Cyprus-Forum.com

[DTA]

Kikapu you dismiss a website and the information on it because it is written in turkish?

That is not what he said. He said such websites are full of misinformation and worthless propaganda. If you are in search of historical accuracy about Cyprus the last place you should be looking at is Turkish websites. There are plenty of other sources and historical accounts you could turn to. It's not difficult to find them.

But he doesn't know the website all he knows that it is written in Turkish and immediately dismissed it. It could be complete bollox - I am not saying it isn't. But to dismiss it because it is a 'Turkish website' is racist

[Hermes]

But he doesn't know the website all he knows that it is written in Turkish and immediately dismissed it. It could be complete bollox - I am not saying it isn't. But to dismiss it because it is a 'Turkish website' is racist

I can tell you without reading it that it is complete bollox. Don't waste our time.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu you dismiss a website and the information on it because it is written in turkish?

That is completely ridiculus, you can not be a tc, I think it better that we go back to not speaking.

You seem to lack the ability to fully comprehend the written English language, just as VP is. No wonder you two get along so well.

If that's your best argument for anyone in trying to set you on a correct path to understand facts rather than fiction relating to Cyprus, then the hell with you. It's your loss, by wondering aimlessly absorbing misinformation and propaganda from such websites.

Now run off to your mummy to comfort you, because I don't have the time to babysit you if you don't want to be treated like a grown up. Come back when you are ready for serious discussions and don't waste any one's time here before that time, specially mine.

Arrogant dickhead you would never speak to me like this face to face.

Why wouldn't I say it to your face.? What, you are going to beat me up, is that it.? Further proof that you are not muture enough to hold serious discussions with, just because you might get your feelings hurt should someone correct your disillusioned mindset.

Like I said it is better we don't talk, so let's just keep to that.

It's your choice that you want to keep your head in the sand with your butt in the air for others to have their way with you due to your inability to accept constructive criticism without resorting to being disrespectful. I'll still be here if you want to have serious discussions. However, I don't have time to play around with you or anyone else for that matter with "kid gloves" on. Take it or leave it, because quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

[Pyrpolizer]

I am a little perplexed by the reaction to these comments. So I will offer my opinion, and it is only my opinion so not saying it is correct but here it goes:

Erdogan wants a solution to the cyprus problem so what he has done is this:

he has made the Tcs more willing to compromise by cutting our budget at a time when the the Turkish economy is doing well compared to a lot of other economies, he had no reason to do this at the moment if he didn't want a solution, because Turkeys economy is at the moment (and hopefully in the future as well) in the accendancy. So if partition was what he wanted he would have increased the the TRNC budget to make us less likely to compromise.

But this has led to the GCs being in a position of power in the negotiations.

So to balance this power he has made the statement that if an agreement is not reached by by 2012 then the he will try for the recognition of the TRNC, thus putting pressure on both sides to be willing to compromise.

He has also stated that the solution (reached in 2012) will follow a BBF with political equality, which is what we both want no? so what's the problem?

like I said that is my opinion and it could be wrong but that is may take on it.

Both sides should compromise or both will lose.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us DTA.
That's what we all do here after all.

Of course many posts passed after yours above, so i think I am a bit of late in saying anything other than general comments on what was said afterwards
a)There are a LOT of biased papers/information everywhere. Many people fall victims of those biased papers because they have no way to check their integrity. There is only one way to get protected. By knowing the FACTS in advance through extensive reading and cross-reference. Kikapu is one of the few people in here who still does cross reference. In the past I was also doing that but i got tired. We had another guy here called "kifeas" who was doing cross reference also, and every day coming here almost furious against some journalists (usually Turkish) and the lies they were spreading around. He also got tired and left the forum.

Let me give you one example, the one you said about the Anan Plan that the Kypreos residing in the TCCS were supposed not to be allowed to have a (3rd?) child. I am sure you fell victim of one of those Greek or Kypreos propagandists who would use every lie possible to make the Anan Plan look as bad as possible. Don't get me wrong here, the Anan Plan was bad indeed, but when a read a few sites/journalists using lies to prove it, i knew immediately they were biased so i stopped reading them anymore.
So what was the real truth behind the propaganda you 've read? According to the Anan Plan the Kypreos residing in ANY area (village or town) in the TCCS should not exceed 10% of the population(that percentage would increase every year by 1% coming to a maximum of 30% I think.. Lets take for example a small village of 200 inhabitants and the initial percentage of 10%. The maximum number of Kypreos could only be 20.Suppose those 20 were 4 families and each family had a husband, a wife, 2 children and 2 elderly grandparents. What would happen if there was a new child?? immediately the quota of 10% would be violated.The truth is the Anan plan did not give any answer.
So what you 've read was clearly propaganda.

The same goes for the 45% you 've read somewhere. Kikapu was right when he told you it was not 45% but around 30%, but that was actually counted as a MUSLIM population. Both the Christians and the Muslims did not get any preferential treatment from the British in 1878, yet after the British took over the number of MUSLIMS got very rapidly reduced. To avoid the risk of telling me I am biased you may find more information about this and many other issues at "the Cyprus conflict" web site, which is acknowledged by many as being neutral. You will realize it yourself too that it is really unbiased after you do some reading.

I will try and find the links for you and revert asap.

[Kikapu]

I am a little perplexed by the reaction to these comments. So I will offer my opinion, and it is only my opinion so not saying it is correct but here it goes:

Erdogan wants a solution to the cyprus problem so what he has done is this:

he has made the Tcs more willing to compromise by cutting our budget at a time when the the Turkish economy is doing well compared to a lot of other economies, he had no reason to do this at the moment if he didn't want a solution, because Turkeys economy is at the moment (and hopefully in the future as well) in the accendancy. So if partition was what he wanted he would have increased the the TRNC budget to make us less likely to compromise.

But this has led to the GCs being in a position of power in the negotiations.

So to balance this power he has made the statement that if an agreement is not reached by by 2012 then the he will try for the recognition of the TRNC, thus putting pressure on both sides to be willing to compromise.

He has also stated that the solution (reached in 2012) will follow a BBF with political equality, which is what we both want no? so what's the problem?

like I said that is my opinion and it could be wrong but that is may take on it.

Both sides should compromise or both will lose.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us DTA.
That's what we all do here after all.

Of course many posts passed after yours above, so i think I am a bit of late in saying anything other than general comments on what was said afterwards
a)There are a LOT of biased papers/information everywhere. Many people fall victims of those biased papers because they have no way to check their integrity. There is only one way to get protected. By knowing the FACTS in advance through extensive reading and cross-reference. Kikapu is one of the few people in here who still does cross reference. In the past I was also doing that but i got tired. We had another guy here called "kifeas" who was doing cross reference also, and every day coming here almost furious against some journalists (usually Turkish) and the lies they were spreading around. He also got tired and left the forum.

Let me give you one example, the one you said about the Anan Plan that the Kypreos residing in the TCCS were supposed not to be allowed to have a (3rd?) child. I am sure you fell victim of one of those Greek or Kypreos propagandists who would use every lie possible to make the Anan Plan look as bad as possible. Don't get me wrong here, the Anan Plan was bad indeed, but when a read a few sites/journalists using lies to prove it, i knew immediately they were biased so i stopped reading them anymore.
So what was the real truth behind the propaganda you 've read? According to the Anan Plan the Kypreos residing in ANY area (village or town) in the TCCS should not exceed 10% of the population(that percentage would increase every year by 1% coming to a maximum of 30% I think.. Lets take for example a small village of 200 inhabitants and the initial percentage of 10%. The maximum number of Kypreos could only be 20.Suppose those 20 were 4 families and each family had a husband, a wife, 2 children and 2 elderly grandparents. What would happen if there was a new child?? immediately the quota of 10% would be violated.The truth is the Anan plan did not give any answer.
So what you 've read was clearly propaganda.

The same goes for the 45% you 've read somewhere. Kikapu was right when he told you it was not 45% but around 30%, but that was actually counted as a MUSLIM population. Both the Christians and the Muslims did not get any preferential treatment from the British in 1878, yet after the British took over the number of MUSLIMS got very rapidly reduced. To avoid the risk of telling me I am biased you may find more information about this and many other issues at "the Cyprus conflict" web site, which is acknowledged by many as being neutral. You will realize it yourself too that it is really unbiased after you do some reading.

I will try and find the links for you and revert asap.

Pyro,

The mistake DTA made on the 45% claim , either deliberately or read it as a fact wrongly on the Turkish website, was a wrong figure. What it should have read was, that there were 45,000 TCs in 1881 and not 45% TCs of Cyprus population. This was discussed with Insan 2 years ago here cyprus22110-30.html . He should double check on what he read. Did it say 45% or 45,000. There is a huge difference between the two figures that DTA should realise where he went wrong, or was mislead by the Turkish website..

Table 7. Turkish Cypriot Population, Selected Dates, Sixteenth Century to 1988
Date Population*
Sixteenth century 40,000 to 60,000
Eighteenth century 60,000
1881 45,458
1911 56,428
1921 61,339
1931 64,245
1946 80,548
1960 104,333
1963 120,000
1972 78,000
1978 146,740
1982 152,239
1986 162,676
1988 167,256

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cyprus/cy_appen.html

[DTA]

I am a little perplexed by the reaction to these comments. So I will offer my opinion, and it is only my opinion so not saying it is correct but here it goes:

Erdogan wants a solution to the cyprus problem so what he has done is this:

he has made the Tcs more willing to compromise by cutting our budget at a time when the the Turkish economy is doing well compared to a lot of other economies, he had no reason to do this at the moment if he didn't want a solution, because Turkeys economy is at the moment (and hopefully in the future as well) in the accendancy. So if partition was what he wanted he would have increased the the TRNC budget to make us less likely to compromise.

But this has led to the GCs being in a position of power in the negotiations.

So to balance this power he has made the statement that if an agreement is not reached by by 2012 then the he will try for the recognition of the TRNC, thus putting pressure on both sides to be willing to compromise.

He has also stated that the solution (reached in 2012) will follow a BBF with political equality, which is what we both want no? so what's the problem?

like I said that is my opinion and it could be wrong but that is may take on it.

Both sides should compromise or both will lose.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us DTA.
That's what we all do here after all.

Of course many posts passed after yours above, so i think I am a bit of late in saying anything other than general comments on what was said afterwards
a)There are a LOT of biased papers/information everywhere. Many people fall victims of those biased papers because they have no way to check their integrity. There is only one way to get protected. By knowing the FACTS in advance through extensive reading and cross-reference. Kikapu is one of the few people in here who still does cross reference. In the past I was also doing that but i got tired. We had another guy here called "kifeas" who was doing cross reference also, and every day coming here almost furious against some journalists (usually Turkish) and the lies they were spreading around. He also got tired and left the forum.

Let me give you one example, the one you said about the Anan Plan that the Kypreos residing in the TCCS were supposed not to be allowed to have a (3rd?) child. I am sure you fell victim of one of those Greek or Kypreos propagandists who would use every lie possible to make the Anan Plan look as bad as possible. Don't get me wrong here, the Anan Plan was bad indeed, but when a read a few sites/journalists using lies to prove it, i knew immediately they were biased so i stopped reading them anymore.
So what was the real truth behind the propaganda you 've read? According to the Anan Plan the Kypreos residing in ANY area (village or town) in the TCCS should not exceed 10% of the population(that percentage would increase every year by 1% coming to a maximum of 30% I think.. Lets take for example a small village of 200 inhabitants and the initial percentage of 10%. The maximum number of Kypreos could only be 20.Suppose those 20 were 4 families and each family had a husband, a wife, 2 children and 2 elderly grandparents. What would happen if there was a new child?? immediately the quota of 10% would be violated.The truth is the Anan plan did not give any answer.
So what you 've read was clearly propaganda.

The same goes for the 45% you 've read somewhere. Kikapu was right when he told you it was not 45% but around 30%, but that was actually counted as a MUSLIM population. Both the Christians and the Muslims did not get any preferential treatment from the British in 1878, yet after the British took over the number of MUSLIMS got very rapidly reduced. To avoid the risk of telling me I am biased you may find more information about this and many other issues at "the Cyprus conflict" web site, which is acknowledged by many as being neutral. You will realize it yourself too that it is really unbiased after you do some reading.

I will try and find the links for you and revert asap.

Hi Pyro, how's it going? If I remember correctly I signed up to this forum to respond to a very good thread that you started.

I'm not saying that the 45% is accurate i just don't know, plus icant read Turkish that well so that also complicates it also, because although it did say the that 45% of the population was tc, the site could easily be full of shit and because of my limited Turkish I can't tell.

Anyway this thread has gone on off on a tangent,

[Viewpoint]

Kikapu and his blind followers have this knack of deflecting the real subject with a load of verbal diarrhea.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu and his blind followers have this knack of deflecting the real subject with a load of verbal diarrhea.

I think you forgot to add this to your post.

Table 7. Turkish Cypriot Population, Selected Dates, Sixteenth Century to 1988
Date Population*
Sixteenth century 40,000 to 60,000
Eighteenth century 60,000
1881 45,458
1911 56,428
1921 61,339
1931 64,245
1946 80,548
1960 104,333
1963 120,000
1972 78,000
1978 146,740
1982 152,239
1986 162,676
1988 167,256

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cyprus/cy_appen.html

[Viewpoint]

Kikapu and his blind followers have this knack of deflecting the real subject with a load of verbal diarrhea.

I think you forgot to add this to your post.

Table 7. Turkish Cypriot Population, Selected Dates, Sixteenth Century to 1988
Date Population*
Sixteenth century 40,000 to 60,000
Eighteenth century 60,000
1881 45,458
1911 56,428
1921 61,339
1931 64,245
1946 80,548
1960 104,333
1963 120,000
1972 78,000
1978 146,740
1982 152,239
1986 162,676
1988 167,256

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cyprus/cy_appen.html

The figures supplied by the GCs are flawed;


Year Entire Island GCs % TCs % Total %
1978 616 501,3 81 146,74 24 105
1980 627 513,3 82
1982 640 524,6 82 152,24 24 106
1984 657 538,4 82
1986 673 550,9 82 162,68 24 106
1988 688 562,7 82 167,26 24 106

[Kikapu]

Kikapu and his blind followers have this knack of deflecting the real subject with a load of verbal diarrhea.

I think you forgot to add this to your post.

Table 7. Turkish Cypriot Population, Selected Dates, Sixteenth Century to 1988
Date Population*
Sixteenth century 40,000 to 60,000
Eighteenth century 60,000
1881 45,458
1911 56,428
1921 61,339
1931 64,245
1946 80,548
1960 104,333
1963 120,000
1972 78,000
1978 146,740
1982 152,239
1986 162,676
1988 167,256

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cyprus/cy_appen.html

The figures supplied by the GCs are flawed;


Year Entire Island GCs % TCs % Total %
1978 616 501,3 81 146,74 24 105
1980 627 513,3 82
1982 640 524,6 82 152,24 24 106
1984 657 538,4 82
1986 673 550,9 82 162,68 24 106
1988 688 562,7 82 167,26 24 106

Err, those above numbers from 1978 to 1988 are supplied by the north to Library of Congress, which are very much rubbish numbers.

Before 1960, it was the British who supplied those numbers, so where does the "flawed" GC numbers come to play?