Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

I'm also not interested in this aside remark on the N word usage I made to Sotos that had some relevance to a previous post of his.

I am not interested In showing that your claim that 'the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo' was out by more than 20 years. What I am interested in is the way you systematically and routinely over more than 10 years first distort objective reality to suit your own personal prejudices and then how you behave when challenged about such distortions. Thank you for helping me to so clearly demonstrate this, there's a good girl.

[Lordo]

it is not easy being griik and having the complexes that it entails. i am afraid this is life.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Oh, now you are not "interested"!

- A preference for generalised accusations has set in now you have learned some basic English and seen the error-lz66, of your "methods".

[erolz66]

Oh, now you are not "interested"!

- A preference for generalised accusations has set in now you have learned some basic English and seen the error-lz66, of your "methods".

My methods are clearly shown in this thread and typical of them generally across my time in this forum for all to see just as yours are GiG. That is the whole point.

Reason, logic, evidence - these are my methods. Distortion, distraction, exaggeration,re writing history (even when its only a few days old), ad hominem attacks - these are your methods. It's all there in this single 'discussion' for all to see.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Yes, your "methods" are scattered over many pages, here and on other threads, and linked by a constant malevolent theme. I think those methods are now obvious as not too different to those practiced by warmongering Turkey in securing self-aggrandizing ill-gotten "gains".

[erolz66]

Yes, your "methods" are scattered over many pages, here and on other threads, and linked by a constant malevolent theme. I think those methods are now obvious as not too different to those practiced by warmongering Turkey in securing self-aggrandizing ill-gotten "gains".

Distortion, distraction, exaggeration, re writing history, ad hominem attacks - yep you managed to pack every one into just two sentences. Well done and thanks again for continuing to demonstrate so clearly the very thing I seek to highlight about your behaviour here.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Yes, your "methods" are scattered over many pages, here and on other threads, and linked by a constant malevolent theme. I think those methods are now obvious as not too different to those practiced by warmongering Turkey in securing self-aggrandizing ill-gotten "gains".

Distortion, distraction, exaggeration, re writing history, ad hominem attacks - yep you managed to pack every one into just two sentences. Well done and thanks again for continuing to demonstrate so clearly the very thing I seek to highlight about your behaviour here.

Hmm....

You have (inadvertently) highlighted a lot for us!

Now, SEEK help for that condition!

[Sotos]

I'm also not interested in this aside remark on the N word usage I made to Sotos that had some relevance to a previous post of his.

I am not interested In showing that your claim that 'the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK and now it is taboo' was out by more than 20 years. What I am interested in is the way you systematically and routinely over more than 10 years first distort objective reality to suit your own personal prejudices and then how you behave when challenged about such distortions. Thank you for helping me to so clearly demonstrate this, there's a good girl.

Reason, logic, evidence - these are my methods.

What appears to be your method is finding some minor detail... which apparently you are not even interested in (!!!)... and try to prove that your "opponent" is wrong in that minor detail hoping that in this way you can discredit somebody that you don't like. The reasoning "If member X is proven wrong about minor detail Y, then member X must be wrong about everything" is not a valid one. That is almost as bad as trying to discredit what somebody said because they made a grammatical error... which is actually what GiG tried to do when we argued some time ago

[erolz66]

What appears to be your method is finding some minor detail... which apparently you are not even interested in (!!!)... and try to prove that your "opponent" is wrong in that minor detail hoping that in this way you can discredit somebody that you don't like. The reasoning "If member X is proven wrong about minor detail Y, then member X must be wrong about everything" is not a valid one. That is almost as bad as trying to discredit what somebody said because they made a grammatical error... which is actually what GiG tried to do when we argued some time ago

I have taken a single example of what GiG does because it is typical of a consistent pattern I have witnessed from her for over 10 years now. I do not dislike her, I dislike the way she will take something that is true (in this example that the usage of the word nigger in the UK transitioned from 'routine' to 'taboo') and then distort it to suit her own prejudices (that this transition occurred in the UK from 1994 onwards). I dislike the way she then behaves when anyone dares to challenge such distortions. This is one single example but it is indicative of a consistent pattern over years of posting here. She is not wrong about everything and I do not seek to discredit her but I do seek to discredit this consistent pattern of behaviour because it warrants such in my opinion.

[Sotos]

What appears to be your method is finding some minor detail... which apparently you are not even interested in (!!!)... and try to prove that your "opponent" is wrong in that minor detail hoping that in this way you can discredit somebody that you don't like. The reasoning "If member X is proven wrong about minor detail Y, then member X must be wrong about everything" is not a valid one. That is almost as bad as trying to discredit what somebody said because they made a grammatical error... which is actually what GiG tried to do when we argued some time ago

I have taken a single example of what GiG does because it is typical of a consistent pattern I have witnessed from her for over 10 years now. I do not dislike her, I dislike the way she will take something that is true (in this example that the usage of the word nigger in the UK transitioned from 'routine' to 'taboo') and then distort it to suit her own prejudices (that this transition occurred in the UK from 1994 onwards). I dislike the way she then behaves when anyone dares to challenge such distortions. This is one single example but it is indicative of a consistent pattern over years of posting here. She is not wrong about everything and I do not seek to discredit her but I do seek to discredit this consistent pattern of behaviour because it warrants such in my opinion.

OK .. but if you couldn't find anything more important to argue with her then it seems you agree with her more often than I do And to argue for several pages about something minor you are not even really interested in just trying to prove somebody wrong shows that you must dislike that person a lot