're trying to bury your stupidity regarding the national anthem verses and also your condoning of the use of "Nigger" as a suitable name for a dog.

Nothing more clearly shows who is REALLY doing the "spinning, twirling and mixing " than your continued attempts to make out that I ever said that 'nigger' is a suitable name for a dog. Doing so is so blatant that you really must think people are just stupid if you think you are fooling anyone.

There's no point continuing to waste time with you and I stand by my experience that certain words become taboo at different times and yet might still be used in certain contexts and by different groups, either to be offensive or friendly depending on the social distance of the speaker/writer to his/her audience.

You may stand by the above but that is NOT what you said originally. What you claimed originally is shown as not being accurate by the very source you yourself used, twisting and distorting what was written in the source, in attempt to 'stand by' your ORIGINAL claim.

There has never been any point it trying to have any sort of discussion or debate with you, exactly because you care nothing for actual truth and will and do use every possible 'technique' to argue that black is white when it suits your need and to try and make out anyone who dares to challenge you is the problem, rather than your shameless distortions of factual reality, which is the real problem.

[GreekIslandGirl]

What you claimed originally is shown as not being accurate ....

Really? What evidence have you presented that shows the N word was not used routinely in conversation until some 2 decades ago? Nothing - just your arrogant belief that what you think is right.

[erolz66]

What you claimed originally is shown as not being accurate ....

Really? What evidence have you presented that shows the N word was not used routinely in conversation until some 2 decades ago? Nothing - just your arrogant belief that what you think is right.

yawn

your original claim was

Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo). I wanted to make the point about the possible reason for the article-writer discriminating by calling the victim-woman an "Ottoman" and the murderous-man "Turk".

Wikipedia article says

As recently as the 1950s, it may have been acceptable British usage to say niggers when referring to black people, notable in mainstream usages such as Nigger Boy–brand[citation needed] candy cigarettes, and the color nigger brown or simply nigger (dark brown);[11] however, by the 1970s the term was generally recognized as racist, offensive and potentially illegal along with the unambiguously offensive "nig-nog", and "golliwog".

To claim that the word nigger moved from being 'routinely used' to 'taboo' in the UK from 1994 and later is so clearly and obviously at odds with what the wikipedia article says on the matter. Which is why when you took extracts from said article to try and support your original claim, you ignored this section entirely as if it did not exist and instead took highly edited extracts from the article, out of all of their context within the article to create a disorted impression that suited your needs.

It is all there in black and white.

[GreekIslandGirl]

What you claimed originally is shown as not being accurate ....

Really? What evidence have you presented that shows the N word was not used routinely in conversation until some 2 decades ago? Nothing - just your arrogant belief that what you think is right.

yawn

your original claim was

Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo). I wanted to make the point about the possible reason for the article-writer discriminating by calling the victim-woman an "Ottoman" and the murderous-man "Turk".

Wikipedia article says

As recently as the 1950s, it may have been acceptable British usage to say niggers when referring to black people, notable in mainstream usages such as Nigger Boy–brand[citation needed] candy cigarettes, and the color nigger brown or simply nigger (dark brown);[11] however, by the 1970s the term was generally recognized as racist, offensive and potentially illegal along with the unambiguously offensive "nig-nog", and "golliwog".

To claim that the word nigger moved from being 'routinely used' to 'taboo' in the UK from 1994 and later is so clearly and obviously at odds with what the wikipedia article says on the matter. Which is why when you took extracts from said article to try and support your original claim, you ignored this section entirely as if it did not exist and instead took highly edited extracts from the article, out of all of their context within the article to create a disorted impression that suited your needs.

It is all there in black and white.

How on earth can you claim that is evidence against its usage up to some two decades ago?

That quote is about its use in branded goods and the fact it is now considered racist. That does not mean the N word wasn't still in use! How do those two points contradict what I said? It's a case of you can use English words, but you have zero concept of what they mean. You have a serious problem, erolz and it's becoming a nuisance around otherwise interesting threads (not necessarily this one).

Read it again, note there are two points being made - (1) about its use in branded goods and (2) the fact that it is viewed as racist now.

I don't deny either of those two points - but, they do not disprove that the word was (and is) still used. Now you can argue about the extent, because I have already said it is in certain situations, and that perhaps you were unaware of its use - but you cannot tell me it wasn't still in use some two decades ago.

[erolz66]

How on earth can you claim that is evidence against its usage up to some two decades ago?

I claim it is evidence that the word was not ROUTINELY used in 1994 and later in the UK because it IS evidence of such,

That quote is about its use in branded goods and the fact it is now considered racist. That does not mean the N word wasn't still in use! How do those two points contradict what I said? It's a case of you can use English words, but you have zero concept of what they mean. You have a serious problem, erolz and it's becoming a nuisance around otherwise interesting threads (not necessarily this one).

Read it again, note there are two points being made - (1) about its use in branded goods and (2) the fact that it is viewed as racist now.

I don't deny either of those two points - but, they do not disprove that the word was (and is) still used. Now you can argue about the extent, because I have already said it is in certain situations, and that perhaps you were unaware of its use - but you cannot tell me it wasn't still in use some two decades ago.

Once more we see all your classic techniques of distortion displayed in all their glory. The section quoted from is under the headings 'usages' and 'British'. It explicitly is ABOUT the time periods in which usage of the word transitioned from being an acceptable means of referring to a black person to an unacceptable one in the UK. It states that in the 1950's the term was generally acceptable and it emphasises this point by using the example of the word being in brand names at that time.

So we have your first blatant distortion when you make out that the section quoted is ABOUT the use of the word in brand goods. It is NOT about that, it is in fact about over what time periods the word transitioned from acceptable to unacceptable in the UK. It merely uses the example of brand good to show that in the 1950's it was acceptable as part of the wider description of the transition of the general usage of the word over time.

The article then goes on to say how by the 1970's the term was 'generally recognized as racist, offensive and potentially illegal'. The point it is making is that the transition from it being an acceptable term in the UK for a black person to no longer being seen as acceptable is between these periods of the 1950's and the 1970's and this is totally at odds with the dates in your ORIGINAL assertion. Something you STILL try and deny is true.

So we come to your second distortion. You claim the article makes the point that it is viewed as racist NOW. Where as it is clear as day and in plain black and white what is ACTUALLY says is by the 1970's the term was generally recognised as racist. Not NOW, but by the 1970's. You claiming that the point it is making is that the term is seen as racist NOW is just blatant distortion of what it actually says.

Yawn.

[GreekIslandGirl]

How on earth can you claim that is evidence against its usage up to some two decades ago?

I claim it is evidence that the word was not ROUTINELY used in 1994

But it says nothing about the conditions in 1994 - and it concentrates on branded goods still using the word. (and there were worse words in use, one for example which had to be shortened in the 70s or so).

You haven't quite grasped the concept of evidence.

Find something that says no one used the "N" word in 1994 or something nearer that mark (to give you some leeway ... ).

[erolz66]

Find something that says no one used the "N" word in 1994 or something nearer that mark (to give you some leeway ... ).

Your claim was that the word was still ROUTINELY used in the UK into 1994 and later, yet you 'threshold' for proof that your claim is wrong is evidence that NO ONE used the word in 1994. Pretty much proves the whole point I have been making all along.

Just imagine if I had claimed that GC routinely used the word nigger to refer to black people at recently as 10 years ago and later, and you responded with 'that is not true' and I then responded with show me proof that NOT A SINGLE GC has used the word since 2004. Imagine how you would respond to that , for it is what you have just done above.

I am now just waiting for you to selectively and out of its context quote the section above and claim I said "GC routinely used the word nigger to refer to black people at recently as 10 years ago and later" - for that is what you do GiG , all the time.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Find something that says no one used the "N" word in 1994 or something nearer that mark (to give you some leeway ... ).

Your claim was that the word was still ROUTINELY used in the UK into 1994 and later, yet you 'threshold' for proof that your claim is wrong is evidence that NO ONE used the word in 1994. Pretty much proves the whole point I have been making all along.

Just imagine if I had claimed that GC routinely used the word nigger to refer to black people at recently as 10 years ago and later, and you responded with 'that is not true' and I then responded with show me proof that NOT A SINGLE GC has used the word since 2004. Imagine how you would respond to that , for it is what you have just done above.

OK - find something that proves that it wasn't routinely used around 1994.

And GCs don't have such an equivalent word which is why it stands out when English-speakers use it against another people. Turks have an equivalent pejorative term for GCs, don't they?

[erolz66]

OK - find something that proves that it wasn't routinely used around 1994.

I have ALREADY shown EVIDENCE that it was not ROUTINELY used in the UK by 1994, from the very Wikipedia article you so selectively and distortedly chose to quote from yourself. So apparently I do have to go to dictionary definitions of what routinely means. Sigh. Routine - noun - a customary or regular course of procedure. Regular - usual; normal; customary.

by the 1970s the term was generally recognized as racist, offensive and potentially illegal

That you can try and argue that it was a 'regular and customary' to refer to a black person as nigger in the UK in 1994 but the statement that "by the 1970s the term was generally recognized as racist, offensive and potentially illegal" is NOT evidence that your claim is wrong, just once more shows the very point I am making about your ability to ignore and twist factual reality to suit your needs.

[GreekIslandGirl]

That article showed nothing of the sort. It in fact had examples of the word still being in use and it certainly said nothing about future uses into the 90s - it's just your extrapolation and nothing more.

Furthermore, people have been aware of racism for centuries but that didn't stop such uses. So, knowing the word is racist by the 1970s and not using the word are two entirely different things. Otherwise, it definitely won't be used by nowadays - but only someone completely isolated from the world would think such a thing. Are you completely isolated?

Again, your continued failure to grasp both these points is indicative of your total lack of comprehension, your usual yarn-spinning because you cannot find evidence ... or merely mischief-making.