Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Scottish Referendum Video Provokes Claims From Cybernats That Vote Was Rigged
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09 ... 47854.html

Scottish referendum: Suspected electoral fraud in Glasgow probed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-29264151

Russia cries foul over Scottish independence vote
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... referendum

Police Probe Glasgow Voter Fraud Allegations
http://news.sky.com/story/1338354/polic ... llegations

[erolz66]

And what evidence do you have that it wasn't phased out some 20 years ago? In fact, I know one (very posh) family who use it routinely to this day! Keep making stuff up, Werlitzer.

What evidence do I have that your claim that the "N" word was still routinely used less than 20 years ago in the UK' is in fact total bollocks ?

Other than the fact than ANYONE who has lived in the UK during the 60s,70s,80s and 90, as I have, will tell you it is bollocks to claim the word nigger was ROUTINELY used in the UK in 1994 and later ? What evidence other than that you mean ? Well how about the evidence of the wiki article you selectively and out of context quoted from yourself ?

As recently as the 1950s, it (word nigger) 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".

Your claim that it was 'routinely used' in the UK as recently as 1994 and later is clearly contradicted by the above - the very same source you then use in selective, distorted and out of context ways to try and support your bollocks politically motivated claim.

What evidence do I have that you actively distort, exaggerate and take things out of context when it suits your propaganda needs to do so ? The evidence is right here in this very thread in your pathetic attempts to try and justify your claim using omission, exaggeration distortion and taking things out of context. Techniques you ROUTINLEY use to support your propaganda objectives. Lets have look at them in this case in detail.

You claim here, citing the very article that already totally contradicts your absurd assertion and that by omission you fail to acknowledge, that

The N word in print was only tackled not long before people stopped using it in conversation, for example:

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.

You make out that up to the early 1980s in the UK in print it was routine (common - normal) to use the word nigger and around this time and onwards it started to not be routine in print and some time (from 1994 onwards) in speech either. But the example you quote was not WRITTEN in the mid 1980s - it was written in 1939. The fact is that the word nigger was so generally and widely unacceptable in the UK by the early 1980s than not only would you NOT find it in text written IN the early 1980s in any frequency even remotely close to 'routinely' even the publishers of a famous book written 40 years earlier felt it necessary to CHANGE the title of that book. So what you actually cite, rather than supporting your absurd claim actually just shows how absurd it is. Not only was the word nigger so generally unacceptable in the UK by the early 1980's that it was NOT routinely used in print, it was even so unacceptable that a book with the word in its title was CHANGED by it's publishers. All 10 years BEFORE your claim of when the word stopped being 'routinely' used.

The above is a classic example of how you distort the reality described in the Wikipedia article to suit your propaganda needs regardless of actual objective reality. And then you go and do it again selectively quoting out of all context

In 1999, the British television network ITV broadcast a censored version with each of the twelve utterances of Nigger deleted.

Your implication being that it was as late as 1999 that the word nigger was edited out of old movies. Yet the context of this entry in Wikipedia is that in this film made IN the 1940s the word nigger is used in reference NOT to a person but to a Labrador dog and as a mission code word. The entry is all about how an over zealous employee without the authority to do so edited out the word and how ITV subsequently had to admit that it was done in error and should not have been done and would not be done in the future. So far from this being an example of when the word was generally starting to become unacceptable in the UK it is actually and example of how the word had become so unacceptable that an ITV employees edited it out of a 1940s movie when he should not have even done so because it is not used to refer to a person at all.

The above is another classic example of how you twist and distort and take out of context a reality to suit your propaganda objectives / lies.

And then you go and do it all over again with regard to the alleged verse in the British National anthem. Your original claim was

And let not the Scots forget the British National Anthem's famous cry ....

Firstly to claim this verse is famous is total distortion. Probably one Briton in 1000 even knows of its existence. 1 in 1 million may have ever sung it or heard it sung in their lives. To call it 'famous' is just distortion to meet you propaganda needs. Secondly you make out that it is today a part of the British National anthem as used today. This is clearly not true. As they very article you cite clearly shows.

The little-known and even less-sung sixth verse of God Save the Queen

It is simply absurd to claim that a verse that is "little-known and even less-sung" is "famous", though of course this is irrelevant to you and your propaganda needs. Accepting it is "little-known and even less-sung" simply does not meet your propaganda needs so you simply change "little-known and even less-sung" into "famous" which does meet your needs.

This use of such 'techniques' of omission, distortion, exaggeration and taking out of context to present impressions that have nothing to do with objective reality and everything to do with supporting your propaganda needs, is something you do consistently and have done persistently over at least 10 years I have watched you post on this forum.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Werlitzer, you clearly have a lot of time on your hands, but even then, you have found nothing to disprove what I said. Just because the "N" word might be racist, it doesn't disprove the fact that it was routinely used in conversation when discussing Black people or even black "dogs" - and as shown, the word even appeared in print and was not removed (for whatever reason/reference) until a few decades ago.

And as for the famously offensive lines against Scots, in the British National Anthem: they are famous in my circles. Perhaps you simply mix with Sassenachs who know no more than "God save the Queen".

[GreekIslandGirl]

Interesting attitudes to the result. The English government is now following democracy (rightly) based on an overwhelming majority of 55% voting for .... enosis .... of Scotland and England.

As per usual everything is fucked up in your pin head!

There is ONLY ONE fucked up pin head on this forum, or indeed in the whole of Cyprus.
Our resident psychopath, the intellectual.. dwarf!! The G reatest R evolting piece of Scata

Just pointing out the perpetual hypocrisy practiced by Colonial masters. Suddenly 55% is an overwhelming majority Enough to force enosis forever more between two different peoples.

The English government couldn't stop telling us it's "BETTER TOGETHER!"

And yet, "BETTER TOGETHER was denied to the Greek people and Cyprus, despite the truly overwhelming majority desire.

[miltiades]

Interesting attitudes to the result. The English government is now following democracy (rightly) based on an overwhelming majority of 55% voting for .... enosis .... of Scotland and England.

As per usual everything is fucked up in your pin head!

There is ONLY ONE fucked up pin head on this forum, or indeed in the whole of Cyprus.
Our resident psychopath, the intellectual.. dwarf!! The G reatest R evolting piece of Scata

Just pointing out the perpetual hypocrisy practiced by Colonial masters. Suddenly 55% is an overwhelming majority Enough to force enosis forever more between two different peoples.

The English government couldn't stop telling us it's "BETTER TOGETHER!"

And yet, "BETTER TOGETHER was denied to the Greek people and Cyprus, despite the truly overwhelming majority desire.

The British were and still are Diplo mates !! As recently as last year David Cameron made a speech on the anniversary of the Falklands war stating passionately that Britain would defend the right of the Falklanders to determine their ..... own destiny! A right that millions of people the world over were denied by Britain. Hypocrisy at its highest level. It seems to me that the only people worthy of this right are those that Britain approves of. Much has to be learned by the average Brit, who on the whole swallow whatever the BBC tells them. How dare they call the Cypriot struggle against occupation a terrorist movement !!

[Get Real!]

And yet, "BETTER TOGETHER was denied to the Greek people and Cyprus, despite the truly overwhelming majority desire.

Not interested in enosis with fleabags so fuck off already you treasonous cow!

[erolz66]

Werlitzer, you clearly have a lot of time on your hands, but even then, you have found nothing to disprove what I said. Just because the "N" word might be racist, it doesn't disprove the fact that it was routinely used in conversation when discussing Black people or even black "dogs" - and as shown, the word even appeared in print and was not removed (for whatever reason/reference) until a few decades ago.

Again you just prove your determination to distort the truth of the source you use for propaganda needs, a source that also explicitly refutes you claim, a fact which you just ignore. That the word was the title of a Book written in 1934 and used in a film made in 1940 to refer to a dog and not a person in no way what so ever proves your assertion that the word was 'routinely' used , be it in print or in everyday speech. That you can continue to try and insist that the CHANGING of the name of a book in the early 1980 that was WRITTEN in 1934 is the same as some using the word nigger in reference to a black person in print in something WRITTEN in the early 1980's just shows exactly the kind of distortion you specialise when trying to support you propaganda nonsense.

And as for the famously offensive lines against Scots, in the British National Anthem: they are famous in my circles. Perhaps you simply mix with Sassenachs who know no more than "God save the Queen".

Sure it may be famous in YOUR circles, just as you may well have (posh) people 'you know' who to this day routinely refer to black people as niggers. The fact is that it is a "little-known and even less-sung sixth verse of God Save the Queen" both In England as well as Scotland. Your motivation for presenting it as a genericaly 'famous' verse and with an implication it was a current and used part of the British National Anthem had nothing to do with factual objective truth and reality and everything to do with pushing your propaganda view based on your own prejudices.

Same old same old.

[erolz66]

Just pointing out the perpetual hypocrisy practiced by Colonial masters. Suddenly 55% is an overwhelming majority Enough to force enosis forever more between two different peoples.

The English government couldn't stop telling us it's "BETTER TOGETHER!"

And yet, "BETTER TOGETHER was denied to the Greek people and Cyprus, despite the truly overwhelming majority desire.

And again with your propaganda distortions.

For the recent vote to be comparable to all Cypriots voting re enosis, it would have meant not JUST the scots voting for independence, but the entire UK population. If there had been an equivalent vote in Cyprus to what just occurred in Scotland, then it would have been for ONLY TC to vote on if they wanted to union witrh Greece, be independent or union with Turkey, as a separate people from Greeks or Greek Cypriots that wanted to be Greek.

A more accurate 'comparison' would be if the UK decided it wanted to become a part of the USA, and 98% of all Scots where vehemently opposed to this, and yet forced to accept it without any regard for their wishes by an English majority that wanted it. That would actually be a 'fair' comparison - try telling that to your many Scottish friends, that actually they could be forced to unite their homeland with a foreign country against their will and with no say so because there are less of them than there are of the English and this is what democracy demands.

[GreekIslandGirl]

You are still spinning round in circles, Werlitzer.

Distortions? It was you who tried to deny those lines even existed with some ignorant link - and now you want to argue what "famous" means to you? Basically, if you haven't heard it then it cannot be classified as famous.

And then you try to tell us it's acceptable to call a black dog "Nigger". Really?

[erolz66]

Distortions? It was you who tried to deny those lines even existed with some ignorant link - and now you want to argue what "famous" means to you? Basically, if you haven't heard it then it cannot be classified as famous.

I provided a link which if you actually read it is in fact entirely credible, producing scans of the original publication from the 1750's where the verse is first referred to, to make it clear that the TRUTH was far from your propaganda portrayal. No where did I or the link I provide state the verse never existed - your claim above that I did is yet ANOTHER example of your blatant distortions of truth to serve your propaganda needs.

And more 'distortion' - when you make out I am saying that I consider it not famous simply because I had not personally heard of it, when in fact it is YOUR OWN SOURCE that describes it as 'little known'. THAT is what shows your claim of it being famous as being fatuous, not if I personally had heard of it myself or not - as you try and now distortingly claim.

And then you try to tell us it's acceptable to call a black dog "Nigger". Really?

And ANOTHER blatant distortion of truth. Where have I said it is acceptable to today decide to call your black dog nigger ? That I pointed out that an ITV employee that mistaken edited out such a dog name in the early 1990's on a film MADE in the 1940's is not, as you tried to make out, proof that the word nigger was routinely used in print in the UK in the 1980s or 1990s, is not really the same as saying it is acceptable to today name your black dog nigger, is it now ?

You remind me of a variant of an old joke. How can you tell when GiG is distorting, exaggerating, using omission and out of context quoting to pervert actual reality for her propaganda needs ? When her lips move (or in this case when ever she posts).