Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

...mark my words again, ONE DAY WHEN EVEN WORSE CALAMITIES WILL BE VISITED ON OUR BELOVED CYPRUS BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR THINK-ALIKES,BABANIOT WILL SHINE AS AN EXAMPLE OF WISDOM,LOGIC AND FORESIGHT...

That’s based on your assumption that you have the common sense to figure out “wisdom”, “logic”, and “foresight”, but you’re as thick as a brick so quit posting ridiculous nonsense!

It seems I have given you too much credit till now,GR! But with that insult you have done your dash...You have proven to be a pompous, insufferable arsehole of the first degree......Expect to be treated as one from now on...

Look, you have the right to have a Bananiot fetish and we have the right to ridicule you. End of story!

[Piratis]

A humanitarian is one who has empathy and compassion for all people,even the "enemy"

A "humanitarian" who supports Institutional racism and accepts human rights violations? I don't think so.

Piratis,
It is easy to feel empathy and compassion for your own "side" ....
It is very easy as you are doing to turn a blind eye to the wrongs of your "side"...It takes an exceptional person to feel for the "other side" and to criticise his own "side" knowing he will draw their wrath...mark my words again, ONE DAY WHEN EVEN WORSE CALAMITIES WILL BE VISITED ON OUR BELOVED CYPRUS BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR THINK-ALIKES,BABANIOT WILL SHINE AS AN EXAMPLE OF WISDOM,LOGIC AND FORESIGHT...

You will be known as "those short-sighted,vengeful,bloody-minded,uncompromising,stubborn" Cypriots, and god knows there are plenty on the TC side like you,who have shot themselves in the foot,in pursuit of dominance and revenge...

So are you threatening us again with more calamities because we insist on democracy and human rights?

Real humanitarians do not support the human rights violations of any side. I, for example, do not support the human rights violations of any Cypriot, either he/she belongs to "my side" or the "other side". I support that all Cypriot citizens should have the 100% of their human rights.

You want to violate the human rights of GCs, and Bananiot supports you. Neither of you can be classified as humanitarians, but you are the complete opposite.

I am not threatening you Piratis,I am warning you,as good friends should when they see their friends on the wrong road...We do not support human right violations...We can see the realities,analyse the recent history,and tell you what is possible and what is not...We want a solution which will reduce the possibility of even worse calamities for Cyprus...You seem to have learned no lessons from our tragic past...In 1963 you were not able to stomach that 18% of Cypriots would hold 30 % of the power... No matter that you had 70% of the power...You chose to see the empty side of the glass.. The results are here to see...Now you are again showing no sign of compromise to achieve a workable and lasting solution..Logic and history tells me you might again live to regret your inflexible attitude..That is all I am saying...You can take it a a friendly warning or a threat...I don't have control over that...It is entirely up to you...

The power you had was more like 50%, not 30%.

30% was the civil servant positions allocated to your 18% minority. So basically a TC secretary had twice as much chance to get a government position that a GC secretary. That is the kind of institutional racism you imposed on us. As if we are still living in the middle ages that you could divide people into Muslims with more rights and Christians with less.

If you can not see how these things are unfair, then you are the one who has not learned the lesson.

Your racism has been creating problems to Cypriots for more than 400 years, but don't expect from us to surrender our rights. We know what our rights are, and we will continue fighting for justice, equality and democracy for as long as it takes and we will never regret for this.

So Makarios decided that the TCs will have no power at all,and watch them walk away into the sunset laughing behind his hand...For 11 years nobody thought about the democratic or human rights of the TCs...But that was not "institutional racism" I suppose...The TCs deserved it,right???

Anyway,good luck to you,Piratis....And I do hope you will never regret it...

You should have proportional power - 18%. No more no less. This is what is fair. But did you ever accept what is fair? No. You always wanted disproportionally large shares on our expense and this is something you continue to do today.

We will continue to insist on what is fair. We never regretted for doing what is right, regardless if some oppressor tries to punish us for it. Maybe there are other things in our history that we were wrong, but this is not one of them. This is where you have always been wrong.

[Kikapu]

Bir, when you hold a veto right you have 100% of the power not 30%.

I hope your day job is not an accountant. How do you calculate that? I make it 30% (Power) + 20% (Veto) protection which sums up to 50%. Which meant you could not suffocate the TCs legally. Now, how do you get 100%?
Ottomans had 100%. Was it the same deal as the Ottomans?

DT is very accurate when he says, that any veto power equals 100% regardless of who makes it. It is totally undemocratic. For example, if the RoC is the sole veto user against Turkey's EU membership, even though they are only 1/27th of the EU club as we speak, that 1 veto equals to 100% power against Turkey's membership. It gets even worse when we equate the population of the RoC versus the population of the EU, which is very close to 1/500. A veto power of any kind is always 100% against the wishes of the majority. Let me say it again, veto vote of any kind is totally undemocratic.!

But you ignored my comment. 100% is like it was in the Ottoman days. Now are you saying that the two are the same.
Can you confirm what DT believes that the reason why 63 happened was the problem with the TCs and their veto and that enosis had no part to play in it? Are you one with your fellow true democratic friends, and does it apply here on the forum or just when it suits you and your friends?

YFred, 100% is 100%, whether it is in the form of one unit of 100% or it is at much lesser unit but has an equivalence of 100% . The end result is the same at 100%, because it would have 100% effect by using a veto vote power. I don't want to talk about the Ottomans or 1963, or Enosis ( been there, done that already many times) because my definition of what a veto vote power means has nothing to do with all your other topics that you want to bring to this subject. I've just added onto what DT said to Bir, that's all.! The question is, do you disagree with my definition of what a veto vote power means and if so, why.??

[YFred]

Bir, when you hold a veto right you have 100% of the power not 30%.

I hope your day job is not an accountant. How do you calculate that? I make it 30% (Power) + 20% (Veto) protection which sums up to 50%. Which meant you could not suffocate the TCs legally. Now, how do you get 100%?
Ottomans had 100%. Was it the same deal as the Ottomans?

DT is very accurate when he says, that any veto power equals 100% regardless of who makes it. It is totally undemocratic. For example, if the RoC is the sole veto user against Turkey's EU membership, even though they are only 1/27th of the EU club as we speak, that 1 veto equals to 100% power against Turkey's membership. It gets even worse when we equate the population of the RoC versus the population of the EU, which is very close to 1/500. A veto power of any kind is always 100% against the wishes of the majority. Let me say it again, veto vote of any kind is totally undemocratic.!

But you ignored my comment. 100% is like it was in the Ottoman days. Now are you saying that the two are the same.
Can you confirm what DT believes that the reason why 63 happened was the problem with the TCs and their veto and that enosis had no part to play in it? Are you one with your fellow true democratic friends, and does it apply here on the forum or just when it suits you and your friends?

YFred, 100% is 100%, whether it is in the form of one unit of 100% or it is at much lesser unit but has an equivalence of 100% . The end result is the same at 100%, because it would have 100% effect by using a veto vote power. I don't want to talk about the Ottomans or 1963, or Enosis ( been there, done that already many times) because my definition of what a veto vote power means has nothing to do with all your other topics that you want to bring to this subject. I've just added onto what DT said to Bir, that's all.! The question is, do you disagree with my definition of what a veto vote power means and if so, why.??

Yep 100%. Because there is no trust left after 63 never mind 74. You obviously did not hear the broadcast of Makarios claiming that he would push all the Turks into the sea in 63.
Now, you either have a veto or 2 countries. Your choice, but I would appreciate your thoughts on the questions I have posed.
You may not wish to talk about them, but it is questions you must answer otherwise we end up going round and round in circles and chasing Bafitis's and Bumbo's tails. Just make sure that you have a brolli when you are near the Bafitobullo otherwise you will have a shower when you approach. Secondly don't turn our back to Bumbo, you will be in trouble.

[Kikapu]

Bir, when you hold a veto right you have 100% of the power not 30%.

I hope your day job is not an accountant. How do you calculate that? I make it 30% (Power) + 20% (Veto) protection which sums up to 50%. Which meant you could not suffocate the TCs legally. Now, how do you get 100%?
Ottomans had 100%. Was it the same deal as the Ottomans?

DT is very accurate when he says, that any veto power equals 100% regardless of who makes it. It is totally undemocratic. For example, if the RoC is the sole veto user against Turkey's EU membership, even though they are only 1/27th of the EU club as we speak, that 1 veto equals to 100% power against Turkey's membership. It gets even worse when we equate the population of the RoC versus the population of the EU, which is very close to 1/500. A veto power of any kind is always 100% against the wishes of the majority. Let me say it again, veto vote of any kind is totally undemocratic.!

But you ignored my comment. 100% is like it was in the Ottoman days. Now are you saying that the two are the same.
Can you confirm what DT believes that the reason why 63 happened was the problem with the TCs and their veto and that enosis had no part to play in it? Are you one with your fellow true democratic friends, and does it apply here on the forum or just when it suits you and your friends?

YFred, 100% is 100%, whether it is in the form of one unit of 100% or it is at much lesser unit but has an equivalence of 100% . The end result is the same at 100%, because it would have 100% effect by using a veto vote power. I don't want to talk about the Ottomans or 1963, or Enosis ( been there, done that already many times) because my definition of what a veto vote power means has nothing to do with all your other topics that you want to bring to this subject. I've just added onto what DT said to Bir, that's all.! The question is, do you disagree with my definition of what a veto vote power means and if so, why.??

Yep 100%.

Thank you.!!

Because there is no trust left after 63 never mind 74. You obviously did not hear the broadcast of Makarios claiming that he would push all the Turks into the sea in 63.
Now, you either have a veto or 2 countries. Your choice, but I would appreciate your thoughts on the questions I have posed.
You may not wish to talk about them, but it is questions you must answer otherwise we end up going round and round in circles and chasing Bafitis's and Bumbo's tails. Just make sure that you have a brolli when you are near the Bafitobullo otherwise you will have a shower when you approach. Secondly don't turn our back to Bumbo, you will be in trouble.

Again, all the above is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But just to answer one part of your question, a veto power can come in the form of a Democratic means just like how I proposed in my plan, in which case the TCs should take it. It does not need to be in the form of undemocratic means all the time, does it.??

[YFred]

Bir, when you hold a veto right you have 100% of the power not 30%.

I hope your day job is not an accountant. How do you calculate that? I make it 30% (Power) + 20% (Veto) protection which sums up to 50%. Which meant you could not suffocate the TCs legally. Now, how do you get 100%?
Ottomans had 100%. Was it the same deal as the Ottomans?

DT is very accurate when he says, that any veto power equals 100% regardless of who makes it. It is totally undemocratic. For example, if the RoC is the sole veto user against Turkey's EU membership, even though they are only 1/27th of the EU club as we speak, that 1 veto equals to 100% power against Turkey's membership. It gets even worse when we equate the population of the RoC versus the population of the EU, which is very close to 1/500. A veto power of any kind is always 100% against the wishes of the majority. Let me say it again, veto vote of any kind is totally undemocratic.!

But you ignored my comment. 100% is like it was in the Ottoman days. Now are you saying that the two are the same.
Can you confirm what DT believes that the reason why 63 happened was the problem with the TCs and their veto and that enosis had no part to play in it? Are you one with your fellow true democratic friends, and does it apply here on the forum or just when it suits you and your friends?

YFred, 100% is 100%, whether it is in the form of one unit of 100% or it is at much lesser unit but has an equivalence of 100% . The end result is the same at 100%, because it would have 100% effect by using a veto vote power. I don't want to talk about the Ottomans or 1963, or Enosis ( been there, done that already many times) because my definition of what a veto vote power means has nothing to do with all your other topics that you want to bring to this subject. I've just added onto what DT said to Bir, that's all.! The question is, do you disagree with my definition of what a veto vote power means and if so, why.??

Yep 100%.

Thank you.!!

Because there is no trust left after 63 never mind 74. You obviously did not hear the broadcast of Makarios claiming that he would push all the Turks into the sea in 63.
Now, you either have a veto or 2 countries. Your choice, but I would appreciate your thoughts on the questions I have posed.
You may not wish to talk about them, but it is questions you must answer otherwise we end up going round and round in circles and chasing Bafitis's and Bumbo's tails. Just make sure that you have a brolli when you are near the Bafitobullo otherwise you will have a shower when you approach. Secondly don't turn our back to Bumbo, you will be in trouble.

Again, all the above is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But just to answer one part of your question, a veto power can come in the form of a Democratic means just like how I proposed in my plan, in which case the TCs should take it. It does not need to be in the form of undemocratic means all the time, does it.??

No need to thank me, I was only confirming my disagreement of the meaning of the veto. BTW can please stop referring to your plan. It's getting rather monotonous.

[boomerang]

if anything you seemed quite comfortable in chasing your tail knucklehead...



happy new year knucklehead... ...and i hope you find what you are looking for while chasing your tail...

[Malapapa]

Yep 100%. Because there is no trust left after 63 never mind 74. You obviously did not hear the broadcast of Makarios claiming that he would push all the Turks into the sea in 63.

Oh, Gawd, it's 1963 again... and again... and again.

[YFred]

Yep 100%. Because there is no trust left after 63 never mind 74. You obviously did not hear the broadcast of Makarios claiming that he would push all the Turks into the sea in 63.

Oh, Gawd, it's 1963 again... and again... and again.

Me thinks this one is more appropriate.

[YFred]

MP you will find even this one more appropriate.



If only you can understand the words.

Pushda bel baglama