Viewpoint wrote:Kifeas you are twisting words to suit your means and distorting what contributors are really trying to say, this to me reveals your true colours about riding the island of TCs which was a 1960 ideal.
TCs only refer to compensation for GCs if it is beyond a realistic possiblity for that individual to get back what they owned pre 1974, we never dictate that that individual should be paid off and told to leave the island where he belongs, why do you do this????
Viewpoint!
Relax and take it easy!
I am not twisting anyone’s words to suit my means. The only word’s twisting is the one taking place in your mind. You have this habit of jumping into a discussion, exactly like a rooster jumping up into the middle of a two cocks fight, without fully understanding what has been the purpose of the “fight” and what was at stake in the first place.
If you was not lazy enough and have bothered to read and consolidate the entire thread from the beginning, you should have understood that what Jesus and JustAnAmerican were suggesting, was the establishment of two separate and presumably recognised States based on the present status quo, and compensate the GCs for all their lost properties in the north. This was more or less their idea in a nutshell!
Instead of commenting on their idea, I suggested a different, more logical and fairer idea, imo.
I was not referring to compensations in any other context, such as under a solution based on a BBF, etc.
