Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

... 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 ....

Tut, tut, tut ... here you go again!

Where did I say it was routinely used in print?

[erolz66]

... 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 ....

Tut, tut, tut ... here you go again!

Where did I say it was routinely used in print?

Where you said

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

in the context of your prior claim of

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

And here we see just yet one more of your standard 'techniques'. You, having just previously explicitly made 3 claims, in the space of three lines of text, about what I have said in this thread that are just totally and beyond any doubt not things I actually said (that I said the verse did not exist, that I said that because I had not heard of it this was proof it was not famous and that I had said it was acceptable to today name your black dog nigger) and having been 'called out' for these blatant distortions of provable fact, you just ignore all this, make no comment and instead try and make out it is ME that is distorting what you have said. This is classic GiG / Oracle behaviour, shown consistently over 10 years of posting on this forum.

What is really amazing is that you apparently think in your own little fantasy world that you are actually fooling anyone. It seems you really do believe the average reader of your posts is too stupid to be able to see your distortions, exaggerations, omissions and out of contexting used to push your pre conceived and pre defined propaganda lines. Amazing really.

[GreekIslandGirl]

So, in the most roundabout way possible, you look like you admit I didn't say it was 'routinely used in print' . However, you have shown us how you have made your OWN assumptions, choosing to believe what you want to believe and not what is communicated.

...the word nigger is used in reference NOT to a person but to a Labrador dog...

Oh, that must be OK, then. Was it a golden labrador?


As I said, you are a spin merchant, Werlitzer!

[erolz66]

So, in the most roundabout way possible, you look like you admit I didn't say it was 'routinely used in print' . However, you have shown us how you have made your OWN assumptions, choosing to believe what you want to believe and not what is communicated.

I admit you did not post it word for word as 'routinely used in print', because unlike you I do not simply deny and ignore provable fact. However it is CLEAR that in the context of the discussion of your claim that nigger was routinely used in the UK into the 1990's when you said "The N word in print was only tackled not long before people stopped using it in conversation, for example:" you were claiming, that first it use was curtailed in print and then soon after in conversation. Just as it is CLEAR the reason why you made this 'refinement' of your original claim was just so you could use the totally distorted and out of context 'for example' that follows.

...the word nigger is used in reference NOT to a person but to a Labrador dog...

Oh, that must be OK, then. Was it a golden labrador?

With every post you make you just prove the very allegation I make against you with increasing clarity. The above quote is CLEARLY taken totally out of its context and edited down to create an IMPRESSION that it is my own personal view that it is ok for someone today to name their dog nigger. An impression that is totally and demonstrably untrue if you look at the full text of what I said

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.

In it's full context it is absolutely clear that it was not ME who is saying that it is ok to today name a dog 'nigger'. It is also clear that it was not even ITV executives who said then it is ok to name a dog nigger. It is clear that ITV executives took a view that editing a movie MADE in the 1940's to remove the use of the word nigger, when the word was not used in reference to a person but a dog was unnecessary and a mistake.

Let us not forget WHY I had to point all of the above out in the first place. I had to point all of the above out because of your previous total distortion of what was in the source wiki text, distorted to suit your propaganda needs. YOU first quoted the wiki text out of all its context in the form

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

This was your original quote from the Wikipedia article, complete with an underlining of 1999 that you added and is not in the source. You used this totally out of context and partial quote to create an IMPRESSION that it was as late as 1999 that TV executives started to consider the word nigger so offensive that they should bleep it out of screenings of old movies, with the implication being that before this point in time they had no such concerns. No mention in your quote of what it was they censored (a film made in the 1940's). No mention of that censorship being, according to ITV executives, a MISTAKE done by an over zealous employee who should not have done it. No mention of the fact that the use of the word in this 1940's made film was not in reference to a black person but in fact to a black dog. None of that is mentioned by you because none of it fitted your propaganda need to try and create an untrue and factually inaccurate IMPRESSION that it was only by 1999 that TV executives started to worry about the use of word nigger in the content they broadcast. You only have to look at the full section from Wikipedia vs the selective out of context part you quoted to see how massive your distortion is.

Nigger was the name given to a black Labrador dog that belonged to British Royal Air Force Wing Commander Guy Gibson in the 1940s.[38] In the Second World War Gibson led the successful Operation Chastise attack on dams in Germany. The dog's name was used as a single codeword whose transmission conveyed that the Möhne dam had been breached. In the 1955 film The Dam Busters about the raid the dog's name and codeword were mentioned several times.

Some of the scenes in which the dog's name is uttered were later shown in the 1982 film Pink Floyd The Wall.[39]

In 1999, the British television network ITV broadcast a censored version with each of the twelve[40] utterances of Nigger deleted. Replying to complaints against its censorship, ITV blamed the regional broadcaster, London Weekend Television, which, in turn, blamed a junior employee as the unauthorised censor. In June 2001, when ITV re-broadcast the censored version of The Dam Busters, the Index on Censorship criticised it as "unnecessary and ridiculous" censorship breaking the continuity of the film and the story.[41] In January 2012 the film was shown uncensored on ITV4, but with a warning at the start that the film contained racial terms from the historical period which some people could find offensive. Versions of the film edited for US television have the dog's name altered to "Trigger".[40]

When you compare your quoted section with the full in context text you can clearly see your distortion and see why you had to distort what was actually written in order to meet your propaganda need to try and create a totally false impression that before this date of 1999 TV executives did not worry about the word nigger being used in content they broadcast in the UK, to in turn try and support your prior propaganda claim that the word nigger was routinely used in the UK well into the 1990s. That is WHY I pointed out how out of context you selective part was and you THEN use my pointing that out , again via the means of 'selective and out of context quoting' to try and create a totally untrue and false impression that I personally was of the view that it is acceptable today to name your dog nigger.

It just distortion after distortion after distortion with you GiG. Do you REALLY think you are fooling anyone ?

[GreekIslandGirl]

So, in the most roundabout way possible, you look like you admit I didn't say it was 'routinely used in print' . However, you have shown us how you have made your OWN assumptions, choosing to believe what you want to believe and not what is communicated.

I admit you did not post it word for word as 'routinely used in print' ...

Thank you. It is in fact "words" we post here.

- Now shut up and stop wasting my time trying to make me show you how each and every one of your suppositions is the product of a reciprocal relationship between your skills with spinning language and your total and utter failure to comprehend context.

[erolz66]

So, in the most roundabout way possible, you look like you admit I didn't say it was 'routinely used in print' . However, you have shown us how you have made your OWN assumptions, choosing to believe what you want to believe and not what is communicated.

I admit you did not post it word for word as 'routinely used in print' ...

Thank you. It is in fact "words" we post here.

That you can say the above having previously claimed I

try to tell us it's acceptable to call a black dog "Nigger".

Just shows what a hypocrite you are.

[GreekIslandGirl]

So, in the most roundabout way possible, you look like you admit I didn't say it was 'routinely used in print' . However, you have shown us how you have made your OWN assumptions, choosing to believe what you want to believe and not what is communicated.

I admit you did not post it word for word as 'routinely used in print' ...

Thank you. It is in fact "words" we post here.

That you can say the above having previously claimed I

try to tell us it's acceptable to call a black dog "Nigger".

Just shows what a hypocrite you are.

I'll let the readers decide ....

the word nigger is used in reference NOT to a person but to a Labrador dog

- Note the use of your emphatic "NOT"

I never claimed the word was ONLY used in reference to people, but was USED in conversation and even appeared in print. Yet you appear to dismiss its use simply because it referred to a dog.

- What a lot of spinning and whirling with words you practice.

[erolz66]

I'll let the readers decide ....

the word nigger is used in reference NOT to a person but to a Labrador dog

- Note the use of your emphatic "NOT"

Sure let the readers decide, but let them decide based on ALL of what I said and understanding WHY I said it. In it's full context it is ABSOLUTELY clear that it I am relating the reason why the ITV TV BOSSES IN 1980 decided it's removal from a broadcast of a film made in the 1940s was unnecessary. The reason WHY I needed to relate that information was because of your out of context and selective use of the wiki article that is the source of this information that sought to create a totally distorted impression of what the article was conveying. That you then take an edited version of my text TOTALY of the context of what was said and why it was said and translate it into me "try[ing] to tell us it's acceptable to call a black dog "Nigger" just shows EXACTLY the way you behave and underlines the very point I make.

I never claimed the word was ONLY used in reference to people, but was USED in conversation and even appeared in print.

You exact claim word for word was

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

The claim is nonsense. You are at least 20 years out and arguably more. The evidence that your claim is at least 20 years adrift from reality is in the very article you subsequently selectively quote from in out of context ways in order to distort the meaning of what is written in that article. This what you did when you tried to make out that a publisher CHAGING the title of book written in the 1930's was the same as the word not being [routinely] used in print at a certain point in time. It is what you did when you took a edited selective out of context entry from said wiki article and tried to present it as evidence that it was as late as the 1990's when broadcasters like ITV became concerned about the use of the word in content they broadcast - a TOTAL perversion of what that wiki entry is ACTUALLY about.

Yet you appear to dismiss its use simply because it referred to a dog.

No I do not appear to do that, yet you are determined to try and create an IMPRESSION that I do that despite all the clear evidence to the contrary - that is exactly my point and yes the 'readers' can see what you are doing just as clearly as I can.

Once more what I did was re relate the full context of what the ITV BOSSES decided in 1980 and I did so only BECAUSE of your attempts to take the wiki entry entirely out of its context to serve your propaganda needs. Even if you say that by me relating what the wiki article said about the ITV BOSSES decision, it is the same as me supporting what they said and did (itself an absurd 'jump') and ignore the real reason why I related it, you STILL do not get to your conclusion that they (or me by proxy by relating the story) were saying that it is acceptable to name a dog nigger. What THEY decided in 1980 was that it was unnecessary to edited out the word nigger in a film made in the 1940's when the word referred not to a person but to a dog when that film was re shown in the 1980. To make out , as you do that that is the same as THEM saying (and then by proxy the same as ME saying it , because I related the story to counter your pervious totally distorted and edited use of it) "it's acceptable to call a black dog "Nigger" is EXACTLY the kind of propaganda motivated distortion of objective factual reality that you specialise in and that I am highlighting.

Indeed let the 'readers decide'. What amazes me is you still seem to think a normal, average impartial reader could look at this thread and decide "yeah actually Erolz66 was saying it is acceptable to name a dog nigger". No normal impartial person who could be assed to actually make such a judgment based on what I actually said and why I said it could ever come to that conclusion.

[GreekIslandGirl]

The claim is nonsense. You are at least 20 years out and arguably more.

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. 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.

[repulsewarrior]

...since you guys are talking about the word nigger, i'll repeat my story about it in Switzerland, late 70's, where i was the "nigger", don't you know that that is what olive coloured skins are called, someone black, is a "swartze".