Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

from the home page of the site, follow the links as follows:

text > laws > full text > Annex III

Thank you so much Alexandre! This proves that with some help everyone of us can save hundreds of hours of work....
Thank you too brother Insan for providing a direct link. You cannot imagine how many hours I spent in the past searching the Google for this information....

Alexandre I read again the Law and I fully agree with you. I admit I clarified some misconceptions I had previously. Unfortunately however the final conclussion is the same. Considering the paragraph that says that those who lived here for more than 5+ years can apply (and presumably get) citizenship 4 years after the signing of the agreement, plus the fact that over and above the total number of settlers some 5% extra will be allowed, it is obvious that the Anan Plan allows all the settlers to stay, some with full citizenship rights right from the start, and the rest with full citizenship rights in 4 years time! That's why it does not have any provisions for the removal of settlers at all....Because according to this plan they would ALL stay.

Anyway, has there been a reliable census in the north in recent years, which clearly says which category each person falls under (ie original TC Vs Immigrant)? Do we have such information?

There has not been any census, actually the regime in the North does not officially recognise the existence of settlers.Everybody they say is our citizen. What we know for sure is that at referendum date those who had so called "citizenship" were about 190K and this is concluded from the fact that the number of voters were 142K. The birth rate of the TCs is very close to 2.2 per couple, similar with that of the GCs.This means population increase very close to zero.(I think internationally the figure for zero population increase is 2.25 -because of deaths and unmarried people in the population). From these figures you can easily calculate how many the settlers are. I already did:
142K Voters at the Anan Plan. 1 - 18 years old don't vote out of life expectancy 72 years i. e 1 fourth don't vote. So 142K is the remaining 3 fourths. So the population is 142: 0. 75=190K . Other known figure TCs about 70K (120K in 1974) the rest are settlers. So conclussion

TCs 80 - 70 K, Settlers 110 - 120K.

Now if you excuse me I have to give some replies to the bunnies-imish and Dinos-imish.

*************************************************************************

That's right Turkcyp, may I remind you that the first one who was drawing one bunnie after the other was you, with your lots of "in your opinion figures" and definitions.I offered you a sensible way to define who is a settler, you turned it down, and you insist to continue with your personal opinion. Man you already did that, we read your opinion, I said it is interesting, nothing more can be added.

- First of all, I do not know how Annan Plan defines
settlers. But let me tell you how TCs define settlers.
Only those foreigners, can be mainland Turk or anybody
else, who have TRNC citizenship right now is settler.
And as far as I know in Annan Plan, there are no
provisions for people who are in north working (legally
or not legally) without being a citizen. So long story
short Annan Plan defines settlers as we define them as
well.

Better read the Anan Plan then, because most of what you say is nonsense.

But you can never explain the simple question like
"If as you said that mainlanders are 60% of the
population in the north, how come they never vote for
themsleves but keep on electing TC representatives?"

Erdogan to Talat when he visited the "parliament" at the occupied areas last year:
-How many mainland Turkish brothers are now living in Cyprus?
-Talat: Not many, about 100 thousand efendim.
-Ertogan: And what percentage is that "not many"?
-Talat: About half efendim
-Ertogan: And where is that half in this "parliament"?
-Talat totally blushed : ............. (no reply)

Now Turkcyp, before asking us your "wise questions" put yourself in Talats shoes and give P.M. Ertogan a sensible answer, will you?

After you are done with Erdogan, please also explain me, how come 1 out of 2 TCs I see coming in the free areas drives a Mercedes or a BMW? Does 1 out of 2 settlers drive a Mercedes???

[turkcyp]

Dear MicAtCyp,

You know it is not so hard to make a simple research on the internet to find out the population growth rate in Cyprus, before assuming birth rate and from that inferring population growth rate.

Simple just go to an international organization’s web site, UN, OECD, etc. etc. get the population growth rate to Cyprus. I will accept the assumption that population growth rate is the same between TCs and GCs.

Here you go for example between year 1975-2002. Population growth rate in Cyprus annucalized is 1%. This is taken from UN web site. So let’s assume that TC growth the same way. It is worng to assume less but not worng to assume more. The more economically a developed a country is the less is the population growth. So if you assume higher growth rate for TCs it would be OK, but assuming less would make your assumpetion less reliable.

Anyway assuming 1%. Makes the TC population 143k in year 2002. (this is assuming 120k in 1975). In 2001 when the last census was made population of Cyprus was, I belive 210k. So settlers is 67k from this account.

Now let’s assume some immigration as well. Here I am not again aware of any figures. But there is no way that 1/3 of the as a good assumption. Furthermore when it comes down to it, from north Cyprus the chances of TCs are immigrating out or the chances of settlers are immigrating out is not that much different. After all they both carry what you call so called “TRNC” passport so their immigration to let’s say UK carries the same probability. There is no way the guy at the airport at UK would now that “Ohh. This is TC so let’s take him in, but this is settler let’s send him back”

Furthermore it is again very easy to look at the Cyprus past record on immigration and assume the same records. Between 1955-59 %5 left the island. Between 1960-70s %8.5 of the island left the Cyprus. So when the inter-communal strife was on the top, tensions between TC and GCs are running rampant, when there were no security for TCs, when the economical position of TCs were much worse that 1974, the immigration rate was %8.5 from the island. So lets take this and apply to your figures ( which is the worst case scenario because economical and security conditions have improved for TCs after 74 all the way to early nineties where the money from Turkey was flowing freely, and economic embargo was not so effective. For example Until late 80s TC community were still able to export to UK. So in reality during this time immigration rate is much much lower than 8.5%. Things got worse after 90s. But lets still assume %8.5 as the worst case scenario.) This would bring down the TC population to 131k, which makes settlers 79k.

About the diologue that supposedly has passed between Talat and Erodgan, I can surely lough at that. I am sincerely asking you. Do you believe in that when you were writing, or is it one more of the classical GC propaganda, that you create over there. “Urban legend” I would say.

Anyway let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say that that conversation really took place between Talat and Erdogan. This means this %60 of the society is voting for either UBP or DP right. I mean they have to vote for somebody. IF they are not voting for themselves then they are voting fro UBP and DP, that brought them here. (ps. DP is Denktas’s party)

It is the same irrational argument put forward by Insan like saying they would vote for UBP, or Denktas that is why they would not vote for themselves. So assuming that you are right these guys would vote for UBP and Denktas, and furthermore assuming that there were actually no TCs voting for UBP and Denktas, then UBP plus DP should have gotten minimum %60 of the vote every year. What happened suddenly they simply have decided not to vote for UBP and DP and decided to support CTP in the last election.

Or during the previous elections when the total of these two parties reach %60 then are we saying that no TC has vote for these parties ever. Please when making some arguments, think about them before you make conspiracy theories.

Coming to my topic about the settler. I have never claimed that I have read a statistical data about this. I simply wrote down my opinions about how many settlers I thought there are in north Cyprus right now.

You also wrote down your own opinion. And I simply keep on showing you the flaws in your logic by asking you a simple question. You refuse to see this, and also keep on saying that your opinion is based on math. Of course it is based on math, ,math and with very poor assumptions like zero population growth rate, 1/3 of net immigration rate etc. etc. I am not saying anything to your math. After all if you make the wrong assumptions even 2+2=5. First of all instead of trying to calculate what the population in north in Cyprus is (settler +TC) why are you using voting. Your conclusion is wring by the way. You have said population north is 190k, where as last census in north 2001 showed that there were 210k people living in north.

And after that for some reasons you are saying that there are only 80k TCs and the rest is settler. How you get to 80k is wrong anyway? You assumptions are misleading you. Your assumptions like %0 population growth rate and 1/3 of immigration.

You asked me what my definition of settler is, and I told you what my definition is. There is nothing insensible in what I have wrote down.

[insan]

It is the same irrational argument put forward by Insan like saying they would vote for UBP, or Denktas that is why they would not vote for themselves. So assuming that you are right these guys would vote for UBP and Denktas, and furthermore assuming that there were actually no TCs voting for UBP and Denktas, then UBP plus DP should have gotten minimum %60 of the vote every year. What happened suddenly they simply have decided not to vote for UBP and DP and decided to support CTP in the last election.

Simple:

First of all, there are so many TCs that vote for UBP and DP. These are mainly the self-seeker right wingers of the partisan chain of North. These TCs have been a part of the pillage regime in North since 1974. There's no turning back for this plunderers. They will always be against any kind of solution which doesn't secure their illegal wealth. There are also so many settlers in this partisan chain and because of the same reasons they voted against the Annan Plan.


The other settlers who were benefiting a little from the pillage regime of North and generally had been exploiting by the masters of regime, prefered to take side mainly with Talat and partly with Akinci; when they heard and convinced that all their "rights" secured by Annan 5.


These are all very well known facts. I'm really surprised how you still ignore these facts, turkcyp... Do you live in Cyprus or abroad?Are you a TC or not?




Elections in North since 1976


http://www.cyprusive.com/default.asp?CID=367




A very comprehensive and scientific research regarding the settlers



http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/Worki ... OC9799.htm

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/Worki ... 99.htm#3T3

[insan]

http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/lon01/lon01.pdf


Beyond Geopolitics: The Need for Transition in a Cyprus Settlement


By Jim Kapsis






Nov./Dec. 2001 - The current escalation of tension between Greece and Turkey over the fate of Cyprus threatens to undermine alliances that are crucial to the successful prosecution of America's war on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Recent events indicate that Turkey is using its newfound strategic relevance to the United States to reframe the terms of political negotiations on Cyprus. Just days after Turkey offered to send special forces to Afghanistan to aid the U.S.-led war effort, Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit made official Turkey's intent to annex northern Cyprus if the European Union allows the divided island republic to enter its ranks in next year's anticipated expansion. As European Commission President Romano Prodi recently announced, the EU will admit Cyprus in December 2002 with or without a settlement.

Turkey has initiated a high-stakes battle of wills with the EU, and neither side is likely to balk. The dispute could ultimately force the United States to choose sides between Turkey and the EU at a time when it desperately needs both.

Since the United States requires Europe's full political and moral support and Turkey's military bases and materiel?not to mention its symbolic role as the only Muslim democracy in the Middle East?to effectively achieve its objectives in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Washington has a direct interest in averting a Turkey-EU meltdown over Cyprus. The brokering of a final settlement in Cyprus before the EU votes to admit the country into its club at the end of next year is the only way to avoid a major crisis within the NATO alliance.

As the mixed outcomes of the peace accords in Northern Ireland (Good Friday Agreement, 1998) and the Middle East (Oslo Accords, 1993) demonstrate, the signing of a peace agreement does not guarantee peace. Once an agreement is signed, bold political leadership is necessary to implement it. Since peace agreements demand fundamental changes in social relationships, they are rarely implemented all at once. They are usually phased in over time so that antagonistic communities can adapt to change and build trust. Simply put, one cannot transform entrenched perceptions overnight.

As Cyprus President Glafcos Clerides and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash return to the negotiating table, they will have to agree on more than whether a unified Cyprus government will have a "federal" or "confederal" structure. They will have to devise a settlement that adequately assuages the human suffering, both psychological and physical, that both sides have endured since intercommunal violence erupted in the country 38 years ago. In short, they will have to plan a prolonged transition period that will build peace in the hearts and minds of all Cypriots.

An effective transition in Cyprus will ease pain on both sides without making one side, either ostensibly or literally, triumphant over the other. Most importantly, it will help Greek and Turkish Cypriots realign their expectations with the reality of each other's needs. Although a transition may take several years to complete, it will work as long as Cypriots perceive that the process is moving forward.

The initial phase of a Cyprus transition should address four main issues: territorial readjustment; the three freedoms of movement, employment, and property; the economy in the north; and the settlers from Turkey.

The first step should include a territorial readjustment. The Turks have held onto the ghost town of Varosha, adjacent to Famagusta, with the intent of giving it back as part of a quid pro quo arrangement. The majority of Turkish Cypriots recognize that the north will have to return Varosha and other areas near the Green Line to the Greek Cypriots. The territorial readjustment will permit tens of thousands of the 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees to settle in Varosha.

The crumbling city, however, will take years to rebuild and resettle, providing an important test for the Greek Cypriots, who will have to manage an emotional process that decides which refugees return to Varosha and which do not. As such, the experience will set a precedent for subsequent returns of refugees to the north.

The greatest challenge to the transitional period will be how to implement the three freedoms of movement, employment, and property demanded by the Greek Cypriots in the high-level agreement signed by Archbishop Makarios and Denktash in 1977. The EU and the Greek Cypriots have made clear that these three basic freedoms will have to be accepted in a unified Cyprus.

The implementation of these freedoms should occur in separate phases. Since the freedom of movement is the least controversial of the three, it should immediately follow any peace agreement. Both Greek and Turkish Cypriots hunger for greater interaction, but they will need time to build trust.

Traumatic memories of Christmas 1963 and years of living under fear of EOKA-B have made Turkish Cypriots wary of the three freedoms. Turkish Cypriots will need to trust Greek Cypriots again if they are to accept the return of Greek Cypriot refugees and workers to the north. Greek Cypriots have their own traumatic memories of TMT and the events of 1974 and will require assurances that a new Cyprus government will keep potential Turkish extremists in check. If the government can limit intercommunal violence, Greek and Turkish Cypriots may regain the confidence to live and work among each other.

The dire economic situation in the north and the growing income disparity between the two communities further underscore the need for a phased approach to the three freedoms. The current economic crisis in Turkey has only made the situation worse. Although Turkish Cypriots yearn for EU membership, their weakened economic condition has made them feel more vulnerable. They worry that the freedoms of employment and property will enable wealthier Greek Cypriots to buy out their businesses and land, and ultimately drive them off the island.

That is why a comprehensive economic development program in the north will have to precede Turkish Cypriot acceptance of the freedoms of employment and property. The EU has already signaled that it will pour the necessary resources into the country to facilitate the economic rejuvenation of the north.

Economic reform should occur immediately after a peace accord is signed. As income gaps between Greek and Turkish Cypriots begin to close, Turks will be less likely to view the freedoms of employment and property as existential threats. Greater economic equalization between Greek and Turkish Cypriots will eventually lead to the full implementation of the three freedoms.

Finally, there is the problem of the so-called settlers. The settler issue is intimately connected to the resettlement of refugees and to the principles of the three freedoms. It is where a unified Cyprus government may face its toughest battle.

The government currently demands that all Turkish settlers return to Turkey. Greek Cypriots will have to significantly amend that demand. Estimates on the number of settlers in the north range from 40,000 to close to 80,000, but those numbers are arbitrary until one defines what a "settler" is.

Identity politics are dangerous, and the Greek side would be ill advised to impose a definition of Cypriot nationality on the north. After all, Turkish Cypriots already consider many Turkish settlers to be Cypriot. Many settlers have intermarried with Turkish Cypriots over the years and have integrated into Cypriot life.

Given the right financial incentives, many recent settlers, who are mostly poor laborers from Anatolia, would return to Turkey. The Turkish side should agree to return as many of these settlers to Turkey as possible. In exchange, those who choose to remain in Cyprus should receive amnesty and Cypriot citizenship.

The clock is ticking in Cyprus. After 38 years of conflict and 27 years of de facto division, the current convergence of geopolitical interests may finally necessitate a settlement. As the U.S.-led war against international terrorism intensifies, such a settlement will be critical to a cohesive NATO alliance.

Ankara, Athens, and Nicosia must work under U.N. auspices, with vocal support from the U.S. and the EU, to support a determined and engaged negotiating process. In brokering an agreement, Greek and Turkish Cypriots must plan a balanced transition process that will rebuild trust on the island. A healthy transition will be the key to a lasting Cypriot peace.



Jim Kapsis is an independent journalist currently based in Washington, D.C. As a Thomas Watson Fellow in 1999-2000, he studied the political conflicts in Israel, Northern Ireland, and Cyprus, where he spent five months living and working in both the government-controlled south and the Turkish-controlled north.

http://www.westernpolicy.org/Commentary ... tary44.asp

[turkcyp]

Even the document’s posted by insane proves my point to certain degree. First of all in those documents average annual population growth is given as 1.3% I have used this as 1%.

The only thing I do not agree with those figures is the amount of emigrations from north. These statistics of 50k is obtained from government sources (i.e obtained from RoC) and I do not know how RoC obtained these figures. Given their track record of misinformation, I simply do not trust them.

Secondly my logic tells me, if there is emigration out of north, this does not necessarily means that everybody that emigrated is TC. And there is no logic to assume this. I would agree that probability of TCs emigrating is higher but there is no truth that says everybody emigrated out of north is TC. Both TCs and settlers had the same chances of emigrating out of TC and both of them faced the same economical hardships so this should basically taken into account.

Furthermore assuming that 1/3 of TCs emigrated is a very bad assumption. In the worst times of TCs in Cyprus (between 1963-74), the population emigration out of Cyprus was at the rate of 8.5%. I have found this number on the internet so I can not prove its validity. But it cameos from a US study of foreign countries). And the mere fact that TCs life has improved after 1974 until the late 80’s makes us assume that even this emigration rate is not reached during this period. In the 90’s their emigration rate went up again I can agree with that.

So basically what it comes down to is in the worst case scenario there are around 80k settlers in the north. According to TRNC government this number is as law as 30K. And my estimate was somewhere around 45-60k.

I guess I am not that far off from the truth.

[brother]

Why are we splitting hairs on this one, 50000 or 100000 they aRE there now.

[MicAtCyp]

You know it is not so hard to make a simple research on the internet to find out the population growth rate in Cyprus, before assuming birth rate and from that inferring population growth rate.

Oh, come on Turkcyp, I thought you were smarter than that. Do you expect ANY of them i.e UN OECD etc to have made their own counts or did they get those figures from the official statistics of the country they refer to? And when they refer to "Cyprus" do they include in that the occupied areas when everybody knows that the population growth there cannot be justified by the mere birth rate?. Read the Laasco and Cuco reports regarding the matter of settlers in the occupied areas:

Cuco report

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/A ... penElement

Jaakko Laakso report

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/A ... penElement

It surprises me that you use every "trick" available to increase the matter of the TCs and decrease the number of settlers. As for example using your figure of population growth on the total number of the TCs and then deducting those who emigrated. whereas you should first deduct those who emigrated, and THEN apply the natural population growth to the remaining ones.

You have said population north is 190k, where as last census in north 2001 showed that there were 210k people living in north.

Hmmm interesting. Do they all have "citizenship" though?

Even the document’s posted by insane proves my point to certain degree.

The name of this compatriot is Insan which you know very well it means "human". So please cut the crub.

About the incident between Talat and Ertogan I said Talat "blushed" didn’t I? How would I know he blushed unless I saw the whole incident on TV? Because unlike you my friend, I live here and I watch the local news LIVE every day!

To make a long story short: The only sensible way to define who is a TC and who is not is per Anan Plan: Everybody who was in the official records of 1963 plus his decendands plus their foreign spouces are TCs.The rest are settlers.As long as your side refuses to publish an official record, we can make our own calculations, to estimate the number of settlers.The more the real facts we base our calculations the more accurate we are.

Heres one calculation you can do yourself based on facts:
a)Talat presented a list before the referendum containing 41K names of settlers who stayed here for more that 9 years excluding their dependants.
b)According to the Anan Plan those who stayed here for 5-9 years can apply for citizenship 4 years after the solution.

Use simple maths and tell me how many the settlers were before the referendum. Then compare it with your personal opinion figures.

By the way when was the last time you were in Cyprus?

[turkcyp]

Oh, come on Turkcyp, I thought you were smarter than that. Do you expect ANY of them i.e UN OECD etc to have made their own counts or did they get those figures from the official statistics of the country they refer to? And when they refer to "Cyprus" do they include in that the occupied areas when everybody knows that the population growth there cannot be justified by the mere birth rate?. Read the Laasco and Cuco reports regarding the matter of settlers in the occupied areas:?

Why don't you trust yor own goverments pop. growth figures? the idea is simple. There is no incentive for RoC to lie about pop. growth figures in the south. So assuming that we are not that different people (TCs and GCs) then our population growth rate should be the same.

So I simply have taken this growth rate and applied it to 1974 Tc community of 129k. This gives us the TC community withoit any emigratsion throighout the years. And bear inmind my pop. growth rate for TC community, is less than what insan has provided in those documents. In those documents pop. growth rate for Cyprus is 1.3% annualized.

It surprises me that you use every "trick" available to increase the matter of the TCs and decrease the number of settlers. As for example using your figure of population growth on the total number of the TCs and then deducting those who emigrated. whereas you should first deduct those who emigrated, and THEN apply the natural population growth to the remaining ones.?

What trick I simply applied simple math. Those 8.5% emigration rate is the emigration rate in Cyprus between 1963-70 as % of 1970 figures. So it is only fair to apply it to the end result. Furthermore if we apply your way (deduct 8.5% from 120k then increase it by 1% annualized) , it simply means that everybody emigrated at one point in 1974 then never emigrated.

The best way would have been to find out average yearly emigration rate deduct from pop. growth rate and apply this new number to population growth rate, but since we do not have an average emigration growth rate, that seems to be a fair math to me. It certainly is better than what you have been doing by assuming no population growth rate, and assuming 1/3 of TC emigrated without any research.

Hmmm interesting. Do they all have "citizenship" though?

Quite honesty, I do not know. I assume that when they come home by home and count everybody head by head at one Sunday, they woulr be only counting the citizens. I might be wrong though.

The name of this compatriot is Insan which you know very well it means "human". So please cut the crub.

Sorry about this Insan. I am writing from USA right now, and before I wrote something to the forum, I try to use Microsoft Word as much as I can, so that I do not make grammar mistakes. But I have been wronged by Microsoft spelling checker, which automatically changed insane to insane. (it did even right now! No hard feelings, no offense meant)

To make a long story short: The only sensible way to define who is a TC and who is not is per Anan Plan: Everybody who was in the official records of 1963 plus his decendands plus their foreign spouces are TCs.The rest are settlers.As long as your side refuses to publish an official record, we can make our own calculations, to estimate the number of settlers.The more the real facts we base our calculations the more accurate we are.

Here I agree with you. It should be much better for TRNC government to identify in every census, who is settler or not. They definitely have means to do that but do not do it for political purposes. Plus I agree with you definition of settlers. Everybody who either dad, mom or spouse is not a TC is a settler.

Furthermore for me anybody who lives in north Cyprus and do not satisfy the above criteria has to be a citizen of TRNC in order to be considered settler. So in any future plan (Annan 6 or anything else) I simply would totally agree with you if you say those legal and illegal workers who do not carry TRNC citizenship should not be counted as settler, I would totally agree with you. I though you would have liked this.

And again I have never said you can not make your own calculations, and believe in whatever you want. I simply have said that your assumptions in calculating TC pop. numbers are wring. And here is why they are wrong? And here is a my assumptions, and this is how I got my figures. No politics is employed. If I wanted to employ politics I would have been saying what TRNC government is saying. “There is not settler. Everybody is our citizen and therefore Cypriot.” But even they themselves do not believe in this so it is only laughable.

Heres one calculation you can do yourself based on facts:
a)Talat presented a list before the referendum containing 41K names of settlers who stayed here for more that 9 years excluding their dependants.
b)According to the Anan Plan those who stayed here for 5-9 years can apply for citizenship 4 years after the solution.

Use simple maths and tell me how many the settlers were before the referendum. Then compare it with your personal opinion figures.

Using these two facts again, you can not mathematically calculate how many settlers are there on the island. You can infer that there should be at least minimum of 41k, but nothing else.

I do not know any mathematical way of calculating form these two facts, if you do let me know.

By the way when was the last time you were in Cyprus?

Three months ago.

p.s: To Insan,
First of all, I am very sorry about the misunderstanding relating your name. You and I are really victims of Microsoft Word spell checker.
Secondly you have posted two times asking my origin, implying that I am not a TC. Now aren’t we becoming as paranoid as Denktas who claims that everybody that voted for Annan Plan, or everybody that wants a united Cyprus is a “Rumcu”. It’s the same rhetoric used to undermine the other parties credibility. I was not expecting it from you.

But now that you have asked twice, you can be rest assured that I am as TC as you are. Currently I am in USA and writing from USA. In last April, I have voted “Yes” for Annan plan, but I do not know if I would have voted “Yes” again if the referendum is held today.

Have a great day, and again sorry for the name incident.

[insan]

p.s: To Insan,
First of all, I am very sorry about the misunderstanding relating your name. You and I are really victims of Microsoft Word spell checker.

n.p There has allways been some forum members, either intentionaly or by mistake; typed my nick as insane, and my brother MicAtCyp always has warn them.... Thanx brother

Secondly you have posted two times asking my origin, implying that I am not a TC. Now aren’t we becoming as paranoid as Denktas who claims that everybody that voted for Annan Plan, or everybody that wants a united Cyprus is a “Rumcu”. It’s the same rhetoric used to undermine the other parties credibility. I was not expecting it from you.

It's irrelevant! Why should I become paranoid concerning your origin. Some of your opinions made me feel suspicous about whether you are a TC or not. Some of your opinions gave the impression to me that you are not a TC. Therefore I asked you. My intention wasn't to undermime your credibility. Why? Is there a specific reason of this? As you might have observed, I'm standing by neither side but only what I believe is true in light of my knowledge...

But now that you have asked twice, you can be rest assured that I am as TC as you are.

What does that mean? I didn't claim that you are not as TC as I am. You may have misunderstood me and felt offended, I assume...

Currently I am in USA and writing from USA. In last April, I have voted “Yes” for Annan plan, but I do not know if I would have voted “Yes” again if the referendum is held today.

Well done At the time referandum was held, I was in Istanbul and didn't vote but if I was in Cyprus, I would vote yes.

Have a great day, and again sorry for the name incident.

You too have a great day, Turkcyp. I didn't think that asking your origin will hurt you. So, sorry about it. As you may have witnessed, sometimes even those forum members who know each other for more than two years can misunderstand each other or waste some harsh words which offend the others. But in the end, we are still together here or at some other discussion boards, sharing our views, discussing, debating etc..

[erolz]

To make a long story short: The only sensible way to define who is a TC and who is not is per Anan Plan: Everybody who was in the official records of 1963 plus his decendands plus their foreign spouces are TCs.The rest are settlers.

That make me a settler then? My (TC) father left Cyprus in 58.