Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

EOKA did not fight for Enosis. Full stop.

From UN document S/6253 26 March 1965

REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS MEDIATOR ON CYPRUS
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Archbishop Makarios and members of the Government acknowledged that Enosis had been the original aim of the uprising against British rule and that it remained a strong aspiration among the Greek-Cypriot community.

Oracle you are attempting to re write history. Full stop.

Why do you think the official EOKA announcement and subsequent written oath taken by members, made no mention of “enosis” whatsoever?

[Get Real!]

He does not think it's credible on account that GR is from the Donkey family and unless it's signature is a hoof, it's just not credible enough.

I wonder what carries more weight… your grandparent’s “X” in 1923 or a donkey’s hoof…

[erolz3]

I set MY OWN standards and abide by them so those crossing swords with me would know what they’re up against, and those who choose not to… they’re smart!

And do these 'standards' of yours included taking a document written by the RoC and submitted TO the UN and then presnting it as the offical views OFF the UN with regard to Cyprus ?

Something you have done in the past, I might add, where you spent many posts trying to argue this RoC written document was a UN written one in the face of clear eviedence to the contrary and when it was finally shown beyond any doubt that this was the case you seem to just disaper from the discussion.

Or are these 'standards' new and no longer include such 'techniques' ?

Erol, I have the hard to find S/6426 on my hard disk because YOU gave it to me!

Do you remember GR on another forum that I can not link to here because if I do so I will once again be banned starting a thread with the title

'why didnt the 1960 consitution of Cyprus work' ?

Do you remember how you presented section 21,22,23 of THIS document

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/a99f ... endocument

as "Let's hear it from the United Nations".

Do you remember how it was shown without any shadow of possible doubt that the document you claimed was the views of the UN was in fact a document written BY the RoC and submitted TO UN. Do you remember that ? Do you remember how you refused to accept that this was the case despite overwhealming proof that it was ?

Do you remember a GC poster saying

Well GR he provided the evidence that you wanted why don't you give him some credit?

GR you opened this thread to argued a point based on the neutral position of UN but in fact the actual report was written by our government so you don't really prove anything. Sorry but to me the conclusions are not very clear.

?

After which you disapeared from the discussion entirely ?

I ask all this in relation to your self made claims of your self imposed 'standards' of proof.

So once more, do your self claimed 'standards' that you harp on about here include taking a UN document written BY the RoC and submitted TO the UN and presenting it to others as a document written BY the UN about Cyprus ? Or are the standards such that under them you would now no longer do such, having done it in the past.

[erolz3]

EOKA did not fight for Enosis. Full stop.

From UN document S/6253 26 March 1965

REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS MEDIATOR ON CYPRUS
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Archbishop Makarios and members of the Government acknowledged that Enosis had been the original aim of the uprising against British rule and that it remained a strong aspiration among the Greek-Cypriot community.

Oracle you are attempting to re write history. Full stop.

Why do you think the official EOKA announcement and subsequent written oath taken by members, made no mention of “enosis” whatsoever?

I do not know why it does not mention enosis explicitly, but that it does not does not consitute proof that the aim and objective of EOKA was independance rather than enosis.

What I think is the much more interesting and revealing question is why is there such a determined calculated and planned effort from GC, not just 'rogue' indivduals like Oracle but widepread and including leaderships as well, to re write history in such a way about this issue.

I think the reasons why there has been and continue to be such clear cut and blatant attempts to re write history on this issue from large sections of the GC community are pretty self evident, but before I lay out my opinions explicitly perhaps you might care to give us your views on why some GC try so hard to re write history on this point ?

[Get Real!]

I set MY OWN standards and abide by them so those crossing swords with me would know what they’re up against, and those who choose not to… they’re smart!

And do these 'standards' of yours included taking a document written by the RoC and submitted TO the UN and then presnting it as the offical views OFF the UN with regard to Cyprus ?

Something you have done in the past, I might add, where you spent many posts trying to argue this RoC written document was a UN written one in the face of clear eviedence to the contrary and when it was finally shown beyond any doubt that this was the case you seem to just disaper from the discussion.

Or are these 'standards' new and no longer include such 'techniques' ?

Erol, I have the hard to find S/6426 on my hard disk because YOU gave it to me!

Do you remember GR on another forum that I can not link to here because if I do so I will once again be banned starting a thread with the title

'why didnt the 1960 consitution of Cyprus work' ?

Do you remember how you presented section 21,22,23 of THIS document

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/a99f ... endocument

as "Let's hear it from the United Nations".

Do you remember how it was shown without any shadow of possible doubt that the document you claimed was the views of the UN was in fact a document written BY the RoC and submitted TO UN. Do you remember that ? Do you remember how you refused to accept that this was the case despite overwhealming proof that it was ?

Do you remember a GC poster saying

Well GR he provided the evidence that you wanted why don't you give him some credit?

GR you opened this thread to argued a point based on the neutral position of UN but in fact the actual report was written by our government so you don't really prove anything. Sorry but to me the conclusions are not very clear.

?

After which you disapeared from the discussion entirely ?

I ask all this in relation to your self made claims of your self imposed 'standards' of proof.

So once more, do your self claimed 'standards' that you harp on about here include taking a UN document written BY the RoC and submitted TO the UN and presenting it to others as a document written BY the UN about Cyprus ? Or are the standards such that under them you would now no longer do such, having done it in the past.

Erol, the original UN document I was using as evidence was indeed submitted by the RoC to the UN as you correctly pointed out at the time, but I only made REFERENCE to a section the RoC was making reference to (S/6426) in my arguments because I could not find (S/6426) at the time!

[erolz3]

Erol, the original UN document I was using as evidence was indeed submitted by the RoC to the UN as you correctly pointed out at the time, but I only made REFERENCE to a section the RoC was making reference to (S/6426) in my arguments because I could not find (S/6426) at the time!

Well I am glad to see that you now accept this reality and that is definately progress as far as I am concerned.

However in the interests of accuracy back then (apr 2007) you did not only make referance to the quote within the document from the UN document S/6423. Subsequently you have used the RoC written document HRI/CORE/1/Add.28/Rev.1 as a referance for the quote from UN S/6423 but at the time I am refering to you explicitly presented and quoted sections 21,22 and 23 of HRI/CORE/1/Add.28/Rev.1 as the opinions of the UN and not those of the RoC.

When I pointed out the sections you had quoted from were written by the RoC and not the UN as you claimed back then your response was

Sorry but this time you're dealing with me and unless you post your evidence your response is nothing short of speculation...

As I went on to provide the evidence that HRI/CORE/1/Add.28/Rev.1 was in fact written by the RoC and not the Un as you at that time claimed your response was

Erolz, you have failed to provide any evidence that the author of this document [HRI/CORE/1/Add.28/Rev.1] is somebody other than the UN.

and went to accuse me thus

Knowing how damning this document is for the Turkish Cypriot community you will go to any length to pervert the course of justice in your selfish attempt to undermine historical facts forming the core of the tragedy of Cyprus.

All for merely pointing out and prooving that the document was not one written BY the UN but in fact one written BY the RoC.

You never did admit in that thread that your presentation of section 21,22 and 23 of HRI/CORE/1/Add.28/Rev.1 as being part of a UN written document was in fact incorrect, so it is nice to hear you now accept this reality and that you have change your opinion on this in the intervening time does increase the credibility of your self made claims to 'standards' in the use of sources, compared to how you used sources back then.

[Get Real!]

Erol, the original UN document I was using as evidence was indeed submitted by the RoC to the UN as you correctly pointed out at the time, but I only made REFERENCE to a section the RoC was making reference to (S/6426) in my arguments because I could not find (S/6426) at the time!

Well I am glad to see that you now accept this reality and that is definately progress as far as I am concerned.

However in the interests of accuracy back then (apr 2007) you did not only make referance to the quote within the document from the UN document S/6423. Subsequently you have used the RoC written document HRI/CORE/1/Add.28/Rev.1 as a referance for the quote from UN S/6423 but at the time I am refering to you explicitly presented and quoted sections 21,22 and 23 of HRI/CORE/1/Add.28/Rev.1 as the opinions of the UN and not those of the RoC.

When I pointed out the sections you had quoted from were written by the RoC and not the UN as you claimed back then your response was

Sorry but this time you're dealing with me and unless you post your evidence your response is nothing short of speculation...

As I went on to provide the evidence that HRI/CORE/1/Add.28/Rev.1 was in fact written by the RoC and not the Un as you at that time claimed your response was

Erolz, you have failed to provide any evidence that the author of this document [HRI/CORE/1/Add.28/Rev.1] is somebody other than the UN.

and went to accuse me thus

Knowing how damning this document is for the Turkish Cypriot community you will go to any length to pervert the course of justice in your selfish attempt to undermine historical facts forming the core of the tragedy of Cyprus.

All for merely pointing out and prooving that the document was not one written BY the UN but in fact one written BY the RoC.

You never did admit in that thread that your presentation of section 21,22 and 23 of HRI/CORE/1/Add.28/Rev.1 as being part of a UN written document was in fact incorrect, so it is nice to hear you now accept this reality and that you have change your opinion on this in the intervening time does increase the credibility of your self made claims to 'standards' in the use of sources, compared to how you used sources back then.

Methinks you’re in need of a win on the CF and I will give it to you because I enjoy your input here and hope you’ll be around for a long time to come, so here goes…

Erol, I apologize that in 2007 I misleadingly used an RoC document through which to capitalize from a referenced section of an earlier UN statement, in my arguments, and hope that you will forgive me!






NB: Coerced, in fear of any further hair-splitting responses!

[Malapapa]

Erol, I apologize that in 2007 I misleadingly used an RoC document through which to capitalize from a referenced section of an earlier UN statement, in my arguments, and hope that you will forgive me!






NB: Coerced, in fear of any further hair-splitting responses!

Respect.

[erolz3]

Erol, I apologize that in 2007 I misleadingly used an RoC document through which to capitalize from a referenced section of an earlier UN statement, in my arguments, and hope that you will forgive me!

If you mean you appologise for back then presenting a RoC written document as being one written by the UN and at the time absolutley refusing to accept the truth, then I totaly accept your belated appology and respect you making it.

[Get Real!]

Erol, I apologize that in 2007 I misleadingly used an RoC document through which to capitalize from a referenced section of an earlier UN statement, in my arguments, and hope that you will forgive me!

If you mean you appologise for back then presenting a RoC written document as being one written by the UN and at the time absolutley refusing to accept the truth, then I totaly accept your belated appology and respect you making it.

Yeah, well that’s the problem when he’s got you by the balls… he just LOVES to squeeze and absolutely refuses to let go!