Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

You asked for the source. I immediately provided it.

Why not provide the source/reference/attribution right away? It's the law isn't it? Or are you above that all the time?

[GreekIslandGirl]

[So that you can be free to make up lies and provide "quotes" from "websites" too shameful to reveal?]

The source of my quotes are not to shameful too reveal at all. They are from Canadian scholar Richard A. Patrick, who was an officer in UNFICYP in the late 1960 and his work published as Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict, 1963-1971.

Richard A Patrick ?........., that "Poofter" would have been lobbed off the roof by the IS, if he was still around.

Not sure about 'Poofter', but that was Dick's Ph.D thesis that erolz66 raised to above and beyond some Official Ministerial/HMG level.

[Garavnoss]

[So that you can be free to make up lies and provide "quotes" from "websites" too shameful to reveal?]

The source of my quotes are not to shameful too reveal at all. They are from Canadian scholar Richard A. Patrick, who was an officer in UNFICYP in the late 1960 and his work published as Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict, 1963-1971.

Richard A Patrick ?........., that "Poofter" would have been lobbed off the roof by the IS, if he was still around.

Not sure about 'Poofter', but that was Dick's Ph.D thesis that erolz66 raised to above and beyond some Official Ministerial/HMG level.

"Dickie" to all his "Poofter" associates........."Oscar Wilde" was one of his idols.

[erolz66]

You asked for the source. I immediately provided it.

Why not provide the source/reference/attribution right away? It's the law isn't it? Or are you above that all the time?

Why did I not paste the link to the source at the time I made the post. I have no idea actually. I did post it immediately you 'asked' for it, that is a fact. This is just a distraction from :-

You just can not help yourself can you GiG - you just go on and on showing the very behaviour that I sought to highlight all those pages ago. Namely that you just ignore or distort plain evident truth when ever doing so suits your need. Relentlessly. Persistently. These latest post from you show that yet again.

You propaganda need in this instance was to create the impression that

a) I did not quote the source because the source was one that was clearly partisan to my side
b) The source was clearly such a partisan one such that describing it as "pro-Turkish propaganda-peddling shytesite" would be a reflection of ACTUAL truth, rather than a reflection of your need to distort ACTUAL truth.

Point 'a' is a clear example of how you distort actual reality to suit your needs. It simply is not true that I did not post the source with the original post BECAUSE the source was a clearly partisan one. This truth is shown by me posting the link as soon as you 'asked' for it AND by the fact that the source is credibly not a partisan source.

Point 'b' is another clear example of how you distort actual reality to suit your needs. You simply write of the source and the site it is reproduced on as "pro-Turkish propaganda-peddling shytesite" without providing any evidence to support this claim and DESPITE the clear evidence to the contrary (the Guradian's description of the site, the credibility of the sites creator as a senior fullbright scholar, the description of Mr Patricks doctoral work whilst at the LSE as being "considered among the most authoritative accounts of the period.").

How you could possibly imagine that any impartial observer could look at your description of the source and then look at the the credentials of that source and those of the creator of the website it is reproduced on and come to any other conclusion that the reason you describe it as "pro-Turkish propaganda-peddling shytesite" is not because there is any actual truth to that claim but is merely the result of you not liking what the source shows, is beyond me.

And now as ever you will not deal with these points I raise and how they clearly highlight my very point about how you behave on this forum, how you have always behaved, year in and year out for over ten years. Instead you will seek to ignore and distract from this using any number of your standard techniques, straw man arguments, attacks against me, just plain ignoring it and any number of other techniques that you always use when your systematic distortion of plain evident truth to suit your needs is highlighted. So boring.

[GreekIslandGirl]

You asked for the source. I immediately provided it.

Why not provide the source/reference/attribution right away? It's the law isn't it? Or are you above that all the time?

Why did I not paste the link top the source at the time I made the post. I have no idea actually.

I think I do.

Perhaps you should spend less time trying to twist convoluted explanations of your virtuousness. Maybe aim to be clear, concise and ......... honest, there's a good fella.

[erolz66]

Perhaps you should spend less time trying to twist convoluted explanations of your virtuousness. Maybe aim to be clear, concise and ......... honest, there's a good fella.

Exactly as predicted

And now as ever you will not deal with these points I raise and how they clearly highlight my very point about how you behave on this forum, how you have always behaved, year in and year out for over ten years. Instead you will seek to ignore and distract from this using any number of your standard techniques, straw man arguments, attacks against me, just plain ignoring it and any number of other techniques that you always use when your systematic distortion of plain evident truth to suit your needs is highlighted. So boring.

So boring and no where near as 'clever' as you seemingly think it is.

[erolz66]

I think I do.

You think you do but such makes no logical sense what so ever.

You think (have claimed here) that the reason why I didnt post the link is because my source was clearly a partisan one.

What you think is the reason and have claimed is the reason would only make logical sense if I was steadfastly refusing to post the link of the source , or if I posted it and it patently was from a partisan source. I didnt and it isnt and thus what you 'think' (meaning what your propaganda requires you to try and make out) makes no logical sense what so ever.

Now of course and predictably , you will just claim, once again, that the source was not a credible one and clearly is so biased that it could accurately be described as "pro-Turkish propaganda-peddling shytesite", not because that is in fact true but simply because that is what your propaganda needs require you to do and say. In doing so you will yet again show the very behaviour I have sought to highlight here from all those pages back. That you will not produce any credible evidence that could form a basis indicating that the source could be considered partisan, like the author who produced it did so whilst living in and working for a Turkish university or that they were married to a Turkish national or some such, goes without saying. You just saying it is a biased source simply because you do not like what it says does not count as credible evidence that it is. As it goes without saying that you will just simply ignore all the evidence that points to the source in fact being a credible one (the citation by the Guardian , the status and roles of the site creator and those of Mr Patrick himself etc etc). All this goes without saying because this is what you do GiG. This is what you have always done. Actual truth is just irrelevant to you compared to your propaganda needs. You will always sacrifice actual truth to your propaganda needs because this is what you have always done. You have done it here in this thread over and over. I do not think you are physically capable of doing anything else.

[GreekIslandGirl]

... the reason why I didnt post the link is because my source was clearly a partisan one...

You said it.

[erolz66]

... the reason why I didnt post the link is because my source was clearly a partisan one...

You said it.

Indeed I did because you are totally predictable. As I also predicted that you would also simply ignore that you claim this, without any evidence to support the claim what so ever and whilst ignoring the copious evidence to the contrary and just ignore how that yet again shows how you systematically distort actual truth to serve your needs. So predictable. So boring. QED.

[GreekIslandGirl]

As I also predicted that you would also simply ignore that you claim this, without any evidence to support the claim what so ever and whilst ignoring the copious evidence to the contrary and just ignore how that yet again shows how you systematically distort actual truth to serve your needs. So predictable. So boring. QED.

Does this even have any contextual meaning?