Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

What appears to be your method is finding some minor detail... which apparently you are not even interested in (!!!)... and try to prove that your "opponent" is wrong in that minor detail hoping that in this way you can discredit somebody that you don't like. The reasoning "If member X is proven wrong about minor detail Y, then member X must be wrong about everything" is not a valid one. That is almost as bad as trying to discredit what somebody said because they made a grammatical error... which is actually what GiG tried to do when we argued some time ago

I have taken a single example of what GiG does because it is typical of a consistent pattern I have witnessed from her for over 10 years now. I do not dislike her, I dislike the way she will take something that is true (in this example that the usage of the word nigger in the UK transitioned from 'routine' to 'taboo') and then distort it to suit her own prejudices (that this transition occurred in the UK from 1994 onwards). I dislike the way she then behaves when anyone dares to challenge such distortions. This is one single example but it is indicative of a consistent pattern over years of posting here. She is not wrong about everything and I do not seek to discredit her but I do seek to discredit this consistent pattern of behaviour because it warrants such in my opinion.

OK .. but if you couldn't find anything more important to argue with her then it seems you agree with her more often than I do And to argue for several pages about something minor you are not even really interested in just trying to prove somebody wrong shows that you must dislike that person a lot

I think you hit the nail on the head!

There is so much dislike of it that anyone would argue with it over anything.

[GreekIslandGirl]

... I dislike the way she will take something that is true ....

Your personal opinion is not the "truth".

It's me you dislike and that's fine. That's your opinion.

[erolz66]

OK .. but if you couldn't find anything more important to argue with her then it seems you agree with her more often than I do And to argue for several pages about something minor you are not even really interested in just trying to prove somebody wrong shows that you must dislike that person a lot

There are years worth of 'arguments' between myself and GiG on the forum's history over 'important' issues. What I am highlighting using this one specific example is a pattern of behaviour. Proving her wrong in this one instance was not the point. Highlighting the pattern was. For that objective actually this 'minor' issue was entirely suitable. I do dislike this behaviour and given its consistency over many many years I do think highlighting it in such a way is valid. It is not the person it is the behaviour. The pattern is so clearly shown in this one example in my view. A statement is made , based on something that is true and then it is distorted to suit the posters prejudice. When the distortion is challenged it is not met with evidence and reason argument but with more distortion and ad hominem attacks. Like I say it is there in black and white. Again to just give one example how many times in this one discussion alone have I been accused by GiG of 'presenting no evidence' when in fact I have presented such and actually it is her that has presented no credible evidence ? How many times in this one discussions has she tried to make out I said it is ok to call a dog 'nigger' - when it is absolutely clear I did not such thing at all ? How many times has she tried to connect my challenging the inaccuracy of her statement with 'warmongering turks' ? How many times has she tried to make out she never said that the time frame in which the word transitioned in the UK was from 1994 onwards when that is exactly what she said ?

Like I say, this one 'discussion' has in my view been a perfect means to clearly show this behaviour.

[erolz66]

... I dislike the way she will take something that is true ....

Your personal opinion is not the "truth".

But yours is ?

There is an objective truth as to when the word transitioned in the UK. It did happen and it did happen over a certain timeframe. The timeframe suggested in the Wikipedia article is not my personal opinion it just matches my personal opinion. The evidence of the change in print shown by the google ngram data is not my personal opinion it just matches my personal opinion. This is hard independent credible data and the change it shows is clear and irrefutable and dramatic. Something fundamental happened in terms of the usage of the word nigger in print in the UK and it happened in a specific timeframe from early 1960 to early 1970. Before this there is little variation and after this the is little variation. None of this is 'my opinion' it is just fact.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Methinks the megalomaniac does protest too much.

It was your analysis of the "evidence" that was criticized (by Sotos also, but hey ho, different rules apply) - and you couldn't provide anything else - but wouldn't admit defeat even when Sotos pointed this out to you. Hence, megalomania.

Your monologues and soliloquys reveal a confusion between personal opinion (you hold your own too high) and the truth.

Yes, there are patterns here ...

[erolz66]

It was your analysis of the "evidence" that was criticized (by Sotos also, but hey ho, different rules apply) - and you couldn't provide anything else - but wouldn't admit defeat even when Sotos pointed this out to you. Hence, megalomania.

There is no 'analysis' needed with regard to the google ngram graph I produced. It shows a clear dramatic irrefutable change in usage of the word in print and the period when that change occurred. Sotos was challenging that such a change in print could be correlated with a change of usage of the word in speech, but your original assertion was not about speech only and you also went on to talk specifically about usage in print and its correlation with usage in speech - the very correlation that Sotos was questioning.

The ngram data graph is not "evidence" in inverted commas. It is hard data. It is 'true' - objectively. Only a true megalomaniac could see such data and deny what it so clearly shows. It shows exactly the period in which usage of the word nigger changed in print in the UK. Not some slight change but a total reversal with nothing similar before this period or after it

What evidence have you offered by comparison to support the argument that the transition of usage of this word happened in the UK from 1994 onwards ?

[GreekIslandGirl]

Look back and see that I did not discuss transition of usage of the N word. That would entail a whole different debate. I explained the difference between that and what I stated. You may have brought it up as part of your misguided efforts to trash whatever you can grasp, with whatever associated angles you can imagine, rather than direct meaningful debate.

I hope this demonstration of your lack of sincerity in posting is a lesson to us all ...

[erolz66]

Look back and see that I did not discuss transition of usage of the N word.

Round and round we go. What you said verbatim 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).

When challenged you replied with

And what evidence do you have that it wasn't phased out some 20 years ago?

I have repeatedly asked that if in your original statement the reference to 'less than 20 years ago' was NOT the time period in which the change occurred then what was that date range in reference too and you have yet to answer. I have provided evidence that it 'wasn't phased out some 20 years ago' (your words not mine) - both in the Wikipedia article and with the google ngram data as far as in print and now you just say you never discussed when the word changed from being used 'routinely' (your word) to 'taboo' (your word). You also took two totally and blatantly out of context quotes from the Wikipedia article that were both about WHEN this change happened.

Like I say this is a perfect example of what you do GiG - when you can manipulate and distort stuff you yourself wrote only a few weeks ago, what is the point in trying to discuss 'serious' issues involving events from decades ago that are subject to interpretation and perspective ?

[GreekIslandGirl]

You really are baiting/trolling with one nuance or another, shifting, changing, seeking ...

For the last time, usage of the N word (what was discussed) was *phased out over the last 2 decades (as far as I can tell and your graph also supports i.e. less frequent now but still in use). But I did NOT discuss when or how a **transition occurred.


*phase out: verb - slowly get rid of, gradual

**transition: noun - change from one state to another, often major

I cannot help you any more as levels of meaning are beyond you and I have enough challenges to meet in my life.

[erolz66]

You really are baiting/trolling with one nuance or another, shifting, changing, seeking ...

For the last time, usage of the N word (what was discussed) was *phased out over the last 2 decades (as far as I can tell and your graph also supports i.e. less frequent now but still in use). But I did NOT discuss when or how a **transition occurred.


*phase out: verb - slowly get rid of, gradual

**transition: noun - change from one state to another, often major

I cannot help you any more as levels of meaning are beyond you and I have enough challenges to meet in my life.

Your original claim verbatim - once more

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).

You SPECIFICALY talk about a change in state from routine to taboo. You SPECIFICALY mentioned a time frame. The whole context of why you used this example was in a context of a words meaning and usage changing over time. No rational or sane person could read what you wrote and understand that you were (as you now claim) not talking about a transition from 'routinely used' to 'taboo' over a specific time period but instead were in fact talking about two states that had no interdependence on each other at all and the time frame applied only to the status of 'taboo' and had no relationship what so ever to 'routinely used'.

That you can even try and present this as a credible argument once more just shows the VERY thing I sought to highlight about how you behave on these forums.