Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

Yet more of your 'interpretation' to suit your needs.

No 'interpretation'. Just turn to page 2 and then page 4.

[erolz66]

Yet more of your 'interpretation' to suit your needs.

No 'interpretation'. Just turn to page 2 and then page 4.

Yes on page 2 I make a comment about something you said, backed by some actual substance. On page 4 you make a comment about something I said backed by nothing.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Yet more of your 'interpretation' to suit your needs.

No 'interpretation'. Just turn to page 2 and then page 4.

Yes on page 2 I make a comment about something you said, backed by some actual substance. On page 4 you make a comment about something I said backed by nothing.

That's just your interpretation. Yet, the facts are that you FIRST butted in (page 2) to make a general personal insult and disparage what I said about the reports. Then you were later found to have erred in your judgement as the reports were unreliable (as I had suspected). And it wasn't until you continued to throw about your arrogant evaluations on everything that I finally pointed out (page 4) how absurd your comments had finally become.

You should appreciate the time I take to give you such valuable feedback.

[erolz66]

Yet more of your 'interpretation' to suit your needs.

No 'interpretation'. Just turn to page 2 and then page 4.

Yes on page 2 I make a comment about something you said, backed by some actual substance. On page 4 you make a comment about something I said backed by nothing.

That's just your interpretation.

Indeed it is but I am not the one claiming my interpretation are facts and need 'no interpretation'. You are the one doing that.

Yet, the facts are that you FIRST butted in (page 2) to make a general personal insult and disparage what I said about the reports.

No the fact is I first commented on the thread in page 2. 'Butted in' is your interpretation, just as when you do exactly the same later on, your 'interpret' that as not 'butting in' but as you 'commenting' and 'concluding'. Just as 'personal insult' and 'disparaging' is also your interpretation that you also do not apply to your own posts as you do to mine. Again this is what you always do. Nor did I comment on what you said about the reports, plural. I commented on what you had said about a single specific report that you had quoted from. A distortion of fact necessary to set up the following

Then you were later found to have erred in your judgement as the reports were unreliable (as I had suspected).

No when STUD accepted that the video probably was not 'sound' you used that acceptance to call me out and say you hoped that 'shut me up' about about my criticism of your reaction to an entirely different thing, namely the report you yourself has directly quoted from in order to disparage it. Again this is just what you do. It is typical of how you have always behaved here on this forum.

And it wasn't until you continued to throw about your arrogant evaluations on everything that I finally pointed out (page 4) how absurd your comments had finally become.

Look to your own arrogance. There is nothing absurd in the argument that you always 'interpret' anything that does not suit your needs in a way that does suit them, even if it means arguing that black is white. Such behaviour by you is blatant, persistent and I would claim, widely recognised by many people here who use this forum and there are countless examples of you doing this. Nor is there anything absurd in saying that colonialism was based on the notion of some cultures being superior to others. If you disagree with my views then present your case, that would be rational argument and discussion. Just calling them the 'stupidest thing ever written' and 'absurd' without offering any argument as to why, is not rational argument or discussion. It is how children behave in the playground.

[supporttheunderdog]

The plain fact is the report you described as nonsense is not. You cherry pick the numbers concening E-V13 when they whilst a significant part of one component that component itself is only a part of the overall makeup of the sampled population and it us clear is E-V13 is thus only a small part of the picture. As far as I can see the report suggests that the vast majority of the pupulation are descended from the people who were here in the PreGreek period.

[Sotos]

DNA data are inconsistent. Some time ago GR provided some website with DNA results. I run a comparison and those results showed that Cypriots are actually closest to other Greeks: cyprus43980-10.html#p822840 Not that DNA matters anyways.

[GreekIslandGirl]

DNA data are inconsistent. Some time ago GR provided some website with DNA results. I run a comparison and those results showed that Cypriots are actually closest to other Greeks: cyprus43980-10.html#p822840 Not that DNA matters anyways.

The overall data in the report stud linked also suggest the same.

[GreekIslandGirl]

No when STUD accepted that the video probably was not 'sound' you used that acceptance to call me out and say you hoped that 'shut me up'

You had already decided the unsound youtube was "nice" (page1 ) and had already butted in (page 2) to criticize me about not only an unrelated matter (EU) but my comments on the report stud used to support the unreliable youtube that was later also found to have dubious accountability.

Your stupidity shines through with every lengthy attempt to twist what is already written ...

[GreekIslandGirl]

The plain fact is the report you described as nonsense is not.

Their conclusions are nonsense - especially to introduce something about Mycenaean Greeks in the last sentence when they had not tested ANY of their samples with Mycenaean-associated marker DNA. It's the sort of nonsense that you favour.

[erolz66]

You had already decided the unsound youtube was "nice" (page1 )

and it is nice.

and had already butted in (page 2) to criticize me about not only an unrelated matter (EU)

The example of how you 'interpreted' (spent months and months arguing) an EU report that concluded that Greece was seriously neglecting it's obligations, as meaning the opposite of what it actually said, was and is entirely germane to how you also totally dismissed the conclusions of the specific report you had quoted and described as absolute nonsense. Sure you do not like that reality but I am not here to post only things you will like.

but my comments on the report stud used to support the unreliable youtube that was later also found to have dubious accountability.

When my choice of who I find more credible is between the conclusion of the report as written by the authors of that report or your 'interpretation' of what the conclusions should have been, then clearly the authors are more credible to me and the reason why this is so is because you always 'interpret' anything to suit your needs, with one of the most extreme recent examples of this being the one I cited. I have no personal knowledge of the authors of this report systematically over years 'interpreting' anything and everything to suit their
pre-determined position and needs. I do have such personal knowledge of you doing so. That was and is my point.

Your stupidity shines through with every lengthy attempt to twist what is already written ...

As I say just calling me stupid or what I have written as not just 'stupid but one of the 'stupidest things ever written', is not argument. It is what children do in the playground. Child 1 "you are stupid", child 2 " no you are stupid", child 1 " no you are the most stupid ever" and on and on an on. If you have any actual argument as to why what I said justifies being called "one of the most stupid things ever written" then present it. However if as I suspect you have no rational basis on which to have made that extreme claim and all you are going to do is just keep behaving like a 6 years who can only respond with 'you are stupid', as you have done since making the comment, then that would just be business as usual in how you behave here on these forums as far as I am concerned.