Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Nobody wants to destroy you. Maybe the African American minority in the USA could claim that, since they were taken to America as slaves. Or maybe the Indian Americans could claim that, since the whites came and took their land. But in the case of Turks in Cyprus, it is them that came to our island uninvided, butchering 10000s of people in order to enslave and exploit us.

So if all those other minorities in the so many other multi-ethnic countries can live peacefully with the other ethnic groups in a democracy, regardless of their problems of the past, then so can we. All it takes is to stop using the past as an excuse and move ahead. We are willing to do that and forgive you for the centuries and the most recent 3+ decades of harm that you caused against us. If you can not do the same for a mere decade, for which you were equally responsible, this is simply because you do not want to, since you choose to continue to be hostile against us in an effort to gain on our loss with brute force.

[Murataga]

Nobody wants to destroy you. Maybe the African American minority in the USA could claim that, since they were taken to America as slaves. Or maybe the Indian Americans could claim that, since the whites came and took their land. But in the case of Turks in Cyprus, it is them that came to our island uninvided, butchering 10000s of people in order to enslave and exploit us.

So if all those other minorities in the so many other multi-ethnic countries can live peacefully with the other ethnic groups in a democracy, regardless of their problems of the past, then so can we. All it takes is to stop using the past as an excuse and move ahead. We are willing to do that and forgive you for the centuries and the most recent 3+ decades of harm that you caused against us. If you can not do the same for a mere decade, for which you were equally responsible, this is simply because you do not want to, since you choose to continue to be hostile against us in an effort to gain on our loss with brute force.

As many times it is necessary...

Have any of these countries been established with the cosignatories of two communities? Have the GCs alone established the RoC or GCs and TCs together? Do any of the peoples` representatives in Cyprus like the Armenians, Maronites or Latins have a signature in the Agreements which brought about the existence of the RoC? Has your leader, Makarios III, signed the Agreements, which made the RoC a reality, in front of the whole world clearly putting his honor and word in writing that he accepts the conditions and terms indicated within ? Has that leader won an election in 1959 among the GC people with 144,501 votes, while his rival John Clerides who openly refused and resisted the conditions/terms of the Agreements which brought about the existence of RoC got only 71,753 votes and loose? Was the sole basis of John Clerides` presidential campaign the condemnation of the agreements? What rights does the constitution of the RoC provide to the TC people who are the cosignatories to the establishment of the RoC ? Do you think that the granting of these rights have anything to do with the fact that they are the cosignatories of the very Agreement which permits the RoC to exist? Are these rights the rights of minorities? Which people are explicitly mentioned as “religious minors to be protected” in the Constitution’s Appendix E?

[Piratis]

As many times as is necessary...

An agreement can only be taken as a whole. It is not "pick and choose". So what we singed and you signed as well, is that there will always be a GC president and never a TC one, that Cyprus will be one unitary state etc. So if you want those agreements then no problem take your 100% rights from them and give me my 100% rights from them. But if you want new agreements then don't expect them to be even better for you and even worst for us. As they say "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me", and we are not going to be fooled again.

[Murataga]

As many times...

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=250

[erolz]

However, when it comes to democracy in Cyprus Erol likes to twist and complicate the definition of the word in the hope that the TC community will be in a better position to milk the RoC of as much power as possible at the majority's expense.

I want no power for my community beyond that of being able to say the GC community alone pursuing an agenda that is only wanted by GC, up to and including the very destruction of Cyprus as a nation and a people, and that affects my community and all of it differently as to how it affects the GC community , can not impose such on my community without our consent as a community. There are GOOD historical reasons why I want this very specific and very limited 'power' for my community that would only ever be need or used when GC alone as a community sought to impose its communal will on mine, with no regrad for my communal will.

This is nothing to do with 'milking' the RoC at the 'majorites' expense. It is purely to do with protecting my community from having its future determined by GC pursuing purely GC desires, that by definition exclude me as a TC (for if they did not then they would nto be GC desires but Cypriot ones).

Such an arrangement of course would be undemocratic ...

You just can not say this unless you say the principals of democracy work differently within a state than they do within a union of states. If your argument is that the principles of democracy demand one thing within a state and a different thing within a union of states, then you are not talking about PRINCIPLES of democracy at all. If in PRINCIPAL a system that allocates power to an ethnic groups regardless of its realtive numerical size is undemocratic then in principal the EU is undemocratic. It really is that simple.

Erol's archaic dream of a constitution revolves around POLITICAL COMMUNITIES not unlike the 1960's agreements but with even more bias in favor of the TC community!

My principal is that if and when you chose to act as an ethnic community within cyprus , that is by defintion not my community, you then empower my community to react EQUALLY as a community. Very simple.

There is not a political plan from the past, present, or future that can possibly provide a fairer constitution for Cypriot people than democracy itself so it’s in every Cypriot’s interest that they insist on TRUE DEMOCRACY and nothing less.

If by true democracy you mean when you communaly decide to act as a community and not as cypriot indivduals to seek communal goals and not ones any cypriot indivdual could support or be included in by personal choice, then the TC community as a community is equal to your community as a community, then I agree only TRUE democracy can lead us to a better future different from the past. When you chose to act as an indivdual pursuing an agenda that is indivdual and that gains supoort or rejection from any cypriot as an indivdual and not because of what ethnic group they belong to, then one indivdual is equal to every other indivdual.

[Piratis]

Erolz, we are going in rounds and I am not sure if you want to move ahead and make any progress.

Lets agree that we disagree regarding if Cypriots had the right to choose in a democratic way the destiny of the their island and if some group of people could take action based on what they believe to be right and wrong and oppose the democratic wish of the great majority of Cypriots.

Lets also agree to disagree on the definition of democracy. There are many muti-ethnic countries, with conflicts much worst than ours in their past, but yet the democratic principles are everywhere the same. For me what you describe is not democracy but something else, since such thing exists in no real democracy. (if it does, then I will ask you again to give me a real world example as such thing would be very helpful so we can understand what you mean).

So, since it is obvious you will not accept democracy as it exists in all other democratic countries, and I don't want to spend another 100 posts going in circles trying to convince you what democracy really is, then lets talk about what you call democracy and lets see if it can be acceptable.

It really is very simple. When in cyprus you have 90%+ of GC supporting something and 90%+ of TC resiting it, you have to ask yourself why.

Questions: is the 90% you say just a random number or it has some essence? What about 51% of GCs supporting something and 51% of TCs rejecting it? When you say TCs, do you include the settlers? Is that 90% of votes in a referendum, or it could also be a 90% of the elected politicians?

The only reason why you would get such a 'result' is when the issue is communal not personal.

It could also be other things except from personal and communal, e.g. Regional, in case Cypriots are mostly segregated into two different parts of the island. We have seen how greedy the TCs can be when in most occasions they demand a lot more than what proportionately belongs to them. It is not unlikely that under such a scenario the TCs will block any budget proposal that will not grant to "their" region everything that they demand.

I do not want the right for the TC community to be able to IMPOSE anything. I do not want them to have the right to block / veto anything excpet when you act not as Cypriot indivduals but purely as a community to impose changes that affect my community in a totaly different and prejudical way to yours (which would be the ONLY time we would be divided along ethnic lines as Cypriots).

OK. So union with Greece could be one such thing. What else? Would you accept if a list could be created that will list everything that is "communal" in nature and where the agreement of both communities would be required? Or you want a "blank check" to be able to declare as "communal" any issue you decide, which translates that you can block anything you feel like?

After you kept talking and talking about enosis, a cause practically dead and not even supported by the great majority of GCs, maybe we should also address our fear, of you partitioning Cyprus and Turkifying part of it, which is something that exists as a de facto reality today and in fact supported by possibly the majority of TCs in one form or another. (you even declared a "state" there called the "Turkish republic of northern Cyprus").

What we want is to have a truly united country, not just in the name of it. We want a solution that not only will truly unify our country but that will make it impossible for TCs to achieve such thing (just like you want to make it impossible for GCs to achieve enosis).

If we go in a "worst case" (and unacceptable) scenario based on what you call democracy, where the communities are physically divided and mostly segregated into two differenced parts of the island, and where the TCs can declare anything they wish as "communal" and therefore block it, then there is a very clear and easy way to TCs to achieve partition by bringing the whole state and the economy at the verge of collapsing and then forcing the GCs to accept partition.

So, I could accept your diversions from democracy if:

1) this right to be for TCs and not any settlers, and to be in effect only if the great majority of TCs oppose something (e.g. 80%+), and not just lets say the 51% of them.

2) there is no physical separation at all between the two communities, in which case the "regional" aspect of possible disagreements will be eliminated and the TCs will have no incentive to block decisions just for the sake of forcing the state to collapse and achieve partition like in the case of Czechoslovakia which is the favorite "model" of Serdar Denctash. (first step achieve a legal "Turkish Cyprus" region/state - and then brake off).


3) there is a specific and predefined list of "communal issues" that can be vetoed. This list can be as long as you want it to be, as long as it is agreed in advance that the issue is indeed communal one.

[Piratis]

You just can not say this unless you say the principals of democracy work differently within a state than they do within a union of states. If your argument is that the principles of democracy demand one thing within a state and a different thing within a union of states, then you are not talking about PRINCIPLES of democracy at all. If in PRINCIPAL a system that allocates power to an ethnic groups regardless of its realtive numerical size is undemocratic then in principal the EU is undemocratic. It really is that simple.

You see Erolz, such arguments like the above is what convince me that what you want is partition.

The EU is not a country. It is an association of independent states. The unit in the case of EU is the state, with its own well defined borders, that can enter this association and leave whenever it wish.

Comparing the EU with a country is like comparing apples and oranges. It is like saying "this dog is a beautiful dog, and therefore a person that looks like that dog is a beautiful person".

You should compare the country Cyprus, with any other democratic country. Then you will see that the unit of democracy in all countries is the citizen and not the ethnic group.

If you tell me that the relationship that you want between GCs and TCs is the one that Italians and British have within the EU, then you are directly telling us that what you want is in fact partition, and just some cooperation between the two separate countries.

When we talk about unification of our country we are talking about a real country unification, not to recognize some "trnc" or whatever it will be called, and be "united" with it in the way we are united with Latvia within EU.

[erolz]

The EU is not a country. It is an association of independent states. The unit in the case of EU is the state, with its own well defined borders, that can enter this association and leave whenever it wish.

It one person one vote is a fundamental principle of democracy, then any insitution that does not operate on one person one vote is not democratic. Either one person one vote is not necessarily a fundamental of democracy or the EU is not democratic. The best you can say is that one person one vote is a fundamental of democracy within a state. This however leaves you with a 'fundamental' prinicpal of democracy that actualy only applies to democracy within certain specific entities and not others.

Comparing the EU with a country is like comparing apples and oranges. It is like saying "this dog is a beautiful dog, and therefore a person that looks like that dog is a beautiful person".

No Piratis you logic is unsound. What it is like is you saying that long eye lashes are a fundamental of beauty. Without long eyelashes you can not have beauty. When I point out that my dog is beautiful without long eyelashes , or my car is beautiful without long eyelashes, you say that I am comparing apples and oranges. However the problem is that you make the claim for long eye lashes being a fundamental of beauty , when in fact you mean it is trait of beauty in a very ,imited and specific case - but you still want to call it a 'fundamental'. In terms of beauty a real 'fundamental' would be along the lines of the thing having an ability to move someone and inspire emotion in them. That is why things like 'people having an effective voice in the decisons that shape their lives' IS a FUNDAMENTAL of democracy and one person one vote is not. At best one person one vote, according to your arument is a requirment of democracy in a very specif case - namely within a nation state. It can no however sensibly be called a fundamental.

You should compare the country Cyprus, with any other democratic country. Then you will see that the unit of democracy in all countries is the citizen and not the ethnic group.

You are actually just wrong that within states the unit and ONLY unit of democracy is the citizen. In the UK to take just one example (but any country could be used) there are a whole hireachy of different units of democracy larger than the individual and where there is equality of these larger units regardless of their respective population sizes that make them up. There are wards, consituiencies, local councils , counties , regions and nationas within the UK and there are bodies where each of these is the uint of democracy within the UK and often with great variance in the size of these units. It is true that 'ethnic group' is not specifically one of these larger democratic units, though in reality the majority of residence in wales are welsh and scotland scottish, but we have to remember that the problem we seek to solve and remove in a unitary Cyprus is one of ethnic communites and thus an ethnic basis is going to be required and inveitable. This hireachy of the unit of democracy within a state is even more pronounced in federal nation states and an ethnic component of such larger units clear in federal states like belgium.

The core point however remains that to claim the unit and only possible unit for democracy in within states is the indivdual is simply not true and for very good reason.

So going back to the first point, if you argue that it is a 'fundamental' of democracy within states (but not in other entities) that the unit of democracy is the indivdual and only the indivdual and any state that has any other unit of democracy in addition to the indivdual is not democratic , then clearly even this is is a flawed statement. In reality the best statement one can make is that it is a 'fundamental' principal of democracy within a state, but not elsewhere, that units of democracy larger than the indivdual within this state that have a protected 'ethnic' component to them are undemocratic. By the time you get this far you can see how abusrd it is to claim this as some kind of generic universal principal of democracy.

If you tell me that the relationship that you want between GCs and TCs is the one that Italians and British have within the EU, then you are directly telling us that what you want is in fact partition, and just some cooperation between the two separate countries.

But I am so clearly NOT telling you that is what I want. All I am doing is countering your (unspportable) claim that one person one vote is a fundamental principal of democracy as a concept , by showing you clear examples of democratic entities where one person one vote does not rule and yet ARE democratic. This is not saying that what I want in Cyprus between our communites is what they have in the EU between states. It is just pointing out that your self rightgous lectures about what the fundamental principles of democracy are as a concept are bollocks.

When we talk about unification of our country we are talking about a real country unification, not to recognize some "trnc" or whatever it will be called, and be "united" with it in the way we are united with Latvia within EU.

When you talk about fundamental principals of the concept of democracy you are not talking about real unification of Cyprus , you are talking about fundamental prinicples of democracy. If what you claim is a fundamental prinicple IS so, then it must apply to ALL democracies or NOT be a fundamental princple, or else you are talking bollocks. That your bollocks just 'happens' to support your view that GC acting purely as GC and seeking things that exclude and differenciate and predjudice TC as a community, have a RIGHT to impose them on TC with no need to regrard TC wishes, does not make your bollocks any less bollocks.

[denizaksulu]

Erolz, you can rant all day and all night if you wish but you can not change the meaning of democracy. In democracy there is equality among citizens, regardless of their race, gender, ethnic background or anything else. "Equality of communities", in the sense of splitting power 50%-50% among ethnic groups, is NOT what democracy is, it is not what democracy should be, and it is not even how democracy is applied in any country in the whole world.

To protect and give an effective voice to minority groups there are minority rights, affirmative action and similar measures. I would have no problem if we adopt such things as they exist in all other multi-ethnic countries - and even more, so those TCs that truly want unification, but have some concerns due to the past, can feel comfortable. I have even talked about one TC president every 5, thats affirmative action gone to the max and beyond, never seen before anywhere, and then you keep saying that I don't want TCs to have an "effective voice". Ridiculous.
Those that want partition like you, will be satisfied with nothing less than that, and the only relationship they will accept between GCs and TCs is the one that Spanish and Polish have within the EU - basically two separated groups with their own territories and borders, and just some association between them. You partitionists will never accept that TCs and GCs can be equal citizens in a united country without racist divisions along ethnic lines.


You keep referring to enosis. Who asked you to accept enosis???

It is a fact that enosis has been our (Cypriots) right as part of our self determination right. I have shown you the UN resolution about decolonization stating in a crystal clear way that "integration into an independent State" is one of the legitimate options for the territory being de-colonized. Your argument that because there was a Turkish minority in Cyprus that would invalidate the democratic rights of Cypriots as a whole does not hold water. If it was like that, then the populations the British, French, Ottomans, Spanish etc colonialists spread around the world would have veto rights forever over those they conquered. Do you think the white people in South Africa are "separate peoples" and therefore can stop the people of that territory to take democratic decisions for their own country? Are you an apartheid supporter Erolz (oh yes you are!)

Yes, I perfectly understand why TCs didn't want enosis, and this is one of the reasons I support a true independence and not enosis. However it seems you partitionists will never stop supporting the crime of partition. You have been the same since before the 50s, 60s, 70s 80s and until today. When you talk about the problems in the 60s you totally ignore that part of the blame lays with you and your partition dream, and you choose to blame it all on us, trying to find some lame excuse for continuing the crimes and illegalities over the last 3+ decades.

So what is going to be? Are you going to allow Cyprus to finally be a united democratic country without racist or other discriminations, where everybody will have equal rights and equal responsibilities? Or, if you insist that you are a "separate people" with your own "self-determination", and in that case hey whatever, take those villages that you are the legal majority and do whatever you want within them, but give us back OUR towns and villages.

Or, let me guess, you will reject both options, since what you really want is to gain on our loss by brute force, as you have done during the 99% of the time since you set your foot in Cyprus. Yes, I stand by what I said earlier about Turks being good in just stealing what others created, and unfortunately you prove this every day. I hope one day you will come out of the middle ages and show some respect to what belongs to others, and then maybe you will manage to achieve something as well.

oh, and I will not say anything more about you personally. You just proved what I said about you by talking about yourself during half of your post.

Piratis
A little reminder that not all TCs support partition, and then only as a very last resort. Best to try all avenues.
Deniz

[erolz]

Lets agree that we disagree regarding if Cypriots had the right to choose in a democratic way the destiny of the their island and if some group of people could take action based on what they believe to be right and wrong and oppose the democratic wish of the great majority of Cypriots.

If you mean ignore the reality that when you pursued enosis you did not do so as a part of a unitary Cypriot people, but as a Greek community and people that happened to live in Cyprus, excluding me and my community and making us some 'other' people that also lived in Cyprus and that we had as such equal and seperate rights as a people to you, in order to make progress, then yes Ill give it a go.

Lets also agree to disagree on the definition of democracy.

For now to 'make progress' , ok.

There are many muti-ethnic countries, with conflicts much worst than ours in their past, but yet the democratic principles are everywhere the same.

Yes the true democratic principles that apply to ALL democraies, not just those within many states and even then misinterpreted in a limited way, are things like 'the right of people to have an effective say in the decsions that rule their lives'. Respect for such rpinciples can indeed help resolve conflicts, just as seeking to trample one groups ability to have an effective say in the decisons that rule their lives , to meet the wants of some other group are commonly a cause of conflict.

For me what you describe is not democracy but something else, since such thing exists in no real democracy. (if it does, then I will ask you again to give me a real world example as such thing would be very helpful so we can understand what you mean).

Again Piratis you are singly unable or unwilling to say what you mean. At best you mean that 'exist in no real example of democracy within a nation state' because such things do exist in democracies other than nation states. In fact they also exists within nation states if you could look with the right eyes, but there are none so blind as those that chose not to see.

So, since it is obvious you will not accept democracy as it exists in all other democratic countries,

I would accept variants of many other democratic countires examples of democracies, especially those of federal nation states like the US or Belgium or Switerland, provided thes examples are tailored to the needs of solving the issues in Cyprus. Whihc means there must be SOME ethnic basis to federal units and some protection of such, for the problem we seek to solve with federation is itself one based in ethnicity.

and I don't want to spend another 100 posts going in circles trying to convince you what democracy really is, then lets talk about what you call democracy and lets see if it can be acceptable.

You could spend another million posts trying to convince me that 'one person one vote' ONLY EVER is a more fundamental principal of democracy than 'people having an effective say in the decsion that rule their lives' but it would not convice me , because such a claim is bollocks.

Questions: is the 90% you say just a random number or it has some essence?

It is a number plucked from the air that represent you vote overwhealmingly one way or another simply because of which ethnic group your are in. This ONLY happens when what is sought affects and means something different to each communal group because of what communal group they are part of.

What about 51% of GCs supporting something and 51% of TCs rejecting it?

If the split is 51% 49% either way , by definition this is NOT a communal issue. Even if it is 65 35 I do not thin it is a communal issue. However when you get into the > 75%+ in one community support it and less than 25%+ in the other support it then your are getting into an essentialy communal issue, for the only reason why you would get such a split is when the effects of the proposal affects one community differently to the other.

When you say TCs, do you include the settlers?

To a degree yes but this is an issue that would have to be negoitated as part of a settlement. Some people you consider 'settlers' would in my view be citizens of a renunifed cyprus and part of the TC community within that. Obvious ones would be Turkish mainlander married to a TC and living in Cyprus. Others would be children of mainlanders born in CYprus. Other still might include Turkish mainlanders that have lived in CYprus for a certain period of time - but the details of this would be for discussion , negotiation, compromise on both sides and agreement.

Is that 90% of votes in a referendum, or it could also be a 90% of the elected politicians?

It could be either or both. It all depends.

It could also be other things except from personal and communal, e.g. Regional, in case Cypriots are mostly segregated into two different parts of the island. We have seen how greedy the TCs can be when in most occasions they demand a lot more than what proportionately belongs to them. It is not unlikely that under such a scenario the TCs will block any budget proposal that will not grant to "their" region everything that they demand.

Well again what worries me most is your racist idea that TC are more Greedy than GC simply because of their ethnic cultural background. This is just bollocks, but I'll ignore it for now to try and 'move forward'

If a settlement was based on a federal and regional basis with a large ethnic component to the federal units then component state income would derive firstly from the component state itself. The proprtion and manner of how each component state would contibute to federal income would be set by the intial agreement. THis would only be changeable by agreement. No agreement and each component state continues to pat to the federal state what was intialy agreed. If either component state wants the federal state to return funds as ameans of transfering component state income from one comonent state to the other, this could only be done with agrrement. No agreement, no transfer of such component state income.

OK. So union with Greece could be one such thing. What else? Would you accept if a list could be created that will list everything that is "communal" in nature and where the agreement of both communities would be required? Or you want a "blank check" to be able to declare as "communal" any issue you decide, which translates that you can block anything you feel like?

No a list does not work. No one can pre guess the future such that a list could provide sufficent protection. Only defining the principal can do that. I do not require a blank cheque at all. It would be clear when an issue is communal and why it is, because it would affect the communites in a different way, whihc is why people would vote differently based on community to a massive degree. However if you fear 'abuse' of such a principal I would happily agree to any formal indpendent arbitration that you deemed necessary to prevent such 'abuse'.

After you kept talking and talking about enosis, a cause practically dead and not even supported by the great majority of GCs, maybe we should also address our fear, of you partitioning Cyprus and Turkifying part of it, which is something that exists as a de facto reality today and in fact supported by possibly the majority of TCs in one form or another. (you even declared a "state" there called the "Turkish republic of northern Cyprus").

THe only absolute guarante that the TC community as a community will give up ANY desire for a partitioned Cyprus is to make a unifed one where there life as a CYpriot is better and clearly so than any partitioned senario could offer.

What we want is to have a truly united country, not just in the name of it. We want a solution that not only will truly unify our country but that will make it impossible for TCs to achieve such thing (just like you want to make it impossible for GCs to achieve enosis).

See above.

If we go in a "worst case" (and unacceptable) scenario based on what you call democracy, where the communities are physically divided and mostly segregated into two differenced parts of the island, and where the TCs can declare anything they wish as "communal" and therefore block it, then there is a very clear and easy way to TCs to achieve partition by bringing the whole state and the economy at the verge of collapsing and then forcing the GCs to accept partition.

This is not what I am asking for or seek. In a federal based system the most blockage that the TC community could inflict would be to not allow any CHANGE at the federal level. At the component state level in a 'worse case' senario we would not be able to block 'your compnent' states ability to function as such in any way.

So, I could accept your diversions from democracy if:

1) this right to be for TCs and not any settlers, and to be in effect only if the great majority of TCs oppose something (e.g. 80%+), and not just lets say the 51% of them.

We would have to argue about who is a settler or not but we could problably , with some good will and mutual compromise agree on that. I have no problem with there being a 'great majority' requirment.

2) there is no physical separation at all between the two communities, in which case the "regional" aspect of possible disagreements will be eliminated and the TCs will have no incentive to block decisions just for the sake of forcing the state to collapse and achieve partition like in the case of Czechoslovakia which is the favorite "model" of Serdar Denctash. (first step achieve a legal "Turkish Cyprus" region/state - and then brake off).

I personally as an indivdual can live without bizonlaity provided the right bicommunal protections exist. However this prob not true of most TC at least for a period of time. I would also consider other specfic measure to protect against the risk of intentful forced colapse as a route to division but I am out of time and will have to expand on these other possibilites later.

3) there is a specific and predefined list of "communal issues" that can be vetoed. This list can be as long as you want it to be, as long as it is agreed in advance that the issue is indeed communal one.

No list is not acceptable to me. I need a principal that can be applied fairly and consistnetly to anything that may occur in the future for I can not predict the future. Another big problem with a list is what would stop you as a GC community 'democraticaly' changing the list in the future , according to your defintion of democracy ? Give me 100 things on the list today and tomorrow 'democratically' remove then , one by one. No sorry that is all to familure for me to find it acceptable.