Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

Do you think her rudeness is because she is Russian or do you only mention Russian to make the point 'not Cypriot'. Would your story still 'work' if it started 'A non Cypriot Lady ...."

erol wrote:Do you think her rudeness is because she is Russian or do you only mention Russian to make the point 'not Cypriot'. Would your story still 'work' if it started 'A non Cypriot Lady ...."

Erol, if it makes you feel any better my 'story' could begin, a non Cypriot lady of Russian origin , would that suit you better. Whether she was Russian, German British, American or any other nationality she was extremely rude and obviously felt that she was superior to the people whose country we live in.

erol wrote:Do you think her rudeness is because she is Russian or do you only mention Russian to make the point 'not Cypriot'. Would your story still 'work' if it started 'A non Cypriot Lady ...."

Do you think elizabeth had a ulterior motive or are you commenting to make a point ?

kerry 6138 wrote:

erol wrote:Do you think her rudeness is because she is Russian or do you only mention Russian to make the point 'not Cypriot'. Would your story still 'work' if it started 'A non Cypriot Lady ...."

Do you think elizabeth had a ulterior motive or are you commenting to make a point ?

I am trying to understand if Elizabeth felt the rudeness was connected to the rude person being Russian , or if she felt this was unconnected to them being Russian and just mentioned it 'in passing'. It was not clear to me which was the case, so I asked. If it was the former then yes I would personally have a difference of opinion with her on that 'connection' that I might well choose to explain here but not if it was the later. Having asked I am still not sure but hey that is the way these things go sometimes. I will not lose any sleep over it.

In which case it really is then irrelevant as to what that person's nationality happened to be other than 'not Cypriot' as far as I can see. That point can be made just as effectively without us having to know what nationality the 'accused' is from could it not ?

Erol, don't be so childish, you were obviously trying to make me out as anti Russian which I'm not,just anti ignorant and rude.

elizabeth wrote:Erol, don't be so childish, you were obviously trying to make me out as anti Russian which I'm not,just anti ignorant and rude.

Anti women?

Erol, don't know that much about the Crimean War, were our ancestors doing some imperialistic colonalisation that we need to be apologetic for to the end of our days?

quote / Erol, don't know that much about the Crimean War, were our ancestors doing some imperialistic colonalisation that we need to be apologetic for to the end of our days?[/quote]

Found this on Google search : I believe Crimea is included on that list.

A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe. The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British........

As far as being apologetic is concerned , i guess it may depend on who you ask (IMHO)
Have a lovely day all

erol wrote:In which case it really is then irrelevant as to what that person's nationality happened to be other than 'not Cypriot' as far as I can see. That point can be made just as effectively without us having to know what nationality the 'accused' is from could it not ?

In the recent thread on NHS treatment you had no issue using your partner's NZ nationality, when your point could just as effectively used "not UK citizen" in that case.

elizabeth wrote:Erol, don't be so childish, you were obviously trying to make me out as anti Russian which I'm not,just anti ignorant and rude.

Actually I was, in the first instance at least, absolutely doing my best to not unfairly label, or portray or create an impression that you thought there was a 'causal' link between this person rudeness and their nationality, when you were in fact not doing that. It was not clear to me from the original post if that was the case or not and given that do not know you from adam rather than just jump to a conclusion that was not in fair to you, I sought clarification. If you response to that seeking of clarification had been 'I am not anti Russian just anti rudeness' then I would have taken you at your word and not doubted that all, which is the case now you have said it. However I do think it is possible that someone, not you now things are clear, could be unfairly 'anti Russian' and prejudice against Russians for some reason such they do actively seek to ascribe negative traits to Russians that I do not think is fair. Nor am I of the view that in cases of doubt it is better to say nothing, to not seek clarification in case I might upset someone.

Nor do I think that you can never have negative traits that are 'fairly' ascribed to a given nationality. The way Cypriots drive and park is an example for me. I think there is a material difference in how Cypriots drive (badly) and park (badly and selfishly) relative to other nationalities. I think that phenomenon is real. However what I also think is that it is a function more of 'location' than of 'race' or 'nationality' per se. I think the reason why Cypriots have such negative traits is all down to how things 'evolved' here in this place called Cyprus ve other places. It is only in the memory of my fathers lifetime that there were only 1 or 2 cars in a village. That back then , although individually owned, there was a sense that they were communal property and for communal use. That when that car was going in to the 'big city', it would take anyone from the village who also wanted to go and fit in and have 'orders' from all around the village. So back then if the 'village car' was parked blocking someone else in the village access to anything, it was not a problem. They would just get in it and move it. The owner would not mind or be surprised if it was not exactly where they had left it. Things evolved from that state to one where everyone has a car and more each. Yet there was a 'lag' between the change in number and ownership of cars and behaviour. Thus now people here are still driving and parking as if there is only one or two cars per village, even though there is more cars here now than people according to some 'stats. So the point is I think if any 'nationality' relationship to cars, their ownership and how they are driven and parked had evolved in such a way they too would have the same 'negative' trait. That is my theory.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Erol, don't know that much about the Crimean War, were our ancestors doing some imperialistic colonalisation that we need to be apologetic for to the end of our days?

That is imo such an egregious characterisation of what my actual views are that I just have to respond , despite doing so contributing to 'topic drift'.

Firstly the idea that you should seek to not be prejudice against a nationality (and I totally and absolutely accept that Elizabeth was NOT doing this now things have been made clear) if you are of a nationality that has a 'colonial ruler' history with that nationality is so utterly divorced from what I think that I feel I have to be explicit about this. I think you should not seek to prejudice against ANY nationality full stop.

My view is that it can not be doubted that the UK's place today on any list of 'wealthiest nations' is related to the fact that historically we were a colonial power and one of the biggest the world has ever seen. To me there can be no doubt that has we not had an empire on which the sun never set, not gone around the world colonising and ruling other peoples and their lands, then there is no way that today we would be as high on the list of 'wealthiest nations' than we are. Now I know before you used the example of your families experience of being 'poor' in the UK to argue that they never had any such benefit for the 'wealth' the UK had as a result of its colonial past. That to me misses the point. Is that experience of being 'poor' in the UK the same as the experience of being poor in one of those places that were historically colonial subject nations rather than ruler ones ? I think the answer to that is clear and obvious.

So to me it just self evident that our national wealth today IS still related to our colonial ruler past. I think we should be honest about that with ourselves and generally, Does that mean I therefore think the UK should today open its NHS up to legitimate use to the world or to anywhere we used to rule colonially in the past. No it does not. I do however think that such acceptance of our national past and that we still do benefit from that should inform things like our commitment to foreign aid budgets. I do also think that anyone British should be more cautious about casual remarks about places like India, Pakistan, Cyprus and any number of other places that we did "ooops" up to varying degrees in the age of colonialism than people from nationality that were not former colonial rulers. That is my view and I think it is a long long way from how you characterise my view.

kerry 6138 wrote:

erol wrote:In which case it really is then irrelevant as to what that person's nationality happened to be other than 'not Cypriot' as far as I can see. That point can be made just as effectively without us having to know what nationality the 'accused' is from could it not ?

In the recent thread on NHS treatment you had no issue using your partner's NZ nationality, when your point could just as effectively used "not UK citizen" in that case.

Wow is it paranoia if they really are out to get you ?

Firstly I see the logic in your argument. In some ways you are right but in others not (imo). I had used the same example previously with a fictional person that I think was from Nigeria but if not then it was definitely from a place that was not 'white'. Now I think there ARE people , maybe a tiny minority, for whom if they think such a situations and use of the NHS is OK or not, will decide it is OK if the person is white and not OK if they are 'not white'. So in that sense there is a 'point' in that differentiation. Anyway.

No need to be paranoid if you hold people to account you must accept it in return.

This is not a trick question, what in elizabeths post in which she wrote of " a Russian lady" and "she", was unclear to you if elizabeth was writing about a singular lady who just happened to be Russian or representative of the whole nation?

1"Whether she was Russian, German British, American or any other nationality she was extremely rude "
2"Russian or any other nationality, she was extremely rude"
3"I'm not,just anti ignorant and rude."

It took elizabeth 3 times to word a reply which you found acceptable was it because it was to the point, then perhaps your question could have been the same e.g. Are you being anti Russian?

Erol" - Nor am I of the view that in cases of doubt it is better to say nothing, to not seek clarification in case I might upset someone. "

So we can agree on somethings.

Fair play to you for watching out for racist, but (imo) you saw it because you wanted to again, there was a post on this thread you could have better directed your question to.

kerry 6138 wrote:No need to be paranoid if you hold people to account you must accept it in return.

That was my attempt at humour. I have no problem with explaining or defending anything I have said here in public under my own real name.

kerry 6138 wrote:This is not a trick question, what in elizabeths post in which she wrote of " a Russian lady" and "she", was unclear to you if elizabeth was writing about a singular lady who just happened to be Russian or representative of the whole nation?

Because I did not just read Elizabeth's original post and nothing else. Look at the first reply to her post. Look how the thread developed from there up until my first post. The thread , started by Elizabeth, was heading down a route of not discussing this one persons rudeness. It was heading down a route of discussing the rudeness of Russians. I was not sure if this was Elizabeth's intent when she made her original post or not. So I asked. She gave her reply. At that point I was 'done'. You then jumped in and asked if I was trying to make a point. I was trying to understand as I said in my reply to you.

kerry 6138 wrote:It took elizabeth 3 times to word a reply which you found acceptable was it because it was to the point, then perhaps your question could have been the same e.g. Are you being anti Russian?

I was not seeking an answer that was acceptable to me. I was seeking one that was clear to me. As to at what exact point from there did I think it was clear that Elizabeth's post was about the rudeness of this singular individual or about the rudeness of Russians , my certainty on that increased with each reply she gave addressing it ending up with the clear and unequivocal last statement. I was in fact 'done' after her first reply. It was your subsequent question to me as to what my intent was that kept things going as far as I am concerned.

kerry 6138 wrote:Fair play to you for watching out for racist, but (imo) you saw it because you wanted to again, there was a post on this thread you could have better directed your question to.

We all see what we want to see and not see what we do not want to see - to some degree. I make no claims that I do so any more or less than anyone else. As far as I am concerned , what I saw and what I still see, is that Elizabeth's post led to a discussion that was more about the rudeness of Russians than it was about the rudeness of a given individual. I make no claim that the way I see this is 'right' and everyone else must see it the same way I do. You may well see it differently.

Erol, just to make it clear to you as you still seem to have a problem seeing what I actually wrote.
A. I said a Russian woman, not Russians. Fact.
B. I related what happened, not a story. Fact
C. I did not accuse the woman, I said what had happened. Fact
D. I found her attitude rude and disrespectful. Fact

Finally, as I was there and you weren't, I think I know what I meant, and if you saw that as racist, which is what you implied then you need to get off your high moral horse and stop being a pompous politically correct pain in the backside and accept that other people have the right to an opinion.

From what I read Elizabeth the only hint of racism in this episode is the woman saying she didn't want to live next door to a Turkish Cypriot.

The rest of the comments since are just normal trolling and itching for an argument whilst virtue signalling with an air of presumed intellectual superiority.

Just ignore.

Good luck with the sale of your house.

elizabeth wrote:Erol, just to make it clear to you as you still seem to have a problem seeing what I actually wrote.
A. I said a Russian woman, not Russians. Fact.
B. I related what happened, not a story. Fact
C. I did not accuse the woman, I said what had happened. Fact
D. I found her attitude rude and disrespectful. Fact

Finally, as I was there and you weren't, I think I know what I meant, and if you saw that as racist, which is what you implied then you need to get off your high moral horse and stop being a pompous politically correct pain in the backside and accept that other people have the right to an opinion.

You made your post the way you did. The thread immediately started heading in a direction of 'Russians are Rude'. My point is if you had of just said someone came around and was rude , there is no way possible the thread could have ever turned to any degree in to a discussion about Russian's being rude or not because they are Russian and it could only have been about that person being rude. Now if you want to believe that nothing you said and the way you chose to say it was in any way responsible for the fact that the thread did descend to a significant degree in to a discussion about Russian's being rude rather than one of that person being rude, and that as far as it did that was all down to other people and nothing to do with the choice you made, then that is you right. I just do not share that view. If you had of said this woman came round ... then the discussion would and could only have been about that womans' rudeness and nothing else. Good luck with the sale of your house.

Hedge-fund wrote:Just ignore.

Advise I will take in regards to you sharing your opinions here on me and my character and my motivations for posting.

erol wrote:

Hedge-fund wrote:Just ignore.

Advise I will take in regards to you sharing your opinions here on me and my character and my motivations for posting.

When your motivation is to bully a poster with the invention of racism then I will intervene.

Disgraceful behaviour against a long term helpful poster.

Could not the specific reference to a 'Lady' be interpreted as being Sexist?

The thread may then have gone down the slippery slope of labelling 'all women' as Rude...

Simply referring to the potential purchaser as a Person could conceivably be regarded as Speicieist, and be seen as implying that all Humans are rude - or even that all Sentient Beings are rude...

Has this topic now been thrashed to death?

Keithcaley wrote:Could not the specific reference to a 'Lady' be interpreted as being Sexist?

The thread may then have gone down the slippery slope of labelling 'all women' as Rude...

Simply referring to the potential purchaser as a Person could conceivably be regarded as Speicieist, and be seen as implying that all Humans are rude - or even that all Sentient Beings are rude...

Has this topic now been thrashed to death?

How about, this neutral gender human was insulting towards the people of the country we live in, I just find it strange that someone of TC nationality is not upset by that but upset that another nationality may have been insulted.

As they say, there's Nowt as funny as folk.

... there's Nowt as funny as folk.

How true!

erol wrote:
My view is that it can not be doubted that the UK's place today on any list of 'wealthiest nations' is related to the fact that historically we were a colonial power and one of the biggest the world has ever seen. To me there can be no doubt that has we not had an empire on which the sun never set, not gone around the world colonising and ruling other peoples and their lands, then there is no way that today we would be as high on the list of 'wealthiest nations' than we are. Now I know before you used the example of your families experience of being 'poor' in the UK to argue that they never had any such benefit for the 'wealth' the UK had as a result of its colonial past. That to me misses the point. Is that experience of being 'poor' in the UK the same as the experience of being poor in one of those places that were historically colonial subject nations rather than ruler ones ? I think the answer to that is clear and obvious.

Let's have a look at a few facts;

1) The Vikings, Romans and Normans? The UK has been invaded and colonised itself. Without rehashing what have the Roman's ever done for us sketch there is no argument that certainly the Roman and Norman invasion/colonisation left us better off in the long term.

2) There is a myth that the people who were colonised were peaceful and advanced and would not have been colonists themselves if they were as advanced.

3) Another myth is that white Europeans were the only aggressors. 'The Moors, Hannibal, Genghis Khan and the Islamic invasions show that is nonsense.

4) If we look at Africa, their biggest problems aren't the after effects of colonisation, it's the corruption and the tribal conflicts that existed before Europeans ever set foot there. Of course we exploited them but we didn’t create them. Since we left they have persisted and escalated. Ethiopia has never been colonised, why isn't it one of the strongest nations in Africa?

5) Let's have a look at slavery. Was it one of the most horrendous things in history? Yes and no. Yes it was but no it hasn't been consigned to history it still goes on as it went on before white Europeans ever got involved.

6) Did the white people in the main benefit from slavery? At it's peak around 1.5 % of Americans owned slaves. There were an awful lot of white share croppers working alongside the black slaves though.

7) Did any black people benefit from slavery? The King of Ghana made a nice few quid as did a lot of tribal leaders. Sailing to Africa in those days was a dangerous and expensive venture. The slave ships didn't sail there and spend months roaming the beaches and jungles grabbing slaves. The slaves were waiting there caught and packaged by other black people.

8) Do ordinary white people still benefit today from slavery? This argument is forwarded by the same people who will consistently bring up the 1% and how their historical wealth never trickles down to other people. So which is it? Assuming the 1% were descendants of slavers did they share their wealth or not? Incidentally I believe being the first country to kick off the Industrial Revolution helped our wealth creation a little. Incidentally Britain borrowed a fortune to buy freedom for all the slaves in the Empire and enact the Slavery Abolition Act. So maybe that's where my slavery inheritance went.

9) Are ordinary black people still suffering from slavery? Black Americans enjoy a far higher standard of living and live much longer than blacks in any majority black nation on earth. It is cruel but you could say today's black Americans ought to say a little thank you to their descendants because their suffering that has given them a better life.

10) Speaking of how people arrived in America, historians agree that half to two thirds of white people who arrived in America arrived in bondage. Documents from the era refer to these indentured white servants as slaves rather than servants. It wasn't always a voluntary contract, many were kidnapped and many worked on plantations. The death rate in transit for these servants was comparable to the black slaves. Their conditions were also brutal, half of them died before their 7 year term of indenture expired.

11) So for white liberals to excuse every poor decision that black people make as the after effects of slavery is both patronising and doesn't do them any good. Maybe my great great Grandfather was bullied at school and it meant he didn't get much of an education? It would be a bit weak for me to blame my lack of o levels and a levels on that. Let's look at black lives matter which seems to be an organisation run for liberals who feel cheated that there still isn't segregation that they can protest about. In the US, Black people comprise 6% of the population but commit more than half of the homicides. Yearly the police generally kill twice as many white Americans than blacks. In the vast majority of these cases the victims were armed. So those who decide to ignore this problem and pat them on the head saying it is slavery's fault are not being honest and also not doing them any favours, 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.

Dalartokat wrote:I think we should blame the Agent. None of this wouldn’t have happened had the Agent told the Russian woman before they went, that Turkish Cypriots lived next door. Classic case of an Agent not doing their homework

My sensible suggestion was that they could wear bells which would alleviate much of the problem but that was shot down by bleeding hearts

Hedge-fund wrote:When your motivation is to bully a poster with the invention of racism then I will intervene.

Disgraceful behaviour against a long term helpful poster.

My motivation was to highlight how such choices (say Lady or say Russian Lady) can and does effect what is talked about from that point on.

Keithcaley wrote:Could not the specific reference to a 'Lady' be interpreted as being Sexist?

What do you think the chances are Keith that had it started with ' A lady ..' that the thread would then start heading towards a discussion about 'females being rude' ? That the first response on the thread started like that would have been don't let women in to your house again , they are rude ?

To blame all your ills on what happened to your ancestors 200-300 years ago is a cop out to your own short comings. Ditto the whole white guilt and self-loathing does us few favours. One of the most natural animal instincts is if someone bends over you f@#k em.

What do you think the chances are Keith that had it started with ' A lady ..' that the thread would then start heading towards a discussion about 'females being rude' ?..

Somewhat remote

I was being contentious 'for the sake of it'...

elizabeth wrote:... I just find it strange that someone of TC nationality is not upset by that but upset that another nationality may have been insulted.

For what it is worth I consider may nationality to be Cypriot. I know Cypriots, some of them my family, who in my view by any comparative standard are horribly prejudice on lines of race and others. Nor does the idea that a Cypriot when speaking to a an estate agent about what kind of neighbours they would prefer might say 'not Cypriot preferably' seem beyond possibility to me.

erol wrote: don't let women in to your house again , they are rude ?

Again a very selective argument there.
There are so so many reasons not to let women in your house.

You will generally get 4 cats and counting, 200 cushions and have to learn a multitude of colours other than red, green, blue and yellow. This will enable you to give an opinion {which will be totally ignored} on whether you think the throw on the bed should be teale, azure, turquoise or cornflower.
You will be told that you are not even trying when you meekly suggest the blue one. Don't even dare say do we need a throw isn't the duvet enough or will you even see the throw with all these cushions on the bed.

Anyhow I need to go and try to change my better half's password on here so she can't see this post.

Keithcaley wrote:

What do you think the chances are Keith that had it started with ' A lady ..' that the thread would then start heading towards a discussion about 'females being rude' ?..

Somewhat remote

I was being contentious 'for the sake of it'...

Do you seem my point, the one I am making, rather than the ones some here are ascribing to me ? That when someone , anyone, makes a post like the one in question and chooses to start it with 'Russian Lady' rather than 'Lady' such a choice has material effect on how the discussion proceeds from that point on ? That this is true regardless of how prejudice that person may or may not be themselves ? Do you think the idea that wanting to make this point, to highlight how such choices have such effects is 'Disgraceful behaviour' ?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Anyhow I need to go and try to change my better half's password on here so she can't see this post.

You do not need an account or password at all to be able to see what you have posted here

erol wrote:
That when someone , anyone, makes a post like the one in question and chooses to start it with 'Russian Lady' rather than 'Lady' such a choice has material effect on how the discussion proceeds from that point on ? That this is true regardless of how prejudice that person may or may not be themselves ? Do you think the idea that wanting to make this point, to highlight how such choices have such effects is 'Disgraceful behaviour' ?

Reading the original post and the bit in it about the person not wanting TC neighbours, I doubt I'd be the only person who then wondered what flavour the person was.
That said it is a bit of a drag that these days of identity politics you have to prove that your are not a racist every time you venture an opinion.
An example would be that any criticism or tough interviewing of Diane Abbott is apparently because of racism. I think there are dozens of reasons to dislike Ms Abbott and question her competence before even noticing her melanin level.

erol wrote:
You do not need an account or password at all to be able to see what you have posted here

Well she can pick the bones out of that then!
But asking for a friend here, if he was say a bit nervous of his other half, how would he delete/amend a post?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: That said it is a bit of a drag that these days of identity politics you have to prove that your are not a racist every time you venture an opinion.

Abusing the term 'racist' by applying it to something or someone that is not racist, is problematic. So is not challenging and confronting something that IS racist because you fear that doing so will just lead to accusations of 'guardian reading , identity politics motivated, leftists that labels anything it dislikes as racist', problematic.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:An example would be that any criticism or tough interviewing of Diane Abbott is apparently because of racism. I think there are dozens of reasons to dislike Ms Abbott and question her competence before even noticing her melanin level.

Your whole argument here is fundamentally flawed as I see it. What defines if you are racist or not, is not if you criticise Diane Abbott or not. It is all to do with consistency. If you criticise Diane Abbott for her views that are nothing to do with racism themselves, and also criticise all other people who say the same things as Diane Abbott equally, regardless of their race, then you are not racist. If however you only criticise Diane Abbott over these views but go around ignoring others who offer the same views, then that is indicative of prejudice. It is the consistency of what you say and who you say it too that would define if you are prejudice or not (race, gender, whatever ..).

I do not think you are particularly prejudice in terms of race in any remarkable way. I think you are maybe slightly prejudice in terms of gender. However I do think you are remarkably prejudice in terms of 'political orientation'. I think that you do judge an individual, what they say, how they act not based on their own words and actions but much more based on your opinions of the whole group you have placed them in. I have yet to see you identify a problem, with the world, with an individual with anything that you do not place the blame for at the feet 'guardian readers' and do so with a shocking inconsistency in terms of blaming others who do exactly the same thing but who are not 'guardian readers'. To give just one example of that , that immediately springs to mind. Koch brothers, billionaires who use their money and wealth to try and influence the world - that is just how capitalism works. George Soros billionaire who uses his money and wealth to try and influence the world - major problem that threatens the very world itself. It is all about consistency.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:But asking for a friend here, if he was say a bit nervous of his other half, how would he delete/amend a post?

Well your friend could just hit the 'edit button' on his post. However if it has already been quoted by someone else, to remove that , your friend would have to find a friendly moderator that he had not pissed off, that was willing to help him with that

erol wrote:

Keithcaley wrote:

What do you think the chances are Keith that had it started with ' A lady ..' that the thread would then start heading towards a discussion about 'females being rude' ?..

Somewhat remote

I was being contentious 'for the sake of it'...

Do you seem my point, the one I am making, rather than the ones some here are ascribing to me ? That when someone , anyone, makes a post like the one in question and chooses to start it with 'Russian Lady' rather than 'Lady' such a choice has material effect on how the discussion proceeds from that point on ? That this is true regardless of how prejudice that person may or may not be themselves ? Do you think the idea that wanting to make this point, to highlight how such choices have such effects is 'Disgraceful behaviour' ?

I think everyone should relax and go hug a barman. It’s International Beer Day today.




https://nationaltoday.com/international-beer-day/

Dalartokat wrote:I think everyone should relax and go hug a barman. It’s International Beer Day today.




https://nationaltoday.com/international-beer-day/

Or barmaid you blatant sexist......

erol wrote:
Do you see my point, the one I am making, rather than the ones some here are ascribing to me?...

Oh yes, & I have no doubt that your intent in pursuing the point was to raise awareness of how such unconscious statements can lead a discussion down entirely unintended paths.

Nor do I doubt that this was not elizabeth's intention.

I found the point interesting, and something to bear in mind, because on the whole I find that 'People are just People'

Hedge-fund wrote:
Or barmaid you blatant sexist......

Maybe it would be better to say potentially gender fluid bar person

Oh please. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top. Will a Moderator put everyone out of their misery and close this? Surely to goodness it can’t still be deemed to be on topic?

erol wrote:
I do not think you are particularly prejudice in terms of race in any remarkable way. I think you are maybe slightly prejudice in terms of gender.

Nope I think Corbyn and McDonnell are just as clueless. Abbott just happens to be the gift that keeps giving during her car crash interviews.

erol wrote: To give just one example of that , that immediately springs to mind. Koch brothers, billionaires who use their money and wealth to try and influence the world - that is just how capitalism works. George Soros billionaire who uses his money and wealth to try and influence the world - major problem that threatens the very world itself. It is all about consistency.

Nope I'm pretty consistent on these people. All are billionaire capitalists who buy influence. That's life.
The left do seem to lack consistency which again highlights their hypocrisy.
The Koch brothers are consistently demonised, often rightly but never with the balance of mentioning their support of gay marriage and rights and US military withdrawal from the Middle East.
Whereas Soros is lionised by the left because he donates money to causes they approve of and they have the brass neck to call ANY criticism of him anti-Semitic.
Soros, like the Kochs, has ever knowingly taken a position that wont make him a profit.
But I guess that leads into the opinion that businesses who are into fossil fuels are raping capitalists whereas those pushing for renewables have no interest in making a profit and have little interest in the massive government subsidies for renewables.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Nope I'm pretty consistent on these people. All are billionaire capitalists who buy influence. That's life.

What you have said here previously about the Koch brothers spending their billions on climate change denial (something you do support)

Sure the Koch brothers and others lobby one spends their money influencing it one way the other will spend their money influencing it the other way. For the most part it cancels itself out.

what you have said here previously about Soros spending his billions on supporting the UK remaining in the UK

Soros is a snake and is stlll meddling in the affairs that don't concern him.

Does not look very consistent to me ? No doubt you will claim that climate change does concern the Koch brothers but Brexit does not concern Soros but that to me would not be much of defence in my book of you claim of 'you are consistent , it is the left that is not'.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The left do seem to lack consistency which again highlights their hypocrisy.

I think anyone can be inconsistent. I think anyone can be hypocritical. I see no evidence that there is strong correlation with either thing to if you are of the right or the left. As far as I understand it your argument is the left and those on it are consistently more inconsistent and hypocritical than those on the right. I do not agree with that. I think that if you take it down to the personal level, I am demonstrably (if you can be arsed to do the 'analysis') more consistent in my arguments and less hypocritical than you are. Yet still I do not assign those characteristics only to the right or more to the right. I assign them to those individuals right or left actually do those things.

(ps if you want more examples of where I perceive inconsistency in your arguments based on what you have said here previously, you have only to ask. I have plenty more. Similarly if you want to give examples of my inconsistencies as you see them please do because if I am inconsistent and have not noticed it I want to know about it.)

The original poster made a valid post concerning a “lady” who came to view her property and I suspect many on this forum may well have felt the same if they had encountered said “lady”. I certainly can empathise with this. There is no reason to be rude..........but was she being rude or is it a cultural thing, was she just shy, in a hurry or would she prefer her neighbours not to be local people. Personally I like living in amongst Turkish/Turkish Cypriots.

Erol put up a different point of view and an alternative way of understanding/interpreting the situation. Many do not agree with his thoughts, however they are interesting and gives us all something to think about. Things are not always as straightforward as we think.

The topic has naturally developed into a wider discussion in which it is good to hear different points of view so I think it is worth letting the topic run for now.

Thanks to the original poster for starting it off!

erol wrote:
on climate change denial (something you do support)

Think you pretty much cover it in that sentence Erol. The denial word is one of the climate mob's greatest tools in that it links it with holocaust denial which only a fascist or idiot would agree with. I am no scientist, nor are you or 99.9% of those that recite these 'fact's' that are spoon fed to them.
I do have an unfailing BS detector though.

I have never known some scientists and interest group wish to shut down any debate so quickly. I always thought science was an exchange of ideas? What are they so terrified of? Generally censors aren't frightened that what the person they are trying to silence is wrong, they are terrified he is right.

Will we ever get a definitive or accurate model of a timescale or does it solely depend on how much money they can squeeze out of this before the predictions again totally fail. If I was to say I constantly give money to one of those guys who rant that the world is ending this year, you would think I was naive or stupid. I notice we were up to all life ending in 2050, obviously after missing a few deadlines, but now it's 18 months? I guess the secret of a con is to rush the sucker into stupid decisions.


So am I skeptical of the world handing over enough money to turn the first world into the third world to people who have not proven one of their theories so cannot say with any accuracy say that the cure will either work or make things worse? Yes

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Think you ...

So nothing to say re your apparent inconsistency re Koch and Soros, when based on what you yourself have actually written here previously? I would not normally 'push' this in this way, but you did claim 'you are not inconsistent' on that and you do constantly push the idea, it seems to me, that the left and those on in are inherently more inconsistent than those on the right. Those are direct quotes of yours. Am I being unfair in considering your position, as indicated by those quotes as displaying 'inconsistency' ? I accept it is possible that I am being unfair but would like to know why if that is the case. Is there something I am missing or miss understanding ? Again entirely possible but I would like to know what or how if that is the case.

PoshinDevon wrote:The topic has naturally developed into a wider discussion in which it is good to hear different points of view so I think it is worth letting the topic run for now.

Thanks to the original poster for starting it off!

And there’s me thinking that the rules are the rules and that when a topic went off topic it was closed down. At least that’s what I was told when one of mine was not only closed down but deleted many moons ago - with no explanation until I queried it, and even then it was only reluctantly that I was told the reason why.

Ah well. Like everywhere I guess, it’s not what you know but who you know.

(Let’s see how long this entry lasts!)

PM sent by me to a Moderator on Thursday 8th June 2017 at 9:00pm (redacted):

Thank you for (at last) having the manners to contact me re: the "offending" posts I made. I'm sad that it only came about after my complaint in an open topic. That should not have been necessary.

Having read your response it seems as though the only reason I "broke the rules" was that my comment was "off topic".

...........

Your (and the "other moderator's") decision to delete the comments seems unfounded to me but I will, of course, have to abide by the rule that you can delete or lock topics without explanation.

This to me seems grossly unfair and, as I said, lacks transparency and openness, which is what I would expect both from contributors and moderators of any forum.

I appreciate that moderation of a Forum is not an easy task and I also appreciate your work in undertaking this on our behalf. However, as always, with authority comes responsibility.

I trust all other comments "off topic" in threads are being deleted - but at least ask your fellow moderators to advise posters why.

What would you liked to have seen happen here with this thread Mowgli, for that to have been consistent in your eyes, with what happened with your post nearly 2 years ago ? I mean specifically and in detail. I mean presumably you would like to see the topic closed at least (and if you say yes then Ill do it) ? See posts deleted ? Who's and from what exact point ?

Well Erol, since you asked ....

I’d guess from about post #5, with a few honourable exceptions. From then on it had lost the point of the OP who was complaining about a rude visitor to her home, but unfortunately mentioned the person’s nationality.

It went downhill fast from there - in terms of being off the original topic.

Of course, this is simply IMHO - and based on my personal experience as outlined above.

But since this reply is definitely I should just collect my coat and go home!

erol wrote:

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Think you ...

So nothing to say re your apparent inconsistency re Koch and Soros, when based on what you yourself have actually written here previously? I would not normally 'push' this in this way, but you did claim 'you are not inconsistent' on that and you do constantly push the idea, it seems to me, that the left and those on in are inherently more inconsistent than those on the right. Those are direct quotes of yours. Am I being unfair in considering your position, as indicated by those quotes as displaying 'inconsistency' ? I accept it is possible that I am being unfair but would like to know why if that is the case. Is there something I am missing or miss understanding ? Again entirely possible but I would like to know what or how if that is the case.

The desire for the watermelons to spend us into the dark ages with regard to climate change effects everyone so if the Koch brothers want to lobby against that then they have an interest. Soros certainly lobbies on the other side, I am sure we will all be stunned when his investments in renewables comes to light.
Re Brexit I can only ask is Soros trying to influence a decision because of a love for a Britain that he nearly bankrupted in 1987? I think not. Interesting that he gets very little publicity whereas there is a tireless search to find if the leave campaign had any Russian finance.