Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

.... What was my objective ?

Your objective has been to derail consideration of my 100% correct quotes with some of your lies!

You on the other hand claimed it was written for the Ministry of Defence

NO I didn't!

When did I say written? Find THAT quote! NOW!!!

Your'e the one who said:

Mallinson - your quoted source, explicitly says the document was written BY the Ministry of Defence (he even names the person who prepared it) FOR the policy committee. It is there in black and white , from your own beloved (and highly partial) source.

WHERE are the quotes, straw man?

[erolz66]

Mallinson's view:

"Whatever the debate about the causes of this U-turn in thinking, it suggests that Britain considered the 1960 treaties somewhat expediently."

Mallinson, ibid, p.31

Seems only the Turk-TCs loved them!

https://www.google.com.cy/webhp?sourcei ... =expidient

expedient
ɪkˈspiːdɪənt,ɛk-/Submit
adjective
1.
(of an action) convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral.
"either side could break the agreement if it were expedient to do so"

This is whilst ignoring that the British most certainly did not consider those aspects of the 60's treaties that reaffirmed their sovereignty over the bases in Cyprus as 'expidient'

[erolz66]

.... What was my objective ?

Your objective has been to derail consideration of my 100% correct quotes with some of your lies!

That is your best theory is it ? That is why YOU CHOSE to spend page after page after page after page screaming at me 'where is the quote' because you believed that my saying written rather than prepared was done with the intention of derailing your posts, is it ? You think that is credible do you ? Well well what do you know. There was me thinking it was because you wanted to distract from and avoid dealing with the discrepancy of you saying the document was for the MoD when Mallinson said it was for the policy committee, something you have still failed to address after all these posts.

[GreekIslandGirl]

That is why YOU CHOSE to spend page after page after page after page screaming at me 'where is the quote'.

Well????

[erolz66]

Well????

Quite well thank you for asking. You seem to be the one displaying psychotic tendencies. Are you well ?

[Lordo]

That is why YOU CHOSE to spend page after page after page after page screaming at me 'where is the quote'.

Well????

keep taking the tablets love but they must be at the prescribed dosage you hear

[GreekIslandGirl]

Well????

Quite well thank you for asking.

Perhaps you're not as well as you think. Your usual talent for bullying others into silence by misquoting them or making up straw man stories to twist and tangle has been exposed. Your arrogance and sheer lack of taking responsibility has also been highlighted. And when you have to resort to googling definitions of basic words - and spelling them wrong - then, I think, it's time to recharge your batteries.

[erolz66]

Perhaps you're not as well as you think. Your usual talent for bullying others into silence by misquoting them or making up straw man stories to twist and tangle has been exposed. Your arrogance and sheer lack of taking responsibility has also been highlighted.

It is plainly clear what is going on here GiG as far as I am concerned. You may think others reading this are too stupid to see it or that you are so clever you have pulled the wool over their eyes but I have more faith in peoples sense to believe that. It is just a plain fact that you said the document was (produced) for the MoD. It is a plain fact that Mallinson says it was for the Policy Committee. I contend that the reason why your claim is different from that of Mallinson's is evidence of your distortion of truth. Your need was to make out that the document was one produced by the policy committee to support your attempted distortion that, therefore everything contained within it was official British policy, even the part of it that was directly described in the document as being the suggestion of the Hight Commissioner - someone who was not and could not have been a member of that policy committee. If the document was produced for the policy committee - as Mallinson clearly says it was, then it is absurd to try and claim that it was produced by them and your whole house of cards collapses.

Having attempted such distortion and as a result of being challenged over such blatant distortion of actual truth to suit your needs, you then respond in exactly the way I predicted you would all those pages back. Your pages and pages and pages and pages of childish petulant screaming 'show me the quote' and accusations of me misquoting you, all based on me using the word 'written' rather than 'produced', as if there is any difference in meaning between them as far as who the intended recipient of the document was or as if the document could have been produced without being written are so clearly just a 'tactic' you have used to avoid and distract from your distortions, which you still have not dealt with, even now. This is what you do GiG, this is what you always do and this is what you have always done. You do not fool me and I doubt you fool many others either, those you have done likewise too directly here on this forum over the years or those who have not had such pleasure yet.

[GreekIslandGirl]

It is just a plain fact that you said the document was (produced) for the MoD.

Whether you like it or not, the actual document begins:

1. This paper has been prepared at Ministry of Defence instigation ...

It is a plain fact that Mallinson says it was for the Policy Committee.

It's not 'a plain fact that Mallinson says' the above as you have NOT come up with the quote that actually "says" that!

I contend that the reason why your claim is different from that of Mallinson's is evidence of your distortion of truth.

My claims are different to YOUR distortions and misinterpretations! You're the one who is wrong, not Mallinson. Yet you are too arrogant to admit where you made the mistake.

Your need was to make out that the document was one produced by the policy committee

I don't need to make out anything of the sort as the document was entitled and I attributed it as such.

...to support your attempted distortion that, therefore everything contained within it was official British policy

You just cannot accept that the points were entitled "British Aims for Cyprus". The hyperbolic language is yours!

, even the part of it that was directly described in the document as being the suggestion of the Hight Commissioner - someone who was not and could not have been a member of that policy committee. If the document was produced for the policy committee - as Mallinson clearly says it was, then it is absurd to try and claim that it was produced by them and your whole house of cards collapses.

That's just your stupidity because we don't know all the specific people as the document points were entitled "British Aims for Cyprus" and that's what matters. One person doesn't usually make a "committee".

accusations of me misquoting you, all based on me using the word 'written' rather than 'produced', as if there is any difference in meaning between them as far as who the intended recipient of the document was or as if the document could have been produced without being written are so clearly just a 'tactic' you have used to avoid and distract from your distortions

So, YOU actually finally admit a distortion, either a deliberate or careless mistake, and yet you have the audacity to accuse me of distortions?

[erolz66]

It is just a plain fact that you said the document was (produced) for the MoD.

Whether you like it or not, the actual document begins:

1. This paper has been prepared at Ministry of Defence instigation ...

Who was the intended recipient of this document GiG ? The MoD or the Policy committee ?

It's not 'a plain fact that Mallinosn says' the above as you have NOT come up with the quote that actually "says" that!

.... a secret briefing paper for the Defence and Oversea Policy (Offical) Committee:

The above is exactly what is in the google books link of Mallinson's book - your source - including the missing s on overseas. I have given this link countless times. I have given a screenshot of it countless times.

My claims are different to YOUR distortions and misinterpretations! You're the one who is wrong, not Mallinson. Yet you are too arrogant to admit where you made the mistake.

You claimed the document was produced for the MoD. Mallinson says it was a secret briefing paper for the Policy Committee.

I dodn't need to make out anythinng of the sort as the document was entitled and I attributed it as such.

It was entitled as a brief. The Brief was for the Policy Committee. Mallinson says that. It is clear that the intended recipient was the policy committee, from both the title (that your purposely left the word 'briefing' out of originally) and from Mallinsons description of the document.

You just cannot accept that the points were entitled "British Aims for Cyprus". The hyperboles are yours!

I accept that the document that was produced for the policy committee has a general section heading "British Aims for Cyprus". What I do not accept is that something that was explicitly described in the document itself as being a suggestion of the High Commissioner is therefore an expression of the official policy of the British Government and a 'British aim for Cyprus'. The general heading of the entire section is NOT more pertinent to what is actual and explicitly written. Unless of course your aim is not to represent the truth but in fact to distort it , then you may well try and make out that the general section heading is more pertinent that what is actually written - which is exactly what you did.

, even the part of it that was directly described in the document as being the suggestion of the Hight Commissioner - someone who was not and could not have been a member of that policy committee. If the document was produced for the policy committee - as Mallinson clearly says it was, then it is absurd to try and claim that it was produced by them and your whole house of cards collapses.

That's just your stupidity because we don't know all the specific people as the document points were entitled "British Aims for Cyprus". One person doesn't usually make a "committee".

Just more distortion piled on distortion. We know absolutely as absolute fact that the document in question said that is was a suggestion of the high commissioner that TC be given aid etc etc. If you know anything about what a policy committee is then you would know as absolute fact that a High Commissioner could not be a member of such a committee. Yet STILL you try and make out that the document shows that it was official British policy and an aim of British policy that TC be given aid etc etc, because in a document that the policy committee were the intended recipients of, it reports on a suggestion of the High Commissioner in Cyprus under a general heading of British Aims for Cyprus. You whole argument and premise is simple absurd - yet this is what you do, this is what you have always done.

So, YOU actually admit either a distortion, either a deliberate or careless mistake and yet you have the audacity to accuse me of distortions?

[/quote]

I admit that you said the document was produced for the MoD and at one point I said you said it was written for the MoD, just as I admit that you spending page after page after page after page screaming and shouting , all over this difference that is immaterial is clearly your attempt to distract from your own blatant distortions which are most certainly NOT immaterial at all. You unashamedly distort a quote uses the word 'instigated' and change that into 'for' - something that fundamentally changes understanding of who was the intended recipient of the document in a way that just happens to suit your needs, and that is of no import at all (according to you). I change the word 'produced' to 'written' - something that does not change the meaning or understanding of what was said and in response you spend 10's of pages screaming at me 'where is the quote' as if it is the only thing of import - all the while distracting from you own blatant distortions. This is what you do. It is what I knew you would do when I first posted pointing out your distortions and I knew that because it is what you always do.