Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

For over three months now, from the very start of this 'discussion' you have been wrong or lying GiG ? This is undeniable. It is provable and proven. Which is it ? Wrong or lying. There is no other possibility.

No, I was quoting the evaluation document that your source was onerously debating and from where you not only lifted quotes, but CREATED your own unique lies! The evaluation I had - which is why I knew you were talking (your word) BOLLOCKS!

Wrong or lying ? Months of being wrong or months of lying. Which is it GiG ?

What's the matter with you? This is the same document that I quoted from against your previous lies! The one which was/is available for public viewing. But then I'm not surprised you started thread after thread displaying your ignorance and I'm not going down the same road with you again. You will not rest till you have spread lies and muck even when you know there is something wrong with your source or comprehension.

You are unhinged!

[erolz66]

What's the matter with you? This is the same document that I quoted from against your previous lies! The one which was/is available for public viewing.

It is the document that you claimed was the one 'my source was onerously debating'. This claim was not true, This claim could not possibly have been true. because the document 'my source was onerously debating' was NOT public. You have then used this untrue claim of yours, this claim that could not possibly have been true, as the basis for a succession of subsequent claims over months and months and months, that themselves are not true because they were all based on this same single starting lie. The lie that the document 'my source was onerously debating' was the public document you had. The document you were quoting from was NOT the one 'my source was onerously debating'. The document you were quoting from COULD NOT have been the one that 'my source was onerously debating'.

This is what you do. This is what you have done in this single example over three months now. It is what you have always done on this forum.

There is nothing complicated about this. It is all very plain and very simple.

[GreekIslandGirl]

What's the matter with you? This is the same document that I quoted from against your previous lies! The one which was/is available for public viewing.

It is the document that you claimed was the one 'my source was onerously debating'. This claim was not true, This claim could not possibly have been true. because the document 'my source was onerously debating' was NOT public. You have then used this untrue claim of yours, this claim that could not possibly have been true, as the basis for a succession of subsequent claims over months and months and months, that themselves are not true because they were all based on this same single starting lie. The lie that the document 'my source was onerously debating' was the public document you had. The document you were quoting from was NOT the one 'my source was onerously debating'. The document you were quoting from COULD NOT have been the one that 'my source was onerously debating'.

This is what you do. This is what you have done in this single example over three months now. It is what you have always done on this forum.

There is nothing complicated about this. It is all very plain and very simple.

You were debating a document that was not available for public viewing. You were discussing details on issues that were not available for analysis. You happily made up whatever you wanted and ascribed it to some document that had not been made available for public viewing.

The document I posted, and its details, are what I was discussing as I could then read the wording instead of making assumptions as one would if you had not actually seen the document detail. My document could then (and can now) be downloaded as a pdf for viewing. Yours was identified in the press release as not available for public viewing - so what were you discussing? Discussions on discussions? You haven't a clue!

And that's our difference.

You are more than happy to go by 'press reports', 'press debates', 'press headlines' (and some of those were so extreme - 'expulsion') if they suit your agenda rather than see first-hand detail where available.

This is how you were caught out LYING when ascribing statements to the EC which were loaded with meaning from you - made up threats!

[erolz66]

Either you did claim that the document 'my source' (ie the EU Commission in their own press release) was 'onerously debating' (ie talking about) was the document 'you had' or you did not claim this. Here is a clue

That claim can not be true. It really is that simple. Three plus months of screaming and shouting and insults from you does not change this simple reality, or how clear and plain and evident it was and still is. Denial of reality is not argument. It is denial of reality.

You were debating a document that was not available for public viewing.

I do not think you are too stupid to be able to understand the concept that a evaluation report itself can be 'not public' and yet the conclusions that same evaluation report comes to can be public, if they are made public. I think your efforts to make out you can not even understand this concept are nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with dishonesty.

So here we just see another example of your 'compound lying'. Start with an assertion that is not true - I was talking about a document that was not public - when the truth is I was talking about the conclusions that document came to which absolutely WERE public, and then use that first lie to add on and compound further lie on further lie.

This is what you do. What you have always done.

[GreekIslandGirl]

I'd love to help you face-save now that the reality of what I have been saying all along has hit home and indeed the EU is panicking to look like it's helping Greece and trying to improve its administration of the external borders by reminding all the other EU countries of their duties to share the responsibility that previously idiots such as you assumed should be made an individual responsibility of Greece such that you can see it struggle under the attacks from Turkey 'turfing' out people like pawns, but tough - you lied and made up stuff and debated 'conclusions' off documents that you did not in fact see but talked as if you had first hand knowledge of. You are a deceiver on the grandest scale. My document was transparent. My document was available to the public. My document did NOT criticise Greece because there were, rightly, NO grounds for criticism of Greece's attempts to save the EU entirely on its own and with only the minimal appearance of Frontex.

[erolz66]

I'd love to help you face-save now....

Did you claim the document 'my sources' was 'debating' was the document 'you had' or not ? It is a very simple question. That you refuse to answer it, even though the answer is there for anyone to see, speaks volumes. You said it. It was not true. It could not possibly have been true.

My document did NOT criticise Greece because there were, rightly, NO grounds for criticism of Greece's attempts to save the EU entirely on its own and with only the minimal appearance of Frontex.

LOL. You really are shameless lol. The reason why 'your document' did not criticise Greece, is because it covered a period that pre dated the completion of the evaluation of Greece. That is WHY you chose to quote from this document AND then tried to lie that it was also the document that 'my sources' (EU commission) were talking about. Yet again you just show your dishonesty.

You do know that there WILL be a '9th biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area' that will cover a period in which the results of the evaluation of Greece are detailed and will be public and will destroy your claim that there were 'no grounds for criticism of Greece' entirely. You do realise this do you ? lol.

[GreekIslandGirl]

As a typical egotist, you value trying to make yourself look right rather than check your sources and evaluate appropriately. If you cared to be a little more honest with your overall approach and the reasons you feel compelled to stick by your agenda you might appear worthwhile for debate. But as it is, time and time again you prove it is more about you and your agenda than facts and logic.

I keep it simple. The available document was the one I discussed and identified and posted. You couldn't identify what your were debating as you were debating a debate rather than a document. Then you got more confused as more documents came out. It doesn't stop. But time has stopped for you because you are stuck bleating something that has long passed but you have been left hurt and humiliated because your lies have been seen for that and reality and the actions the EU is undertaking are completely different to what you predicted, desired and even stated were going to happen.

[erolz66]

As a typical egotist,.....

When reasoned argument fails, there is always ad hominem attack ins't there GiG ?

All I have done is demonstrate beyond any and all possible doubt that over three months ago you made a claim that was not true, that could not possibly have been true and since then you have relentlessly and systematically tried to use this same lie as a basis for a succession of further 'compound' lies and distortions of actual reality, all whilst screaming and shouting 'lair, slime, twister, distorter' at myself and stud and you STILL are doing this. They say 'the truth will out' and often it does. In this case the truth is indeed out. Your whole 'position' on this issue right from the very start was based on a lie. Nothing has changed since then. I am not just saying this , I have proven it.

[GreekIslandGirl]

All I have done is demonstrated beyond any and all possible doubt that over three months ago you made a claim that was not true, that could not possibly have been true ....

Another false claim by you! Unfortunately, you seem to live in this world where you can mish-mash whatever you like and ignore the facts. At every stage, you failed to acknowledge you were the ones discussing a debate and not an actual document. You didn't like the document I was discussing and you have consistently tried to ignore it even though it is the one that has stood the test of time as being applied to the crisis unfolding. I have posted all the relevant sections as I discussed them, whether they were about Greece or Sweden or whatever.

Short of cut and pasting the whole darn thing, I don't know how to shake your psychotic obsession away ....

You're basically just TROLLING and wasting my time. I have no interest in going over - yet again - outdated documents. At least stud has shut up since showing his ignorance - yet again - on amendments and on whether Greece asked for Frontex help or not.

[GreekIslandGirl]

You do know that there WILL be a '9th biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area' that will cover a period in which the results of the evaluation of Greece are detailed and will be public and will destroy your claim that there were 'no grounds for criticism of Greece' entirely. You do realise this do you ? lol.

So now you've been shown to be wrong with what has passed, you are hoping, praying that some future report might come out that you can pin something on!

Another example of where you mish-mash to make up a story:

My claims that there were 'no grounds for criticism of Greece' were based on facts and proven correct at the time I made the claims. If in the future the situation changes, that doesn't make my previous conclusions wrong - and indeed, I will be evaluating documents as they come up, at the time they come up (not like you, pre-guessing results and then churning them out as 'facts' in advance and then spending 3 months trying to convince others you had a reason for being wrong that was based on debating 'conclusions' rather than accessible documents).