CopperLine wrote:The emperor has no clothes.
Get Real writesLook, this is a court case ALREADY UNDERWAY, that already has decisions being thrown around that most of us here CANNOT challenge as we don’t have the stacks of volumes of reference on international litigation at out disposal, so we are reduced to mere spectators whether we like it or not.
When any number of cases - property cases, missing persons cases, compensation cases, law of the sea cases, and goodness knows what else - were underway did Get Real ever raise the objection 'Stop don't discuss this in the forum ! I don't know what I'm talking about' ? No of course he didn't. This latest objection is just garbage.
Who said anything about making a challenge ? This is a red herring. Of course members of a discussion forum can't make a challenge we are not parties to the case ! But we are commentators. And we'll comment on this case with the same degrees of sense or nonsense as we have done with any other case that has been discussed on this forum in the past.
And yes Get Real I do have a legal library to turn to should I need to. And you, to a large extent, have access to a publicly available legal library should you wish to use it (and know how to use it).
I really fail to see that you can have any serious and consistent objection to members of the forum, yourself included, discussing this and any other case.
Oracle wrote:umit07 wrote: ... I is shitin me pants
umit ... kindly stop paraphrasing Ali G ... I may have to youtube again!
umit07 wrote:Just to get this clear GR as thought the case was over . Am I wrong?
Get Real! wrote:umit07 wrote:Just to get this clear GR as thought the case was over . Am I wrong?
It's only beginning I'd say. They can appeal the decision and if they're successful they then have to prove that the RoC was responsible while the state was being attacked and overrun by one of its guarantors, which the plaintiff then went to live with and formed part of that “harboring” which has no doubt played its role in finding the missing!
Only in Cyprus...
umit07 wrote:Get Real! wrote:umit07 wrote:Just to get this clear GR as thought the case was over . Am I wrong?
It's only beginning I'd say. They can appeal the decision and if they're successful they then have to prove that the RoC was responsible while the state was being attacked and overrun by one of its guarantors, which the plaintiff then went to live with and formed part of that “harboring” which has no doubt played its role in finding the missing!
Only in Cyprus...
Only from you GR can I expect an remark like the above. Now we are blaming Turkey for the murders of civillian TC's. Your logic is twisted as it can get .
denizaksulu wrote:umit07 wrote:Get Real! wrote:umit07 wrote:Just to get this clear GR as thought the case was over . Am I wrong?
It's only beginning I'd say. They can appeal the decision and if they're successful they then have to prove that the RoC was responsible while the state was being attacked and overrun by one of its guarantors, which the plaintiff then went to live with and formed part of that “harboring” which has no doubt played its role in finding the missing!
Only in Cyprus...
Only from you GR can I expect an remark like the above. Now we are blaming Turkey for the murders of civillian TC's. Your logic is twisted as it can get .
This is GR all over again. Sometimes his level of stupidity is embarrasing to the Cypriot people.
Get real Get Real.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests