Cyprus-Forum.com

[bill cobbett]

The exceptionally naughty word that was used in London starts with a W.

Thankfully, haven't heard it used for a very long time.

[repulsewarrior]

The exceptionally naughty word that was used in London starts with a W.

Thankfully, haven't heard it used for a very long time.

...oh yes, forgot about that one.

[kurupetos]

The exceptionally naughty word that was used in London starts with a W.

Thankfully, haven't heard it used for a very long time.

...oh yes, forgot about that one.

Forgot? I thought that was your middle name.

[bill cobbett]

Are the N word, the C word and the W word still in current usage by you Foul-mouthed Fascists, Toffoui...???

[Get Real!]

Warren Mitchell would go on about "Coons" in "Till Death Us Do Part" episodes all the time!

[Lordo]

here is the man, a real gem, a real human being.

[kurupetos]

Are the N word, the C word and the W word still in current usage by you Foul-mouthed Fascists, Toffoui...???

I am only a fussist, goblin.

[yialousa1971]

[Paphitis]

Ah the power of denial generating another conspiracy theory.

And I am sure that the Referendum officials were illiterate and were unable to read the NO cards accidentally placed in the YES box and the YES cards accidentally placed in the NO boxes by the stupid public!

They would have had independent scrutineers too. Maybe they were also illiterate.

[erolz66]

Firstly - apologies for taking so long in posting this continuation of the 'discussion' - I was somewhat delayed by having been banned for a month from the forum for (allegedly) trolling !

The data simply proves what I said - that the "N" word was still very much in use some two decades ago. And lo and behold, it's still in use and at a much higher frequency in print than I expected. Wow!

Once more you simply change what it is you originally said. What you originally said 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).

The context of you original argument was all about WHEN the word nigger went from 'routine' usage to being 'taboo'. You placed this at 20 years ago or less, so from 1994 onwards. The claim, as far as the date for this change being 20 years ago, was just plain wrong and based purely on your own prejudices and desire to portray the UK in a negative light.

It is about WHEN this transition happened that you were and are wrong about. The very Wikipedia article you selectively quoted from and blatantly distorted placed the timing of this change as between the 1950's and the 1970's, as has already been shown. The graph I showed above also places it from the 1970's. Here is another graph that shows even more clearly WHEN this transition from 'routine' use of the word to it no longer being so happened. This one charts the frequency of both the word 'nigger' and 'black man' in works published in the UK over time.



This clearly shows WHEN the change in usage of the word nigger (in print) occurred in the UK. Not only does it show the transition started to happen in the early 1960 and was complete by the early 70's (as also shown by the previous graph and claimed in the Wikipedia article), it also shows that NOTHING significant happened from 1994 or later.

So you were wrong in your original assertion by about 20-25 years as to WHEN the usage of the word nigger in the UK changed from routine to taboo. All the evidence shows you are wrong and yet you continue to deny you are wrong despite all the evidence. No big deal really. Except your behaviour since having this pointed out is a classic example of the kind of behaviour you have been in engaged in for over 10 years. It shows so clearly how you care nothing for real objective truth and only care for trying to support you own prejudice views regardless of and despite any evidence to the contrary. Since I pointed out that your claim was not correct you have :-

Taken two quotes from the wikipeida article out of all of their original context in order to purposely distort them to try and make out they support you claim, all whilst ignoring what the article actually says that clearly contradicts you claim of WHEN the change happened in the UK.

Tried to change what you originally said to something different - eight times.

Tried to make out that I said it was acceptable to call a dog 'nigger' itself a total distortion of what I actually said and why I said it - four times.

Tried to attack me as a person and not my arguments - eight times.

Tried to claim I present no evidence but my own experience despite the fact that YOU have presented no evidence other than your own experience and your two out of context distortions from the wikipeida article - four times.

Tried to connected my 'attitude' to the Cyprus problem - three times.

This is exactly what you do. It is what you have been doing consistently for over 10 years now. Objective truth as shown by credible hard evidence means NOTHING to you. Not only is it of no interest when it does not fit your own prejudices and propaganda objectives, it is in fact something you actively have to try and destroy along with anyone who presents such objective truth and evidence for it - as clearly seen in this specific example.

The plain and simple fact is that your claim as to WHEN usage of the word nigger in the UK CHANGED from one state to another was incorrect by around 20- 25 years. The hard impartial credible evidence clearly shows that. You have offered NOTHING in the way of credible counter evidence - just your two blatant distortions from the Wikipedia article - themselves alone classic examples of your willful distortion of truth to serve your propaganda needs. This is what you DO - routinely and have been doing on this forum for 10 years now. You are an enemy of truth.