Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

My neighbor is Scottish. He commented today that whoever thought up the idea of independence had not thought it through. Who am I to disagree with a Scotman on that.

What I thought was reprehensible was how the vast majority of the citizens of Britain were not given a vote on the breakup of their country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a union created under the Scottish origin Stuart dynasty.

[erolz66]

My claim is based on experience. I know what I heard. In order to rubbish it, you need to come up with something more than sheer arrogance and repetition that you are right and I am wrong.

Your claim is based on your personal experience, but my personal experience having grown up and lived in the UK through the period in which the use of the word nigger went from common place to unacceptable , is nothing but arrogance ? Can you even see the irony in you saying that ?

If you think the N word has not been used for more than 40 years, then you are spouting nonsense. Maybe no one used it in your company, if you might be on the dark side.

You claim was

the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK

The claim was that the word nigger was ROUTINELY used LESS than 20 years ago in the UK, so into 1994 and beyond. From my personal experience I know that is utter bollocks. What is more it is also shown to be inaccurate using the very source you subsequently quote in totally distorted ways to try and support this claim.

As recently as the 1950s, it may have been acceptable British usage to say niggers when referring to black people, notable in mainstream usages such as Nigger Boy–brand[citation needed] candy cigarettes, and the color nigger brown or simply nigger (dark brown);[11] however, by the 1970s the term was generally recognized as racist, offensive and potentially illegal along with the unambiguously offensive "nig-nog", and "golliwog".

In the Wikipedia article the date they cite the term as still being 'acceptable' is in the 1950's. They claim that by the 1970's the term was generally recognised as racist, offensive and potentially illegal. This meshes with my own personal experience having lived in the UK through the 70's 80's and 90's. Of course such things are not set in stone with a specific time and date for the day the word generally stop being seen as acceptable, or routinely used. The point is the Wikipedia article it directly at odds with your claim in its overview of the change of usage of the word over time. Yet you ignore that totally and instead take a following section

Agatha Christie's book Ten Little Niggers was first published in London in 1939 and continued to appear under that title until the early 1980s, when it became And Then There Were None.

And try an use this selective part, having totally ignored the part that contradicts your claim, to create an impression that the word nigger was being (routinely) used in the UK in print into the early 80's - as if changing the title of something written IN 1934 is the same as writing something IN the early 1980's and using the word then. You then try an use a further section of the same Wikipedia article, that clearly contradicts your claim and you ignore, to support it, again by using selective editing and taking the section you quote TOTALY out of its original context within the article.

This is what you do GiG, routinely. It is exactly the same with the 'wade verse' and the National Anthem. You post something designed to create a certain impression that suits your propaganda purposes regardless off actual objective reality, in this case an impression that this verse well know (famous) and in current usage as part of the British national anthem. Then you cite a BBC article that itself states in black and white that the verse is 'little know and less used', totally refuting your claim of it being 'famous' and the implication that it was in current usage as part of the British National anthem. Yet you simply ignore the part that refutes your claim, as if it just was not there.

I just do not believe that when you posted "the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK " you had thought about it and considered it from your own experience and believed that the claim of 'less than 20 years ago' was an accurate number of actual reality. I believe that you chose the '20 years' rather than 30 or 35 years, which would be considerably closer to objective reality, because it better suit your propaganda needs at the time you posted and REGARDLESS of what the actual reality was. I think you did so knowing that if you were 'challenged' about it you would do EXACTLY what you have done in this thread, use all your techniques of distortion, exaggeration, taking out of context to try and 'defend' it and all you techniques to attack whoever dared to challenge you over the claim again using distortion of what they say and why they say it. The same with the 'verse'. I do not believe you genuinely believed the verse was widely know (famous) and I think you intentionally worded you post to create an impression that is was still in current usage as part of the British National anthem, knowing that neither thing was true, because it suited you propaganda purposes and regardless of the actual truth.

I believe this because I have watched you routinely do this kind of thing over and over and over again over a period of 10 years. As far as I am concerned you simply have no interest or regard for actual truth and reality at all. None. As far as I am concerned the only thing that matters to you is the creation of impressions that suit your propaganda needs regardless of actual truth and reality. It is almost like you see it as some kind of duty to create certain impressions regardless of actual reality. Inevitably you will just try and accuse me of the same thing, for this is standard practice for you when challenged , but I KNOW absolutely this is not true for me and that I do have a genuine and real regard and interest in the truth even when that truth does not suit me and as for others I am happy to 'let them make up their own minds'.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Get over yourself. The fact that this term can be racist has been accepted for decades, but it did not stop people using it (not even nowadays). However, it's become more important for you to twist and turn until you can find some angle to sound believable without evidence - You cannot accept that someone else could have a different experience or opinion from you. Even telling me what my friends know of the National Anthem. You are the pinnacle example of those who see themselves as right and others wrong. There is no irony other than in your niggardly persistence in trying to shout others down.

With each post, it is your arrogance and intolerance at the forefront. Sadly, it is reminiscent of the attitudes displayed by the TCs who have been complicit in the removal of the 200,000 GCs from their homes.

But then, it's probably your annoyance that Scottish independence was turned down and your last (but false) hope of splitting Cyprus has been shattered - since, clearly you have nothing to add of interest - and now you have gone off the rails with this show of displacement behaviour.

[erolz66]

Get over yourself. The fact that this term can be racist has been accepted for decades, but it did not stop people using it (not even nowadays).

Your claim was that the term was ROUTINELY used in the UK in 1994 and later. Do we have to start discussing now what routinely means ?

However, it's become more important for you to twist and turn until you can find some angle to sound believable without evidence -

The evidence that the term nigger was no longer ROUTINELY used in the UK in 1994 and later is in the very source you so blatantly distorted. Do I have to quote it AGAIN ?

You cannot accept that someone else could have a different experience or opinion from you.

You did not present your claim that the word nigger was routinely used in the UK in 'your personal experience' - you stated it as a plain fact true of the entire UK up to 1994 and later.

Even telling me what my friends know of the National Anthem.

You did not present your claim about the verse as 'famous amongst your friends or some people' you stated it as just being famous. It simply just is NOT famous, as the very source you used clearly states in black and white.

You are the pinnacle example of those who see themselves as right and others wrong. There is no irony other than in your niggardly persistence in trying to shout others down.

No I am someone who believes that there is such things as right and wrong. I know I am often wrong. Just as I know your assertion that the word nigger was routinely used in the UK into 1994 and later is wrong. Just as I know that making out that the 'wade verse' was 'famous' is wrong.

With each post, it is your arrogance and intolerance at the forefront.

Yes I am intolerant of the way you routinely blatantly distort reality and truth to suit your agenda. As for arrogance, I think you mistake me clearly and logically showing how you do this with evidence and examples with arrogance. Of course nothing you post could ever be interpreted as being 'arrogant'. No one could accuse you of being a 'pinnacle example of those who see themselves as right and others wrong' could they ?

Sadly, it is reminiscent of the attitudes displayed by the TCs who have been complicit in the removal of the 200,000 GCs from their homes.

Another display of the 'techniques' you routinely use in posts like these and have done for at least 10 years now.

But then, it's probably your annoyance that Scottish independence was turned down and your last (but false) hope of splitting Cyprus has been shattered .

So ridiculous that it does not warrant comment.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Your claim was that the term was ROUTINELY used in the UK ...

In conversation or are you trying to make out it was used on the BBC News to refer to people?
Keep twisting and chopping - that's ALL you can do.

But then, it's probably your annoyance that Scottish independence was turned down and your last (but false) hope of splitting Cyprus has been shattered .

So ridiculous that it does not warrant comment.

Just as I thought - keep attacking people and chopping quotes and avoid dealing with in-thread topics that reveal your weaknesses and the truth behind your anger!

[GreekIslandGirl]

What I thought was reprehensible was how the vast majority of the citizens of Britain were not given a vote on the breakup of their country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a union created under the Scottish origin Stuart dynasty.

I've heard that argument too but it wouldn't make sense. What's under discussion with the future independence of Scotland (now deferred) is their readiness for freedom and not whether the imperialistic set-up of a "Great Britain" is ready to give up its control. If looking at fairness and rightfulness, should Britain be allowed a vote to say if it deserves to keep the Bases in Cyprus?

[erolz66]

In conversation or are you trying to make out it was used on the BBC News to refer to people?
Keep twisting and chopping - that's ALL you can do.

Your ORGINAL claim said NOTHING about 'in conversation'. Your original claim was

Sotos, I explained that certain terms/names are offensive at different points in history/context (for example, the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo). I wanted to make the point about the possible reason for the article-writer discriminating by calling the victim-woman an "Ottoman" and the murderous-man "Turk".

You only added the 'in conversation' later. So who here is really twisting and chopping ?

But then, it's probably your annoyance that Scottish independence was turned down and your last (but false) hope of splitting Cyprus has been shattered .

So ridiculous that it does not warrant comment.

Just as I thought - keep attacking people and chopping quotes and avoid dealing with in-thread topics that reveal your weaknesses and the truth behind your anger!

The above original statement is based on assumptions that are totally 'made up' and only in your head. The assumption that I 'wanted a yes vote'. The assumption that I was / am 'annoyed' at the result of the Scottish vote. The assumption that I wanted a yes vote because you say I believe it would further the notion of a legally separated Cyprus. The assumption that I am 'angry'. All of these are things you have simple made up in your head, based on who knows what other than your own prejudices. What you do here is just yet another well known and well documented 'technique' - a slight variant of the old and boring technique of 'loaded question' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question) or in this case 'loaded statement that begs a reply'. That is why I said the statement was so ridiculous that it does not warrant a reply, because it is, being ' pre loaded' with false assumption after false assumption as it is.

[GreekIslandGirl]

The context of my post with Sotos had nothing to do with you. As soon as you intervened (with nothing better to do), I immediately made the context clear to you and offered further clarification to do with its use in print.

There are examples of its use far later than the 90s. There are examples of politicians using it in phrases in public. Of course the N word can be used in a racist way (or in a friendly way among kin) - but you are not interested in the slightly more interesting debate on when and how it differs in usage - no - you are interested in telling me it's no longer used, since the 1940s - when anyone who has spent any time with English people will tell you it not only was routinely used until a few decades ago, but it is still in use (admittedly in a guarded way) to this day.

Your audacity went so far as to suggest your experience was better than mine; to assert that your knowledge of what my circles knew regarding the national anthem was more reliable than mine even though you posted a link that seemed oblivious to the full length of the anthem as your 'evidence'!

As usual, you butt into ongoing discussions between other posters and lift something based on your OWN assumptions and make a mess of any thread. You do not contribute in any meaningful way but want to shout down the opinions and evidence produced by others with nothing more 'substantial' than your own pure 'expert' opinion and sheer superior arrogance.

Maybe you are a big fish in a little pond, stuck in the turkish occupied areas with nothing else to oil your brain...

[erolz66]

The context of my post with Sotos had nothing to do with you. As soon as you intervened (with nothing better to do), I immediately made the context clear to you and offered further clarification to do with its use in print.

No you did not. You tried to defend the original statement by taking sections of the Wikipedia article out of their context and by distorting their meaning, introducing a 'refinement' of usage in print and in speech. You did not just say my original statement, even though it did not say so and was posted in the context of a discussion of the changing meaning of words in print, actually meant to say 'in conversation' only. It is all there in black and white.

Your audacity went so far as to suggest your experience was better than mine; to assert that your knowledge of what my circles knew regarding the national anthem was more reliable than mine even though you posted a link that seemed oblivious to the full length of the anthem as your 'evidence'!

Again your assertion was NOT that the 'verse' was famous amongst your circle of friends but just that it was famous. You did not say, "well though I did not originally post it, what I actual meant to say was 'famous amongst my circle of friends'. What you actually did was try and defend the original statement BECAUSE it was famous amongst your circle of friends as if that was proof that it was generically famous in the face of the evidence of the article YOU quotred that described it as 'little know'. Again it is all there in black and white.

As usual, you butt into ongoing discussions between other posters and lift something based on your OWN assumptions and make a mess of any thread. You do not contribute in any meaningful way but want to shout down the opinions and evidence produced by others with nothing more 'substantial' than your own pure 'expert' opinion and sheer superior arrogance.

Maybe you are a big fish in a little pond, stuck in the turkish occupied areas with nothing else to oil your brain...

As usual when you have no where left to go re the argument in hand you resort to 'personal attack'.

The fact is In both cases I presented independent evidence that contradicted your original assertions from a source you yourself had quoted from. It is all there in black and white. It is the 'expert opinion' of the Wikipedia source you choose to quote from (in a totally distorted manner) that shows your claim that the word nigger was routinely used in the UK in 1994 and later is not true. It is the 'expert opinion' of the BBC article you choose to quote from that shows the verse was 'little know' in contrast to your claim that it was 'famous'.

[GreekIslandGirl]

I think you have reached the end of your spinning, twirling and mixing up of who said what to whom and your confabulations are so far removed from reality that they only exemplify how much you actually misunderstood (intentionally or due to Asperger's?) - including faulty deductions from the examples in print via wiki.

It's now looking like you're trying to bury your stupidity regarding the national anthem verses and also your condoning of the use of "Nigger" as a suitable name for a dog.

There's no point continuing to waste time with you and I stand by my experience that certain words become taboo at different times and yet might still be used in certain contexts and by different groups, either to be offensive or friendly depending on the social distance of the speaker/writer to his/her audience.