The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Common Sense

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby brother » Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:58 pm

I thought you of all people could tell the difference between an insult and an opinion.

But for your benefit that chap just outright insulted us wereas the statements above are opinions with no intended insult, however lets stop splitting hairs and move on.
User avatar
brother
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:30 pm
Location: Cyprus/U.K

Postby metecyp » Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:03 pm

You feel that you are wasting time because they do not agree with you, let be known that while there is dialogue then there is opportunity for things to happen.

That's not true. I respect different views but I don't respect views that consider themselves innocent and the other side guilty. Dialogue cannot happen when one side thinks they're angels.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby brother » Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:12 pm

They know they are not angels but everyone tries to act like one, but that said nor are we, we all know in one sense all of us are guilty of one and innocent in another, all sides done bad but this finger pointing and stubborness is an unfortunate cypriot trait and is possibly more to do with everything than anything else.
User avatar
brother
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:30 pm
Location: Cyprus/U.K

Postby MicAtCyp » Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:50 pm

MicAtCyp wrote: There is no need to make excuses. Everybody can have his view as long as he can support it. Can you support what she said? If yes then answer me...


And Iskismet says:

Iskismet wrote: You've lost the plot. Put in a sensible comment and I'll try to respond.


Inability to support your own posts due to ignorance was always your characteristic. Now I see more attributes in you.
You are really wasting our time here.
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby iskismet » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:20 pm

And this makes sense??

If someone tells me to marry a woman, who will need a hell lot of money just for her personal expenses, on the condition that her empty back account and my account get joined, and she would instist in sleeping in a separate room, on a separate bed, have children and sex with other men, but not with me, have her father living in the house constantly pointing a gun into my head (supposely for her pretection) and the only relation we are going to have is to appear together as a couple at social events, can this be considered a compromise for marriage? I would say the hell I don't want such a compromise and I don't want such a woman to be my wife. And let everyone call me "one - dimensional approacher".

Come on, talk sensibly and we can then all join in.

You've admitted being one dimensional so at least that is a start.
iskismet
Member
Member
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:46 am
Location: UK

Postby Aris » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:53 pm

You are really wasting our time here.


MicAtCyp, please try to be a bit more calm. :wink: The same goes for everybody.
User avatar
Aris
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 10:19 pm
Location: Limassol, Cyprus

Postby -mikkie2- » Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:03 am

Iskismet

I think MicAtCyp was trying to give you an example of what the Annan plan would be like if it was translated into a mariage between a man and a woman. I thought it was an excellent way to put the argument across and he has shown an excellent grasp of the English language and how to use it to effect.

Well done Mic :lol:
-mikkie2-
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:11 am

Postby iskismet » Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:59 am

Mikkie

I put up an article which I felt had a lot of common sense in it. Your friend responded by attacking me.

When a person says 'I make no apologies for ...' it is not meant as bait or an attack. It is like saying ' how are you'. Social etiquette means you would reply ' OK, how are you' - it is not meant literally, and you would not think of telling them of all your ailments.

In this case it was an opening sentence to introduce the subject - your friend does not understand that.

He then launches an attack on the authors father!!!! What has that got to do with it.

He then talks about getting married!!! For goodness sake comment on the article so we can all understand it.
iskismet
Member
Member
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:46 am
Location: UK

Postby iskismet » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:09 am

Aris, I note you have removed one of my postings - which is probably just as well!

But there is a tendency on this forum to attack people personally on issues - I have been guilty of responding to that aggression which is a failing in me and which I regret. Piratis behaved similarly in the past but I feel I now understand him better and have a mutual respect.

MicAtCyp you have put up a number of provocative and insulting remarks to me - I will not respond to your provocation in future.

But you should note that just because your opinion is not the same as mine or the same as others, that you are right. Sometimes there is a need to stand back and look at things in a different light.
iskismet
Member
Member
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:46 am
Location: UK

Postby MicAtCyp » Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:02 pm

Sorry for not been able to reply earlier but I ve been away for a couple of days.Thanks Mikkie for explaining to Iskismet what I meant, you explained it very well.

Iskismet, the essence of Kate Clerides article is that she personally supports a compromise.Do we agree on that yes or no? I suppose we do.

I used an example of a peculiar marriage (because marriage as we know is the most usual situation in which people do compromises) to show that there are limits as to the degree one can compromise.The peculiar marriage example I gave (like Mikkie explained very well) represents the compromises a GC should make to accept the Anan Plan.Unless you did not get it, with her article Kate Clerides was actually referring to the Anan plan....

I am very sorry that not only you did not get the message of my post (my mistake perhaps for not making is as clear as it should be under the circumstances), you also took it personally and responded with ironies that "MicAtCyp is meaningless, he lost the plot etc etc", and then you graped my conditional sentense starting with IF ......... THEN to unconditionally label me "one dimensional", and furthermore even claim that I admitted I am "one dimesional" !!!!!! Well, that for me is preposterous!

Now, if you can continue the discussion as to where the limits of a compromise should be, then fine. This basic point was included in my initial post but you got so emotional that you missed it. I repeat it herewith:

MicAtCyp wrote: Did she tell where the limits of the compromise she advocates end? Did she ask the people and got the answers required to set those limits?


I understand for someone like you who is not a Cypriot that is a bit difficult, but If you honestly admit that, I will accept your admittance, no further questions asked. But I cannot accept your taking sides, without being able to justify your position.This is a discussion forum where you have to support your position with arguments, not with emotion.
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest