Cyprus-Forum.com

Tim Drayton wrote:

zan wrote:

Kikapu wrote:I want to thank DT, Tim, CBBB, Skipper and VP for their kind words regarding this plan.

No tears now!!

Why don't you thank Zan for his unkind words, too. He seems like a good fellow at heart.

He obviously doesn't like critics... a Turk at heart!

Get Real! wrote:

Tim Drayton wrote:

zan wrote:

Kikapu wrote:I want to thank DT, Tim, CBBB, Skipper and VP for their kind words regarding this plan.

No tears now!!

Why don't you thank Zan for his unkind words, too. He seems like a good fellow at heart.

He obviously doesn't like critics... a Turk at heart!

Sorry Tim...Didn't realise that it was "be good to Kikapu day"....


Cok guzel yazdin Kikapocuyum.......Allah korusun!!!


Is that better Tim??

Kikapu wrote:

Tim Drayton wrote:

zan wrote:

Kikapu wrote:I want to thank DT, Tim, CBBB, Skipper and VP for their kind words regarding this plan.

No tears now!!

Why don't you thank Zan for his unkind words, too. He seems like a good fellow at heart.

I don't think Zan really read the plan yet, Tim.!

I prefer Kenny Everets plan:


Round them up. Put them in a field and bomb the bastards....

Kikapu

Actually it does matter. It matters a great deal in fact. Lets look at what Skipper said.

Well in all fairness the population balance is more important than land size think of it in reverse because even if 200.000 were once again forced to move into a certain percentage of land not all of them would go therefore the 200.000 would be a smaller number making it easier for GC to out populated TCs and grab that vital one seat in the upper house that would give GC all the power they wanted. You must be able to see the risk which could leave us at the mercy of GC which is our nightmare, you are leading us into dangerous ground.

The 3 examples I gave and your counter arguements are valid only if the 5 5 balance in the upper house is guaranteed otherwise there is a great risk that GCs will use their numerical advantage against the north state, they have show in the past they are masters and given the power I am 100% certain they will. Why leave the door wide open when er have the opportunity to slam it shot once and for all. If they do not intend to exploit it then why not have the 5 5 balance fixed forever. Without this guarantee I would vote against such a power sharing plan solely on this issue.[/quote]

Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu

Actually it does matter. It matters a great deal in fact. Lets look at what Skipper said.

Well in all fairness the population balance is more important than land size think of it in reverse because even if 200.000 were once again forced to move into a certain percentage of land not all of them would go therefore the 200.000 would be a smaller number making it easier for GC to out populated TCs and grab that vital one seat in the upper house that would give GC all the power they wanted. You must be able to see the risk which could leave us at the mercy of GC which is our nightmare, you are leading us into dangerous ground.

The 3 examples I gave and your counter arguements are valid only if the 5 5 balance in the upper house is guaranteed otherwise there is a great risk that GCs will use their numerical advantage against the north state, they have show in the past they are masters and given the power I am 100% certain they will. Why leave the door wide open when er have the opportunity to slam it shot once and for all. If they do not intend to exploit it then why not have the 5 5 balance fixed forever. Without this guarantee I would vote against such a power sharing plan solely on this issue.

[/quote]

There you go Zan...put that in your pipe and smoke it.

DT. wrote:

Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu

Actually it does matter. It matters a great deal in fact. Lets look at what Skipper said.

Well in all fairness the population balance is more important than land size think of it in reverse because even if 200.000 were once again forced to move into a certain percentage of land not all of them would go therefore the 200.000 would be a smaller number making it easier for GC to out populated TCs and grab that vital one seat in the upper house that would give GC all the power they wanted. You must be able to see the risk which could leave us at the mercy of GC which is our nightmare, you are leading us into dangerous ground.

The 3 examples I gave and your counter arguements are valid only if the 5 5 balance in the upper house is guaranteed otherwise there is a great risk that GCs will use their numerical advantage against the north state, they have show in the past they are masters and given the power I am 100% certain they will. Why leave the door wide open when er have the opportunity to slam it shot once and for all. If they do not intend to exploit it then why not have the 5 5 balance fixed forever. Without this guarantee I would vote against such a power sharing plan solely on this issue.

There you go Zan...put that in your pipe and smoke it. [/quote]

Although a good effort I rejected it DT.

Viewpoint wrote:

DT. wrote:

Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu

Actually it does matter. It matters a great deal in fact. Lets look at what Skipper said.

Well in all fairness the population balance is more important than land size think of it in reverse because even if 200.000 were once again forced to move into a certain percentage of land not all of them would go therefore the 200.000 would be a smaller number making it easier for GC to out populated TCs and grab that vital one seat in the upper house that would give GC all the power they wanted. You must be able to see the risk which could leave us at the mercy of GC which is our nightmare, you are leading us into dangerous ground.

The 3 examples I gave and your counter arguements are valid only if the 5 5 balance in the upper house is guaranteed otherwise there is a great risk that GCs will use their numerical advantage against the north state, they have show in the past they are masters and given the power I am 100% certain they will. Why leave the door wide open when er have the opportunity to slam it shot once and for all. If they do not intend to exploit it then why not have the 5 5 balance fixed forever. Without this guarantee I would vote against such a power sharing plan solely on this issue.

There you go Zan...put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Although a good effort I rejected it DT.[/quote]

I know. Zan was under the impresison only GC;s know how to reject plans.

DT. wrote:

Viewpoint wrote:

DT. wrote:

Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu

Actually it does matter. It matters a great deal in fact. Lets look at what Skipper said.

Well in all fairness the population balance is more important than land size think of it in reverse because even if 200.000 were once again forced to move into a certain percentage of land not all of them would go therefore the 200.000 would be a smaller number making it easier for GC to out populated TCs and grab that vital one seat in the upper house that would give GC all the power they wanted. You must be able to see the risk which could leave us at the mercy of GC which is our nightmare, you are leading us into dangerous ground.

The 3 examples I gave and your counter arguements are valid only if the 5 5 balance in the upper house is guaranteed otherwise there is a great risk that GCs will use their numerical advantage against the north state, they have show in the past they are masters and given the power I am 100% certain they will. Why leave the door wide open when er have the opportunity to slam it shot once and for all. If they do not intend to exploit it then why not have the 5 5 balance fixed forever. Without this guarantee I would vote against such a power sharing plan solely on this issue.

There you go Zan...put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Although a good effort I rejected it DT.

I know. Zan was under the impresison only GC;s know how to reject plans.[/quote]

Have no fear we know how to reject what we dont want.

Viewpoint wrote:

DT. wrote:

Viewpoint wrote:

DT. wrote:

Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu

Actually it does matter. It matters a great deal in fact. Lets look at what Skipper said.

Well in all fairness the population balance is more important than land size think of it in reverse because even if 200.000 were once again forced to move into a certain percentage of land not all of them would go therefore the 200.000 would be a smaller number making it easier for GC to out populated TCs and grab that vital one seat in the upper house that would give GC all the power they wanted. You must be able to see the risk which could leave us at the mercy of GC which is our nightmare, you are leading us into dangerous ground.

The 3 examples I gave and your counter arguements are valid only if the 5 5 balance in the upper house is guaranteed otherwise there is a great risk that GCs will use their numerical advantage against the north state, they have show in the past they are masters and given the power I am 100% certain they will. Why leave the door wide open when er have the opportunity to slam it shot once and for all. If they do not intend to exploit it then why not have the 5 5 balance fixed forever. Without this guarantee I would vote against such a power sharing plan solely on this issue.

There you go Zan...put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Although a good effort I rejected it DT.

I know. Zan was under the impresison only GC;s know how to reject plans.

Have no fear we know how to reject what we dont want.[/quote]

30 years of denktash...don't worry the entire world knows you can say NO

But the last whole hearted effort and the one that remains in every ones minds is the rejection of the AP by you guys.