MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina questions Falklands release on a second flight: proposals are still under consideration
The Falkland Islands government announcement that it has chosen Latam as preferred operator to provide a second commercial flight between the Islands and the continent, with a stopover once a month in Argentina, did not come without a reaction from the Argentine government. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe Islanders have no wish to be colonised by Argentina.
Jul 27th, 2018 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0The islanders have a voted to remain 'freely associated with the UK' their legal right. Falklands – Freely Determined Political Status (1 pg):
https://www.academia.edu/36555342/Falklands_-_Freely_Determined_Political_Status.pdf
The islanders are not freely associated with the UK the Islands are British to be free from Britain they would need to be independent the UK does not entertain free association...
Jul 27th, 2018 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -6What part of B_0_T don't you understand Bob...?
Is it the Territory...surely not...
Is it the overseas bit....nah self explanatory...
It must be the British part you don't understand...
British Overseas Territory....an overseas territory that is British...Are you getting it yet Bob...?
A territory that is overseas and is British....
Or do you mean a freely associated territory that is British and partly ruled by Britain...?
Do you even know what you mean Bob....?
Oh yeah I remember it now Bob...it was that Falklands referendum question that asked “Do you want to be freely associated with Britain”
...and almost everyone answered yes...
Or am I confused and the referendum question was...
Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?
YES or NO
A territory OF the United Kingdom is not quite a freely associated territory, now is it....
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 28th, 2018 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse +3“the UK does not entertain free association...” The UK has adhered to the letter the right of self determination. So unless you can furnish when and where they have entertained such a view, I'll dismiss it as just another of your many, many porkies.
Yawn...
Jul 28th, 2018 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse -6”With regard to the political status of its territories in relation to the UK, the latter pointed out that the
concept of free association, as defined by the General Assembly, would mean that the Territory itself would draw up its Constitution free from United Kingdom involvement. The United Kingdom would retain all responsibility for the Territory, but would not be able to ensure that it had the powers necessary to meet its responsibilities for the Territories. This is not a position the United Kingdom is willing to put itself in. General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) is not legally binding. Furthermore, the United Kingdom did not vote in favour of the resolution.”
Oxford Public International Law
Happy now....?
The Argentine Government has no part in the analysis of the options; this article is just there to deceive the gullible into thinking this is some kind of “joint venture”. It is not. Argentina will have a role in determining where the flight will land once a month. That is it. Period.
Jul 28th, 2018 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse +2@GALlamosa
Jul 28th, 2018 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse -2What happens if they demand the flight lands in Buenos Aires? Will it still go ahead?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 28th, 2018 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“the UK does not entertain free association...“ Is what you claimed but your unable to show where they have ever refused to consider such a proposition.
”This general consent was reflected in two important resolutions adopted in 1960 by the UN General Assembly. The first was Resolution 1514(XV), passed on 14 December 1960 by a vote of 89 to 0, with 9 abstentions (Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, UK, US). This resolution was called the 'Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples'.8 The other resolution, Resolution 1541 (XV), was passed on 15 December 1960 by a vote of 69 to 2 (Portugal, Union of South Africa), with 21 abstentions (from socialist, as well as some Western countries).9 ”
Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal
https://books.google.com.br/books?isbn=052163752X
Antonio Cassese - 1995 - Law
So I was correct, there has never been a emphatic refusal, so I'll dismiss it as just another of your many, many, many porkies.
Did I not just quote from Oxford Public International Law...
Jul 28th, 2018 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -4The reason why the UK would not support free association concerning BOT's...?
Did you not read that the UK did not vote in support of Resolution 1514(XV)...
What part of the UK did not vote in support of Resolution 1514(XV don't you understand and what part of the quote from Oxford Public International Law didn't you understand...?
Do you think you are more informed than Oxford Public International Law....?
Do you think the UK abstained because they supported free association...?
Are you stupid or what...?
The resolution passed without the support of the UK or despite the abstention of the UK...
Does your reply even mean anything more than a resolution was passed that the UK did not support...?
Do you know the difference between a vote of support and an abstention...?
Do you know anything at all...?
How on earth did you escape from the comic Viz...Terry....?
or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
Jul 28th, 2018 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 28th, 2018 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“Did I not just quote from Oxford Public International Law.”
I checked, its a paid subscription, and it doesn't say what you claim.
http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-oxio/e5.013.1/law-oxio-e5
”the UK did not vote in support of Resolution 1514(XV)“ Nor did they vote against it.
“the UK does not entertain free association...”
The bottom line is the UK has complied meticulously with all UN Charter requirements. Whereas Argentina, whom you are an apologist for has continually, even to this day. Failed to comply and tries to usurp the Charter by claiming rights under international law THAT CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY. So I was correct, there has never been a emphatic refusal, so I'll dismiss it as just another of your many, many, many, many porkies.
“It doesn't say what you claim”....
Jul 28th, 2018 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Oh dear oh dear....It's a quote you idiot...it can't say anything else...
Do you understand what a quote is...?
It was copied and pasted straight from the source complete even with the double space between the first and second line...
...and if it's a paid subscription how the fcuk would you know....did you pay...?
BTW you should get someone to assist you in moving those goalposts...they must be heavy....
I quote “So unless you can furnish when and where they have entertained such a view, I'll dismiss it as just another of your many, many porkies.”
Now it's changed to “there has never been a emphatic refusal”
So now instead of furnishing you with an instance where they have entertained such a view I now have to show you an emphatic refusal...
I fulfilled your original request and proved you were wrong...live with it and stop trying to twist your original request...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 28th, 2018 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“Did I not just quote from Oxford Public International Law.”
I checked, its a paid subscription, and it doesn't say what you claim.
http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-oxio/e5.013.1/law-oxio-e5
My citation is above, and you have failed to produce one. Therefore failing to meet your BoP
Argumentation theory
“Establishing the ”burden of proof“ – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance.
For the one carrying the ”burden of proof“, the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.”
http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-oxio/e5.013.1/law-oxio-e5
So I was correct, there has never been a emphatic refusal, so I'll dismiss it as just another of your many, many, many, many, many porkies.
So, Voice quotes the UK saying they refuse to consider free association, and TH replies saying he's unable to show the UK have ever refused to consider it. Doh.
Jul 28th, 2018 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -4In next week's episode, Terry swears that black is white, up is down, and the sun rises in the west.
DemonTree
Jul 29th, 2018 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse -5Not only that...let's see if he lies too....
Hey Terry did you check the quote by paying a subscription...?
Yes or No....?
What I don't understand is who up votes this idiot...it is surely obvious to everyone that he is an idiot that pretends he's an authority on law...
I wonder if he got the Viz joke...probably not...
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 29th, 2018 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse +6“TH replies saying he's unable to show the UK have ever refused to consider it”
Assertion: “the UK does not entertain free association...“
Response: ”Is what you claimed but your unable to show where they have ever refused to consider such a proposition.”
Consider - think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision:
Therefore, based on that consideration they entertained (give attention or consideration to an idea) and, made a decision to abstain.
Do people have to cut your food and feed you? As you apparently don't clearly understand your own native language, unless people literally have to spell out the meaning, Doh.
p.s
So glad you've found someone to whom you can be slavish follower of, and thus be their appendage.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
So your unable to provide a citation to confirm what say, while my citation shows that it does not state what you claim.
So we can clearly see who lies, and who does not.
http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-oxio/e5.013.1/law-oxio-e5
Was that a Yes or No Terry...?
Jul 29th, 2018 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse -4Also please explain why you think you know what my native language is...
Is this another of your miraculous powers of deduction or observation...?
Surely you were not implying that I struggle with the English language, although you might explain what, “your unable” means in line four and line fourteen above...is it Canadian...?
That was a dodging the question. I'd like to know who votes him up too, isn't it obvious by now he has no idea what he's talking about?
Jul 29th, 2018 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse -4Including when it comes to the English language. Terry, do you understand the difference between past and future tense? “Britain won't entertain” is talking about what Britain will do in the future. It does not mean “Britain has never entertained”, and the difference should be obvious to anyone over the age of five.
PS. Voice, I didn't get the Viz joke, I barely know what Viz is.
DemonTree
Jul 29th, 2018 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Would you like to read for yourself the UK FCO's view on free association...?
https://www.un.org/en/decolonization/pdf/crp_2008_04_united_kingdom.pdf
No porkies coming from me...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 29th, 2018 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“Did I not just quote from Oxford Public International Law.” No you did not as there was no such content provided.
“No porkies coming from me...” Just plain old fashioned fraud.
Many, many moons later, May of 2008 there was an addendum provided.
“..the 1999 White Paper pointed out, the United Kingdom's policy towards the Overseas Territories rests on the basis that it is the people of each Territory who determine whether they wish to stay linked to the United Kingdom or not. The United Kingdom has no intention of imposing independence against the will of the people concerned. But the concept of free association, as defined by the UN General Assembly, would mean that the Territory itself would draw up its Constitution free ”from United Kingdom involvement. The United Kingdom would retain all responsibility for the Territory, but would not be able to ensure that it had the powers necessary to meet its responsibilities for the Territories. This is not a position the United Kingdom is willing to put itself in.
UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) is not legally binding. Furthermore, the United Kingdom did not vote in favour of the Resolution. It believes that the guiding principles for the relationship with the Territory should draw on the Charter of the United Nations.
Which is correct, as blindly following resolutions that could read to a result that is in conflict with the Charter, is barred under article 103.
“Did I not just quote from Oxford Public International Law.” No you did not as there was no such content provided.
Jul 29th, 2018 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -6“No porkies coming from me...” Just plain old fashioned fraud.”
Why not just admit that you are wrong and haven't a clue what you are talking about...
Open it scroll down to number 50 and read it and tuck into some humble pie and also take note...content without subscription...;-))))
http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1076
What does that pie taste like...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 29th, 2018 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“Why not just admit that you are wrong and haven't a clue what you are talking about...”
“Open it scroll down to number 50...” Sorry, too late that boat has already sailed. You were afforded an opportunity on three occasions to provide a citation and failed to meet your burden. “Just plain old fashioned fraud.” by omission. “no one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong,...” Rule of equity. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CommodumExInjuriaSuaNemoHabereDebet.aspx
Sorry your sophism does't carry you that far. You explicitly claimed that this was the UK's stated position in 1960, and repeated failed to provide the claimed source material. Consequently, your claim was thus unsuccessful.
What evolved forty-eight years later as both a matter of clarity and compliance with the Charter is simply incidental. Your goal-posts are fixed at 1960, your claim your pie.
Hey lads... don't bully Terence Hill..., he has enough personality problems already...
Jul 29th, 2018 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The poor thing even copied my use of that clement Engrish word...: “Porkies”
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 29th, 2018 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +5So you've finally run out of sophisms, as they've all come back to bite you. Your problem is, you believe that there are no effective remedies to your dishonesty.
Chuckle..., chuckle...
Jul 29th, 2018 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Don't make me feel bad, damnit. He's so persistent with his hypocritical bullshit, and the insults that sound like they come from the 1930s.
Jul 29th, 2018 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Ok Mr. Think...
Jul 29th, 2018 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -4I'll give him a break, there wouldn't be so much fun without his valued contributions...;-)
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 29th, 2018 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Another sore loser, stick to your forte, sucking.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“Ok Mr. Think...” Of course when you've lost another encounter, switch to one more old standby, sock-puppetry.
He's got me lads...yet another win for Terry...
Jul 29th, 2018 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -4He's a formidable adversary...
Terence’s posts have taken a clean sweep. I guess there wasn’t much shit to sweep up.
Jul 29th, 2018 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +3@Jo Bloggs
Jul 29th, 2018 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -3? You do realise Voice is correct on this, right?
Arghhh...so this is where he gets his up votes from....
Jul 29th, 2018 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You're right, not much shit about when the likes of yourself are stock piling it between your ears...
Anymore of the shit for brains want to come forward and identify yourselves...?
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 29th, 2018 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“? You do realise Voice is correct on this, right?ry”.
Hardly, he used fraud by omission, and deliberate misleading specious reasoning in an attempt to gain an due advantage.
I see you're living up to your moniker, keep sucking.
“an due” advantage...snigger, snigger...
Jul 29th, 2018 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Please explain, I'm not familiar with your native language...;-)
DT
Jul 29th, 2018 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I never read the arguments that TH and Voicey get into because they are usually irrelevant and always boring. I did see something early on about us not being a BOT but rather having free association with the U.K. Obviously that’s not the case but then TH and Voicey started arguing over something, as usual, irrelevant so I gave up.
As for voting, I rarely bother because I only login if I wish to comment, and those occasions are becoming less frequent. What I do know though is the you, Think and Voicey seem to be more interested in the voting scores than everyone else on here.
As for this story, I think there is more to it than those on our side would like people to think, and less to it than those on the Malvinas side would like people to think. I think we’ll have to concede some ground on our stopover proposal because the Argentine Government will convince the FCO to make that happen but never BA; but I think the rest of the deal will be none of the Argentine Government’s business as far as any opportunity to negotiate goes. The letter of September 2016 will HAVE to be obeyed though.
@JB
Jul 29th, 2018 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2We are the ones who get downvoted the most. Think seems proud of his negative score, but I think it's kinda cowardly to downvote silently.
Anyway, it's impossible to have a proper debate with Terry, so you're right that it's irrelevant and boring.
Maybe you can answer the question I asked earlier; if Argentina insists the flight stops in BA, will it go ahead?
Come on boys, TH is still winning. You’ll have to create more accounts if you want to improve the scores. Chuckle chuckle.
Jul 29th, 2018 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3DT
TH and Voicey are as bad as each other. Neither of them ever admit to being wrong but what’s more funny is that they both seem to think their points are relevant.
The Falkland Islands Government’s view is clear: we will not accept BA as an option. But unfortunately we’re largely pawns in this and wheth BA is chosen or not will come down to whether the U.K. needs post-Brexit trade deals more than Argentina wants to rejoin the rest of the world’s money system again. By that I mean the U.K. Government will do what they can to allow us to get what they want without compromising what they want.
Come on boys, TH’s still got the top three comments! Surely doveoverdover and some of the other classics can help. BTW, Voicey, I can’t remember if you’re claiming to be ex-military this time round.
I presume,without Argentine agreement or permission the flight will go no where otherwise with such high demand in traffic as there is for flights to the Falkland Islands, it would have been established a long time ago ?
Jul 29th, 2018 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 29th, 2018 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Please explain,...” Obviously in error, should read 'undue advantage', as I've stated in the past E&OE.
JB
“Think and Voicey seem to be” one and the same.
DT
“it's impossible to have a proper debate ..” That has been never your intention, your sole purpose is to ride on someone else's coat-tails. Sniping from the sidelines, to satisfy your own personal vendetta.
Demon Tree. It is for the Airline to apply for a permit to land, GoA cannot tell them what permit to apply for. If GoA decide to veto all options except Buenos Aries there are two key issues to consider for both sides; a) does GoA really want to restrict Islanders access to the continent, given that its objective is more contact; and b) does FIG accept a BA only option.
Jul 30th, 2018 - 07:03 am - Link - Report abuse +1My expectation in respect of the latter is that the manipulative intent of such an approach would lead FIG with popular support to decide not to proceed.
@JB
Jul 30th, 2018 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse -2The voting shows that it isn't Think and Voice who have multiple accounts, but I realised that long ago. I guess Voice just likes arguing, but unlike Terry he knows what he's talking about.
As for the flights, it's looking less and less likely that Macri will be reelected, and whoever succeeds him may well be another isolationist. In which case, if they don't cancel the idea outright, it'll be Britain who wants a deal more. But the flights are for your benefit, aren't they? The FIG can always reject any proposals.
@GALlamosa
Okay, that makes sense. What about Islander1's scenario, where GoA try to bribe the airline to change the stop once flights are established? There would be much less will to cancel an already established flight, wouldn't there?
@TH
Please stop lying about me.
DT
Jul 30th, 2018 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse +4“Please stop lying about me.” What I stated is true as the record shows. At every opportunity when I'm involved in exchange with a party of dubious ethics, you integrate yourself with an ad hominem. So don't be playing the poor little me, because it shows exactly who and what you are.
By dubious ethics you mean someone that doesn't agree with you...
Jul 30th, 2018 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -4“What I stated is true”...it is not true it is merely your opinion...
Those that have an open mind question everything...
Your inane habit of quoting things you don't understand will always be contested...
You were wrong about the British position on free association...
You were wrong about it not being sourced from Oxford Public International Law...
You were also wrong about it only being available on subscription...
...and I proved it to be the case on all three accounts...
It certainly shows what you are....Wrong!
Only idiots would support your position on this...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology ma
Jul 30th, 2018 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“dubious ethics” means exactly what it states. In this instance your attempt with 'click bait' technique to conceal your source even though you're asked three times to provide it. “You were wrong about it not being sourced from Oxford Public International Law” It your burden to provide it, not mine. All contrary to Argumentation theory https://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory
Further, here is a typical of your fraud, in presenting pleading arguments as judgments from the ICJ at #99 which was refuted conclusively at http://en.mercopress.com/2015/04/29/falklands-malvinas-unasur-message-in-support-of-argentina-s-claims/comments#comment396111
So it conclusively shows who is clearly in the wrong.
@Demon Tree. All of these issues are in play.
Jul 30th, 2018 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You lie...
Jul 30th, 2018 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“So unless you can furnish when and where they have entertained such a view, I'll dismiss it as just another of your many, many porkies.”
The very next post I showed you the entertained view and where it was...
””With regard to the political status of its territories in relation to the UK, the latter pointed out that the
concept of free association, as defined by the General Assembly, would mean that the Territory itself would draw up its Constitution free from United Kingdom involvement. The United Kingdom would retain all responsibility for the Territory, but would not be able to ensure that it had the powers necessary to meet its responsibilities for the Territories. This is not a position the United Kingdom is willing to put itself in. General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) is not legally binding. Furthermore, the United Kingdom did not vote in favour of the resolution.”
Oxford Public International Law“
Is it my fault you couldn't find it...did you ask for a link...?
No...you claimed..”I checked, its a paid subscription, and it doesn't say what you claim.”
There is no fraud involved, I provided enough info for any capable person to find it...
...apart from you...
Two simple questions for you to answer...
Did I provide you with a bonafide view of the UK's view...?
Was this view available in Oxford Public International Law...?
If the answer is yes then I satisfied your above request...
You are still wrong...
@GALlamosa
Jul 30th, 2018 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -4That's a politician's answer if ever I heard one! Since I'm not Jeremy Paxman I won't press you.
@Voice
He always lies, it's the only way he can 'win' arguments. And 'anyone who disagrees with him' is exactly what he means by 'dubious ethics'. He can't answer your questions and he's carefully avoiding the subject of the English language after I showed how absurd he was being.
He seems to have this bizarre idea that if you post a quote you are legally obliged to include a link to it; perhaps he thinks this site is Wikipedia? (And wanna bet he's banned from editing there?) I've even seem him include the dictionary definition for common words in his comments, with links. It's cargo cult logic, he's trying to follow the forms of debate but doesn't even begin to understand them.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology ma
Jul 30th, 2018 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“There is no fraud involved” except for the “fraud of omission” to wit:
“The very next post” you failed to meet your burden of proof by providing a citation.
“Is it my fault you couldn't find it...did you ask for a link...?” It's not my burden its yours alone. I did ergo: “So unless you can furnish when and where they have entertained such a view,”
“You lie...” thats impossible since I have provided citations of your purposeful deceit.
“...dubious ethics...” Is generous as you are totally unethical as your incongruous claims prove. But you are on a par with Argentine claims. Which must be attributable to a shared belief in the success of viveza criolla.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
“He always lies” Your failure yet again. Thats right keep sucking, make sure you've got it all in your mouth.
“He seems to have this bizarre idea that if you post a quote you are legally obliged to include a link to it” Doh! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory
“Establishing the ”burden of proof“ – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance.
For the one carrying the ”burden of proof“, the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.”
Ha ha...
Jul 30th, 2018 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -1This is hilarious there is no burden of proof Terry...get a grip, you are just some educationally challenged numpty that can't admit when he's wrong...
None of us have to provide you with anything...
There is no argument, I stated verifiable facts and proved that was the case...
There is no too late... if you are that stupid that you are unable to highlight a quote, cut and paste it into a Google search then sift through the results to find the source...it's not my problem...
“I checked, its a paid subscription, and it doesn't say what you claim.”
Now that you have read it...does it say what I claimed...?
Indeed it does and it was right where I said it was...;-))))))))))
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology ma
Jul 30th, 2018 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was your failure to reveal any verifiable facts that lost you any advantage according to Argumentation theory. You have attempted substitute an exercise in viveza criollain in its stead.
Thereby confirming “as you are totally unethical as your incongruous claims prove. But you are on a par with Argentine claims.”
Further estopped. “You were afforded an opportunity on three occasions to provide a citation and failed to meet your burden. “Just plain old fashioned fraud.” by omission. “no one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong,...” Rule of equity.” http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CommodumExInjuriaSuaNemoHabereDebet.aspx
No fraud...
Jul 30th, 2018 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Quote and source are all that is required...
Quote and source is what you got...
There is no legal or otherwise need to provide you with an executable internet link...
Do you even know what a citation is...?
citation
sʌɪˈteɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
A QUOTATION FROM OR REFERENCE TO A BOOK, PAPER, OR AUTHOR, ESPECIALLY IN A SCHOLARLY WORK.
“the majority of the citations are to work published during the past twenty years”
synonyms: quotation, quote, extract, excerpt, passage, line, piece; cite
“a citation from an eighteenth century text”
That right Terry a citation is a quote...
...and what was its source again....?
Oxford Public International Law“
Keep digging this embarrassing hole...
@Terry
Jul 30th, 2018 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Voice met his burden of proof by providing the quote describing the UK's position on free association. If you are googlically challenged and can't verify the source for yourself, you can always ask for the link, instead of making up shit about paid subscriptions.
Come on, man up and admit he's right. Moaning that he didn't provide a link soon enough doesn't make what he said any less true.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology ma
Jul 30th, 2018 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“..source are all that is required...” There was no source forthcoming, even asking three times for it to be provided. Only belatedly after it was too late.
Easy-peasy, for the lame blind and wilfully obtuse.
Citation Guides: Publisher URL
http://alvernia.libguides.com/c.php?g=22411&p=132209
Just like I do, since I'm not attempting to blind-side anyone.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
“Voice met his burden of proof by providing the quote...”
Read above, it is as I stated., but keep sucking.
When it finally appeared, it was absolutely clear that they didn't want to be in a position of allowing a resolution to cause a conflict with the Charter, as the latter would always prevail. Which is absolutely rational, nothing nefarious in its effect.
Liar, the source is right there in his comment: Oxford Public International Law.
Jul 30th, 2018 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -3And no one said there was anything nefarious about it, you're just trying to distract yet again from the fact you are wrong. Voice said the UK does not entertain free association, and he proved it. End of.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 30th, 2018 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Liar, the source is right there in his comment: Oxford Public International Law.”
Only belatedly after the fact, breach of every principal that is afforded in such matters in dispute. Its called 'discovery' when a party to dispute requests evidence the other side compelled to comply other wise its barred. Its known as the clean-hands doctrine. That may not be the Argentine way, but it certainly is in the rest of the world
Moreover, “Other kinds of arguments may have different or additional standards of validity or justification. ..while Nikolas Kompridis has suggested that there are two types of ”fallible“ arguments: one based on truth claims, and the other based on the time-responsive disclosure” Argument From Wikipedia
“Disclosure theory is the argument that a debater should lose for failing to upload case tags and citations to the NDCA Wiki. Variations on the argument ask the judge to drop debaters who post incomplete citations, who only upload citations and not full-text or ‘open-source’ evidence, ..”
http://premierdebatetoday.com/2015/10/06/is-disclosure-theory-different-by-bob-overing/
Sorry his time was up after the third time of asking. But, stick to your modus operandi, don't your lips ever get tired
Why do you bother lying when it's right here on the same page? In the 4th comment, Voice gives the quote and the source, immediately after you asked him to.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse -4http://en.mercopress.com/2018/07/27/argentina-questions-falklands-release-on-a-second-flight-proposals-are-still-under-consideration/comments#comment490699
Then you started complaining that it's a paid subscription (it isn't) and doesn't say what Voice quoted (it does). You've spent this entire thread trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong and he immediately proved you wrong, and you still won't admit that you were wrong. It's pathetic.
Now you bring in more quotes which you very plainly don't understand:
”one based on truth claims, and the other based on the time-responsive disclosure of possibility (see world disclosure).“
And what is world disclosure? ”World disclosure refers to how things become intelligible and meaningfully relevant to human beings, by virtue of being part of an ontological world – i.e., a pre-interpreted and holistically structured background of meaning.”
It's a philosophical argument, nothing at all to do with how quickly someone provides cites for their claim.
As for the second:
a) If a debator should lose for failing to upload case tags and citations to the NDCA Wiki, then you've lost every argument you've ever had, because you have never loaded anything to the NDCA Wiki (whatever the hell that is).
b) The article makes clear that this is a controversial theory: “Many judges have very strong negative attitudes about disclosure theory.” “A year ago, we ran a survey on whether debaters are disclosing, and 57% of about 200 respondents said that they did not disclose at all.”
c) We are not conducting a school debate. It's not about whether you 'win' or 'lose', but whether something is true or not. Giving a citation the next day instead of immediately doesn't make it any less true. Even you should understand that.
Is this idiot reading something completely different to everyone else...
Jul 31st, 2018 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse -4The quote and source are supplied in the very first response to him...
Here are both posts...
Terence Hill
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“the UK does not entertain free association...” The UK has adhered to the letter the right of self determination. So unless you can furnish when and where they have entertained such a view, I'll dismiss it as just another of your many, many porkies.
Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3-+
Voice
Yawn...
”With regard to the political status of its territories in relation to the UK, the latter pointed out that the
concept of free association, as defined by the General Assembly, would mean that the Territory itself would draw up its Constitution free from United Kingdom involvement. The United Kingdom would retain all responsibility for the Territory, but would not be able to ensure that it had the powers necessary to meet its responsibilities for the Territories. This is not a position the United Kingdom is willing to put itself in. General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) is not legally binding. Furthermore, the United Kingdom did not vote in favour of the resolution.”
Oxford Public International Law
Happy now....?”
Surely you can now all see that Terry is not only wrong, but also completely deranged...
Not belatedly, not after the third time of asking...the very next post...
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 31st, 2018 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse +4“You can always ask for the link, instead of making up shit about paid subscriptions.”
I asked three times, and he failed to comply. I showed the only one of several I checked that were all the same“
http:// opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-oxio/e5.013.1/law-oxio-e5
The only liar is yourself as by citation it clearly means its URL, stupid.
Thus, as is the case in all such matters, its ”use it or lose it“, he chose the latter.
In the final analyse, its a case of truth or consequences. So you don't get to obtain any benefit by ”committing the fraud of omission“. ]Fraud by Omission - American Bar Association
https://www.americanbar.org/.../FLJ%2035-1%20GINSBURG.authcheckdam.pdfHows those lips?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology ma
”The quote and source are supplied in the very first response to him“
No its not the URL is studiously avoided, even after asking for it three times. So you deliberately ”committied the fraud of omission”. So you don't get to obtain any benefit by your own wrong doing.
How does citation clearly mean URL...Let me check the dictionary...
Jul 31st, 2018 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse -4You never once asked for a Link...
You are a complete pathological liar...
Can anyone ever take him seriously again...how many times is he going to change his story...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 31st, 2018 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse +4How does citation clearly mean URL...Let me check the dictionary...
“You never once asked for a Link...”
Asked three times. So whose the liar?
Easy-peasy, for the lame blind and wilfully obtuse.
Citation Guides: Publisher URL
http://alvernia.libguides.com/c.php?g=22411&p=132209
“The only liar is yourself as by citation it clearly means its URL, stupid.”
Jul 31st, 2018 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse -4You're completely deranged:
citation
a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work.
“the majority of the citations are to work published during the past twenty years”
(Oxford Living Dictionaries)
How do you think people cite things in printed books, dumbo? You never once asked for a link, you're such a liar it's unbelievable. If you want a link, ask for one, don't get pissy because people can't understand you when you use English incorrectly.
And anyway, this is all completely irrelevant. Voice isn't getting any benefit of any kind. The question is, will Britain entertain the idea of free association? Will you agree now that the answer is no?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 31st, 2018 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0“How do you think people cite things in printed books,..” Stupid, he cited from an online source
You never once asked for a link,“ Oh yes I did as the record clearly shows
”The URL (internet address) of any source cited should of course be given.“
Citation of electronic sources - Thuto .org www. thuto.org/ubh/web/cite.htm
”the URL provided by the database in the access element of your citation.“
Q. DOI, URL, database name and accession number, or permalink ...
rasmussen .libanswers.com/faq/32657
”Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. .... and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
”Oh yes I did as the record clearly shows
Jul 31st, 2018 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse -2”The URL (internet address) of any source cited should of course be given.“”
Lying again! You never said that before just now. This isn't an academic work, and a cite is not the same thing as a link, as any dictionary will tell you. If you want a link, you must ask for a link.
But it's all irrelevant anyway. Answer the question: Will Britain entertain the idea of free association? Yes or no?
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 31st, 2018 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You never said that before just now.” that was clarification in addressing your claim that “You never once asked for a link”
“So unless you can furnish when and where they have entertained such a view, I'll dismiss it as just another of your many, many porkies.” Whats was this Scotch mist? so who is the only revealed liar.
You are.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse -2Now, will Britain entertain the idea of free association? Yes or no?
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 31st, 2018 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1So he deliberately ”committied the fraud of omission”. So he doesn't get to obtain any benefit from his own wrong doing.
Thanks for letting me show you're the proven liar here. Don't your lips get tired from all that sucking?
““So unless you can furnish when and where they have entertained such a view, I'll dismiss it as just another of your many, many porkies.” Whats was this Scotch mist? so who is the only revealed liar.”
Jul 31st, 2018 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You are the liar...
In the above paragraph show us where the word citation is or where the word link is or URL....
The when and where are answered in the quote and the reference to where it was published...
You immediately claimed the quote does not exist in the place it was referenced...
Which means you understood that “Oxford Public International Law” was the reference to its source...
The burden of proof rested with you to proof the referenced view was false...it was not...
It was where I said it was all the time...you are just embarrassed that you could not find it and denied it existed...
DemonTree
He will never answer the question because he knows he was wrong...
There is no omission the quote and source is right there from the beginning...
@TH
Jul 31st, 2018 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Okay, if you're too big a coward to answer, how about this:
You, Terence L Hill, agree that Voice was right and the UK does not entertain the idea of free association.
Deny it if you dare, and remember how very many times you have claimed “silence means consent”.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 31st, 2018 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“You immediately claimed the quote does not exist in the place it was referenced...”
Thats as I showed correctly, if you were meeting your required obligation you would have readily supplied the URL that you're relying on. Instead you relied on fraud to conceal it.
“The burden of proof rested with you” No it does not. “Establishing the ”burden of proof“ – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance.” Argumentation theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“It was where I said it was all the time.” Which you failed to reveal its location, in spite of being asked, thus engaging in fraud.
Irrelevant. Last chance to deny Voice was right in the first place, Terry. If you make one more post without saying so, we can all conclude you agree he is, and just don't have enough integrity to admit it.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -2DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 31st, 2018 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“..answer, how about this...”
I don't condone wrong doing, nor do I intend to be an accessory to it.
God! those lips must be so tired, they must dragging on the ground by now.
Okay, so Terry admits Voice is right, and is just trying to distract from that fact. I don't think there is any more to say.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You two..., be gentle with Curly...
Jul 31st, 2018 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -3DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 31st, 2018 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The issue becomes moot. In the same way as if you cheat in any other endeavour, your disqualified.
“He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory to each other.” This elementary rule of logic expresses, in technical language, the saying that a man shall not be permitted to “blow hot and cold” with reference to the same transaction, or insist, at different times, on the truth of each of two conflicting allegations, according to the promptings of his private interest. Says the Satyr, if you have gotten a trick of blowing hot and cold out of the same mouth, I've e'en done“ with ye.' en.wikiquote.org/wiki
The UK still doesn't entertain the idea of free association.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -3@Think
¿Desde cuándo has estado el policía bueno?
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 31st, 2018 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“The UK still doesn't entertain...”
Is there any particular outfit you wear, when your your cheer-leading mode, any pom-poms?
No special outfit is required to cut through your bullshit and expose the truth.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -3That's what we're doing here, Terry. We're not trying to score points in a school debate with pretty, polished arguments, we were trying to determine whether the UK would consider free association, and we have found the answer. You know the truth, even though you won't admit it.
Terry...
Jul 31st, 2018 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -4I realise that you're incapable of learning, but...
If you can substitute “you are” in place of “Your” then it is correct to use “You're” not “Your”
“Is there any particular outfit you wear when your in cheer-leading mode, pom-poms?”
“Is there any particular outfit you wear when you are in cheer-leading mode, pom-poms?”
you're
“You are wearing your badge of stupidity with pride”
you are...doesn't work before badge...
I hope this helps...
But what if he intended to write “Is there any particular outfit you wear when in your cheer-leading mode, pom-poms?” Then he would have got the correct 'your'.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Or he might have been aiming for the double with “Is there any particular outfit you wear, when you're in your cheer-leading mode? Any pom-poms?”
But that one's just asking for trouble!
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 31st, 2018 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“and expose the truth” You've failed so far miserably.
“we were trying to determine whether ..” We can do it in any manner we choose, Regardless, of whether such conduct is prohibited or not. I didn't know that you had accepted in total the ethos of viveza criolla.
I run on the assumption that honesty is the best policy. Whereas, yours seems to be the total avoidance such concept. Remember, you're known by the company you keep, I'm glad I don't have the same low standards.
@Voice
Jul 31st, 2018 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I kind of regret my last reply; I don't think you should pick on his poor spelling. Plenty of people spell badly but still have interesting and worthwhile things to say, and I don't want them to be put off contributing. My previous boss had dyslexia and his spelling was terrible, but he was obviously perfectly smart.
@TH
Come on, you know we are right, you've already admitted as much by your refusal to answer. If you think being mistaken makes you look foolish, well, refusing to recognise it just makes you look 10 times as silly.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 31st, 2018 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I answered way back in the thread..., I also have shown at least four sites that show such conduct is not permissible.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“You're” not “Your”
”It used to be we thought that people who went around correcting other people's grammar were just plain annoying. Now there's evidence they are actually ill, suffering from a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder/oppositional defiant disorder (OCD/ODD). Researchers are calling it Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome, or GPS.“ illinois.edu/blog/view/25/76120
“Grammar Pedantry Syndrome” is a form of OCD in which sufferers need to correct every grammatical error.” twitter.com/uberfacts/status/218151002707206145
“A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, ... Asperger syndrome often have behaviour characterized by pedantic speech.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant
Must be a slow day, since you're both incapable of showing anywhere it is permissible to engage in 'fraud by omission'.
Sigh. Please quote where you answered the question then.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -1DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 31st, 2018 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“... quote where you answered the question...”
“What evolved forty-eight years later as both a matter of clarity and compliance with the Charter is simply incidental. Your goal-posts are fixed at 1960, your claim your pie.”
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/07/27/argentina-questions-falklands-release-on-a-second-flight-proposals-are-still-under-consideration/comments#comment490752
fraud by omission....
Jul 31st, 2018 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -3”A caveat to the necessary elements under either a fraud by omission claim or a fraudulent misrepresentation claim is that “mere silence does not constitute fraud where it relates to facts open to common observation or discoverable by the exercise of ordinary diligence, or where means of information are as accessible to one party as to the other.” Bryant v. Troutman, 287 S.W.2d 918, 920–921 (Ky.1956).
So there was no fraud at all...;-)
@Terry
Jul 31st, 2018 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Okay, so you do agree Voice is right, you're just lying about what he said in order to avoid admitting it:
“You explicitly claimed that this was the UK's stated position in 1960”
What Voice said:
“The islanders are not freely associated with the UK the Islands are British to be free from Britain they would need to be independent the UK does not entertain free association...”
You can read the whole post and he never mentions 1960 or any year. YOU are the only one who has mentioned that year. Do you never get tired of lying and making a fool of yourself?
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/07/27/argentina-questions-falklands-release-on-a-second-flight-proposals-are-still-under-consideration/comments#comment490687
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 31st, 2018 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“discoverable by the exercise of ordinary diligence” But it wasn't and at least five sites gave me the same restricted view. Further, you were asked for a complete citation, which you did not provide. Moreover, your assertion doesn't reach the level of “Establishing the ”burden of proof“ – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance.” Argumentation theory From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or follows the following criteria.
”The URL (internet address) of any source cited should of course be given.“
Citation of electronic sources - Thuto .org www. thuto.org/ubh/web/cite.htm
”the URL provided by the database in the access element of your citation.“
Q. DOI, URL, database name and accession number, or permalink ...
rasmussen .libanswers.com/faq/32657
”Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. .... and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
So there was a deliberate attempt of concealment, and thus fraud.
So what. The fact he took a whopping 1 day to provide a link you never actually asked for (do you expect him to be psychic, too?) doesn't make it wrong.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Whatever you say about Voice makes NO difference, it doesn't matter whether he did his cites correctly or not. Because you have the evidence now, you can read it for yourself and make a decision based on that evidence. Oxford Public International Law is the one claiming Britain doesn't entertain the idea of free association; are you going to argue with them?
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 31st, 2018 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“you're just lying about what he said” If that true you would have shown it.
“You're the only one who has mentioned that year” See how much easier it would be if he was a straight shooter and revealed an original citation. Then one would not have to go back to step one, which was known to be authentic. Oh what tangled web you weave when you practise to deceive. So if there's a fault it lies with one who is deceiving.
“The fact he took a whopping” six of my posts later to comply.
“types of ”fallible“ arguments: one based on truth claims, and the other based on the time-responsive disclosure” Argument From Wikipedia
“Disclosure theory is the argument that a debater should lose for failing to upload case tags and citations to the NDCA Wiki. Variations on the argument ask the judge to drop debaters who post incomplete citations, who only upload citations and not full-text or ‘open-source’ evidence, ..”
http://premierdebatetoday.com/2015/10/06/is-disclosure-theory-different-by-bob-overing/
Can't get a much more qualified entity to state what constitutes improper conduct.
”it doesn't matter whether he did his cites correctly or not“ Well it certainly does to Wikipedia as they wouldn't accept a posting from him under these conditions are you going to argue with them”.
Since when is there a time limit in offering Links...?
Jul 31st, 2018 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You do not set the timescale Terry...
I can put in a link when or if I feel like it and it certainly doesn't make the facts wrong...
What we have learned is you are not capable of exercising ordinary diligence despite the information being as accessible to one party as to the other...
Beside I wasn't that happy with Oxford Public International Law being the source, because the reference was made by a contributor and not the source, I eventually found the source which was ...The paper presented to the Pacific Regional Seminar by the FCO...here, my preferred link...
https://www.un.org/en/decolonization/pdf/crp_2008_04_united_kingdom.pdf
Ordinary diligence, ROFL. Terry isn't even living in the same reality as the rest of us. He thinks facts grow in books by spontaneous generation, and if something isn't in Wikipedia it can't be true. The idea that there is some kind of objective reality completely escapes him, and he believes the English language is as well defined and deterministic as a programming language. Basically, he's a seething mess of misconceptions, and if you scratch the surface you just find even more egregious ones underneath.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@TH
Terry, my dear nitwit, I did show it. I quoted what Voice said and it did not include the year 1960. Furthermore, since it was you who said to Voice “You explicitly claimed that this was the UK's stated position in 1960”, it is your burden of proof, so you'd better get to it.
Oh, and since you have such comprehension problems, here is the dictionary definition of 'explicitly':
“In a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.”
As for your other two quotes, I already dismissed them here:
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/07/27/argentina-questions-falklands-release-on-a-second-flight-proposals-are-still-under-consideration/comments#comment490850
Since you made no reply, I assume you agree with me that they are 100% irrelevant to this issue.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jul 31st, 2018 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Since when is there a time limit in offering Links...?”
You'd have to ask the following. “types of ”fallible“ arguments: one based on truth claims, and the other based on the time-responsive disclosure” Argument From Wikipedia
If there wasn't anything untoward in your behaviour, why wouldn't you present your claim in a proper manner? If I make a claim then there is an accompanying citation.
”exercising ordinary diligence ” Thats not my onus as the BoP is yours alone.
Do please tell us, Terry, what 'time-responsive disclosure' means in this context, with particular reference to Martin Heidegger's 'Being and Time'. If you can't, we'll have to conclude that as usual, you have no earthly clue what you are quoting.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -1And 'why wouldn't he present his claim in a proper manner'? Do journalists provide a list a cites below their articles? No, it is not considered necessary. Only in certain types of writing like Wikipedia or an academic paper is it required, and even on Wikipedia if there is no reference for some fact, they don't simply delete it, but add a note saying it needs one. The reference can be added later by a different person, it doesn't matter.
Maybe if I say this enough times it'll sink in: Terry, facts aren't facts because some expert said so, or because they are written on Wikipedia. Grass was still green before anyone said so, and it would still be green even if the most trustworthy person on planet earth, and every encyclopaedia, insisted it was red.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Jul 31st, 2018 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“that this was the UK's stated position in 1960” So it was, I also said ”See how much easier it would be if he was a straight shooter and revealed an original citation. Then one would not have to go back to step one, which was known to be authentic.“
”time-responsive disclosure' means in this context“ It means the opposite to the claim ”Since when is there a time limit”
'why wouldn't he present his claim in a proper manner'? You claiming he did? If that so was so, I would not have place reliance on the prior historical record. Since his current claim couldn't be authenticated, even though it was solely his burden and no one else's.
“So it was.” Is under no stretch of the imagination a citation. Quote where Voice said anything about 1960, hell, give us a link, too, since you think that is so important.
Jul 31st, 2018 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -3”time-responsive disclosure' does not mean there is a time limit. Read your quote and tell me where it mentions any time limit. It is talking about something completely different, as you'd see if you followed the link that you so carefully omitted from your quote.
Terry has a warped sense of his own worth...I am not obliged to furnish him with anything...
Jul 31st, 2018 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -3If I make a statement and he chooses not to believe it, it doesn't make it any less true.
If he claims it isn't true then the onus is upon him to prove it isn't true, because what he believes is irrelevant.
It became apparent that everything I said was true and everything he said was not true...
So, no matter which way one looks at it...I was right and he was wrong...
...and nothing he says will change that....;-)
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Aug 01st, 2018 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse +2“time-responsive disclosure' does not mean there is a time limit.” That is correct, I didn't omit anything I grabbed it on the fly. It applies to philosophy not what I thought it did. But there still an obligation to comply with precepts of Argumentation theory. As its purpose is to promote balance and prevent unfair advantages. If party fails to make full disclosure in timely manner, then that balance is lost. You cannot make fully informed decisions if you are only allowed part of the information.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“If he claims it isn't true” That claim is only made when a party fails to meet their BoP. As it is totally within the cards to draw an “adverse inference”. The issue at this juncture is whether you engaged fraud, which you clearly did.
“It applies to philosophy not what I thought it did.”
Aug 01st, 2018 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse -2Indeed. And yet you posted this quote 4 times, even though I pointed out that it applied to philosophy and not what you were saying the very first time you used it:
“It's a philosophical argument, nothing at all to do with how quickly someone provides cites for their claim.”
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/07/27/argentina-questions-falklands-release-on-a-second-flight-proposals-are-still-under-consideration/comments#comment490850
Is repeating an already-debunked argument 3 times fraud, Terry?
How about those journalists? They publish articles every day claiming many things, yet never provide cites. For example, the article we are commenting on right now says “the Argentine foreign ministry released a brief note saying that nothing has yet been confirmed from the initiative jointly launched by Argentina and the UK”, and yet they have no link to this note. Is Mercopress engaging in fraud?
As for Voice, where on the Wikipedia page about citing sources does it say that not including a link constitutes fraud? Here is what it says about dealing with unsourced material:
“For individual unreferenced claims in an article:
...In any other case consider finding references yourself, or commenting on the article talk page or the talk page of the editor who added the unsourced material. You may place a {{citation needed}} or {{dubious}} tag against the added text.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Dealing_with_unsourced_material
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 01st, 2018 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +2DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
“the Wikipedia page about citing sources does it say that not including a link constitutes fraud?”
Already asked and answered on my last post.
“That claim is only made when a party fails to meet their BoP. As it is totally within the cards to draw an “adverse inference”. The issue at this juncture is whether you engaged fraud, which you clearly did.”
That was a rhetorical question, Terry. It does not say on the Wikipedia page about citing sources that failing to include a link is fraud, because it isn't. And why are you willing to believe what is written in Mercopress articles, when they don't provide sources and often don't list the name of the author, either?
Aug 01st, 2018 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Also, YOU have still failed to meet your burden of proof. You said that Voice explicitly claimed that this was the UK's stated position in 1960, and I have asked you three times now to prove it. I guess I should go ahead and draw an adverse inference, huh?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 01st, 2018 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +3DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
“the Wikipedia page about citing sources does it say that not including a link constitutes fraud?”
True, is uses the word “drop debaters” Which means relinquish, apparently because they find such conduct unacceptable, hmm.
“Variations on the argument ask the judge to drop debaters who post incomplete citations, who only upload citations and not full-text or ‘open-source’ evidence,”
“You said that Voice explicitly claimed..” It was the U.Ks position at that time. Like I have said, “See how much easier it would be if he was a straight shooter and revealed an original citation. Then one would not have to go back to step one, which was known to be authentic.”
“True, is uses the word “drop debaters””
Aug 01st, 2018 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -1No it doesn't. I searched the page for that phrase, and even the two words separately, and found nothing. It doesn't say editors who post uncited material should be banned, or even given a warning. It says: “consider finding references yourself, or commenting on the article talk page or the talk page of the editor who added the unsourced material.”
Pretty similar to what we have been saying, that you should look for the source yourself, or ask Voice for the link.
“It was the U.Ks position at that time.”
That is something you said, not Voice. You have still not met your burden of proof. It's obvious you are wrong about this (again), but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit it.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Aug 01st, 2018 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Variations on the argument ask the judge to drop debaters who post incomplete citations, who only upload citations and not full-text or ‘open-source’ evidence, ” is referenced to NDCA Wiki by Premier Debate http://premierdebatetoday.com/2015/10/06/is-disclosure-theory-different-by-bob-overing/
Which is an opinion, which wouldn't warrant even consideration if it wasn't believed necessary.
Like I have previously stated any errors and omissions, are the result of the asserter's evasions, by his failure to provide full citation when requested. It cannot be confirmed nor denied what has not been fully disclosed. But failure to timely meet a burden, will conclude in an adverse inference.
Terry, I already debunked that quote in the same post as the other one.
Aug 01st, 2018 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1http://en.mercopress.com/2018/07/27/argentina-questions-falklands-release-on-a-second-flight-proposals-are-still-under-consideration/comments#comment490850
Please read it this time; how can you pretend to want to engage in a serious debate if you don't even read my replies?
As for your 1960 claim, you have now posted 8 comments since you made it, and still haven't provided to link to where Voice said anything about 1960. According to the rules only YOU insist on, you have committed fraud.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 01st, 2018 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +1DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
“No it doesn't.” You claim, I provide the URL. You then show “Many judges have very strong negative“ I never claimed it was conclusive view to wit ”Which is an opinion, which wouldn't warrant even consideration if it wasn't believed necessary“
”haven't provided to link to where Voice said anything about 1960“ Already asked and answered ”Like I have previously stated any errors and omissions, are the result of the asserter's evasions, by his failure to provide full citation when requested.”
The great thing about this thread is it is the same conclusion I independently had arrived at, and posted such a view previously, that no UN resolution could impinge on the UN Charter. That what ever outcome the UK would prefer, they and every one else are bound by the constraints of the UN Charter.
“The islanders have a voted to remain 'freely associated with the UK' their legal right.” Brit Bob
Aug 01st, 2018 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The islanders are not freely associated with the UK the Islands are British to be free from Britain they would need to be independent the UK does not entertain free association...” Voice
Voice,
You know full well Bob was not referring to the Associated State status of Resolution 1541, but simply that their association (ie links) with the UK are of their own free choice.
Even the UK government in its OT white paper referred to OTs association with the UK
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32952/ot-wp-0612.pdf
pg 16 of pdf
Is Associated State status a current option? No. Was it ever? Yes. See West Indies Associated States:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32952/ot-wp-0612.pdf
When did it stop being an option? Don't know. Possibly when the above Association came to an end. At least from 2009 when the statement was made.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32952/ot-wp-0612.pdf
@Terry the Idiot without a village
Aug 01st, 2018 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“I never claimed it was conclusive view”
Not conclusive! Your own link says 57% of respondents to the survey did not disclose at all. It's a minority position, which in a debate some judges would fail you, Terry, for arguing. Even besides that, you and Voice were not taking part in a debate, where the rules are agreed in advance and known to all, so this does not apply to you. Moreover neither of you have access to this Wiki, so it would be impossible to follow if you wanted to.
And yet you used this as evidence to call Voice a fraud. Will you take that back now that you realise 'inconclusive' it is?
And no, you STILL haven't given any evidence for your claim that Voice said anything about 1960. Voice's supposed 'failure to provide a full citation when requested' has absolutely nothing to do with this. All you have done is quote yourself, even you must understand that that is not evidence. To prove it, you must quote Voice, in this thread, where he explicitly says he is talking about the UK's postion in 1960.
@dab14763
If Bob doesn't mean freely associated, he shouldn't say freely associated; it's highly misleading. It doesn't matter whether Voice understood him or not, Bob's comment wasn't addressed to Voice and anyone else reading it would take the words at face value.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Aug 01st, 2018 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“haven't given any evidence for your claim that Voice said anything”
Already asked and answered ”Like I have previously stated any errors and omissions, are the result of the asserter's evasions, by his failure to provide full citation when requested.”
That is NOT an answer. After all your bitching that Voice didn't provide a link, you have now replied 10 times without giving one.
Aug 01st, 2018 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -210 times a fraud, Terry.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Aug 01st, 2018 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“That is NOT an answer.” It's the best you're going to get. Besides, you're just the diminutive partner of the tag-team. Its very touching, watching the deep attachments you form. The present one is a complete sophist here is a typical of his frauds. In presenting pleading arguments as judgments from the ICJ at #99, which was refuted conclusively at http://en.mercopress.com/2015/04/29/falklands-malvinas-unasur-message-in-support-of-argentina-s-claims/comments#comment396111. Moreover, he is a complete anglophobe.
Your alternative is a revealed fascist. Didn't anyone tell you “You are judged by the company you keep”, the three amigos, fitting company.
Still no cite.
Aug 01st, 2018 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -211 times a fraud, Terry.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Aug 01st, 2018 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +1But lots of shite from you, even though you've just shoehorned yourself into the issue. Guess its got to be tough being an apologist for one who is an enemy to the legal rights of your country. Whats that word again that comes to mind? Oh yeah! traitor.
12 times a fraud.
Aug 01st, 2018 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -1DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Aug 01st, 2018 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +2It's the best you're going to get, as its none of your business, traitor.
DemonTree
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse -3Don't know why he keeps claiming I didn't give a citation...I have written many papers in my time and quote plus source has always been satisfactory, because quote plus source is a citation...
Nowadays it's a little different, when writing a paper one uses the Harvard referencing system which is n-text citations and they only contain a fragment of the full citation...
Full citation being listed in the bibliography...
It make tedious reading and I still have the task of editing and often rewriting the wife's essays...
Here's an exert from the last one I worked on...
”The clan chief was responsible for clan protection and security of land in return for allegiance (ibid, 11). Once appointed as Lord, he was expected to rule ‘not with tyranny and partiality, but with discretion and sincerity’ (McIntosh 2012: 66). The economy was based on mutuality, reciprocity and trust, ‘the vernacular economy’ like the Gaelic language, was a culturally learned way of doing things (Illich 1981, cited in McIntosh 2012: 29). ”
It's her work...I just polish it a little...
If Terry had asked for a link I would have supplied one, but he didn't ask for a link not once...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse +2“If Terry had asked for a link” The truth of your claim “ So unless you can furnish when and where ..”
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/07/27/argentina-questions-falklands-release-on-a-second-flight-proposals-are-still-under-consideration/comments#comment490692
So all that shown was an abridged copy with no URL.
You didn't ask for an URL you asked when and where....
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse -3I supplied that...
If I asked you to furnish when and where you were born...am I asking you for a link...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse +3Thats just more of you BS, as everything I rely on is furnished with a URL. You know perfectly how this operates as this is not your first post.
Enough of your stupid bullshit and tedious lies....
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse -4You did not ask of a link, you did not ask for a URL...
Show me where you asked for one...
I respond to what people ask for...not what they don't ask for if you mean link say link...
It is not my responsibility to second guess what you mean...
It is not my first post and on countless occasions I have seen folk asking for a link (URL) and do you know how they do that...?
They say “do you have a link to that info”....
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse +3No you contrive to be as sophistic and as evasive as possible as I've already shown on this thread, and through my many interactions with you.
A link is what you supply if you intend to meet your BoP.
@Voice
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse -6I suspect he may have some kind of autism, and doesn't fully grasp that other people don't know what he knows. He knew he was asking for a link, it was obvious to him, so he thinks it must be obvious to you, too, and you must have some malicious motive for not giving one.
Dunno where he gets the rampant hypocrisy from, though. As you can see I was asking him for a link to prove what he claimed, and he's refused to give one, making him a fraud according to his own bullshit reasoning. Apparently this doesn't bother him at all.
@Terry
You know fine and well resorting to ad hominem attacks means you've lost the argument. Why don't you go lick your wounds in peace?
Fascinating explanations as to what Free Association is actually defined as. I cannot see that Brit Bob is way off the mark, asserting that the Falkland Islanders are freely associated with the UK. As they want to remain attached to the UK, (and are free to decide that) it hardly implies that they are not freely associated with the UK.
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Surely, either the Islanders are freely associated with the UK or they are not. Judging by the number of Union Jacks flying around on the Referendum day, you would have to be crazy to suggest that the Falkland Islanders are not freely associated with the UK.
@Pete Bog
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -2In this context Free Association has a technical meaning, and the Falklands do not qualify. Brit Bob knows this perfectly well (as his later comment shows), so it's hard not to think he is trying to mislead people intentionally.
Yes, the Falklands chose to remain an overseas territory - for now - but they are still subject to the UK parliament's decisions, like all the BOTs. For example, Westminster recently voted that all BOTs must reveal who owns companies headquartered there, something that many of them are strongly opposed to, but they will have to follow this decision they had no say in. If they were freely associated states, the UK could not do this.
As an analogy, imagine if Think started telling people he was American. When challenged, he could say “I'm from South America, therefore I'm an American.” Arguably true, but he knows he's going to give everyone the wrong impression.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“You did not ask of a link” I'm not required to, its your obligation to provide one.
”The URL (internet address) of any source cited should of course be given.“
Citation of electronic sources - Thuto .org www. thuto.org/ubh/web/cite.htm
”the URL provided by the database in the access element of your citation.“
Q. DOI, URL, database name and accession number, or permalink ...
rasmussen .libanswers.com/faq/32657
”Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. .... and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Quite in cheap seats, is that the best pandering you can do? As there's nothing of any substance you've contributed.
@Pete Bog
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Also wanted to say, I'm impressed with your fortitude in making it to the end of this very long and tedious thread. ;)
@Terry
I HAVE asked you for a link, many times, and you have refused to meet your burden of proof. What does that make you?
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Already asked and answered ”Like I have previously stated any errors and omissions, are the result of the asserter's evasions, by his failure to provide full citation when requested.”
I wasn't writing an article you numpty...I was answering a question and as such I'm not required to give you anything...if you are unable to do a simple quote search especially when I have given you the source...
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -3That is not my fault...
Pete Bog
I knew fine well what Bob was meaning and that is why I pulled him on it straight away...
...and it's not the first time I have highlighted his deliberate statement concerning free association...
As long as the Falklands have chosen to remain an overseas territory of the UK then that is what they are...The UK does not entertain free association...
@Terry
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -3According to you, a link is what you supply if you intend to meet your BoP. You have not supplied a link. Therefore by your own reasoning, you have failed to meet your burden of proof.
This makes you a hypocrite, liar, and coward.
@Voice
This isn't the worst of Terry's delusions. He thinks if you say something and don't prove it, that means it isn't true. For example, if I claim the sky is blue, and don't give him a link to some article saying so, that means it isn't. Unbelievable that anyone could be so stupid and still function.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I'm not required to give you anything...do a simple quote search
Not my burden whereas it is your obligation to provide, as my last post shows. In addition,“ Establishing the ”burden of proof – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance.
For the one carrying the “burden of proof”, the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.” Argumentation theory From Wikipedia,
@dab14763
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +2If Bob doesn't mean freely associated, he shouldn't say freely associated; it's highly misleading. It doesn't matter whether Voice understood him or not, Bob's comment wasn't addressed to Voice and anyone else reading it would take the words at face value.
Come on, DT. Surely you and Voice know the difference between using a word such as 'associated' in its ordinary, everyday meaning and its specialized meaning as in 'Associated State'.
@dab14763
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Yes, we do. It's like when creationists say evolution is 'just a theory'; they are trying to mislead people by blurring the distinction between the technical and common uses of the term.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“link is what you supply if you intend to meet your BoP”
I'm the respondent not the asserter, I'm under no obligation if the asserter fails to meet his burden. By his failure to provide a full citation as obliged when requested.
Is that the best pandering you can do? You suck at sucking.
First you refuse to supply evidence, now you try to shift the burden of proof. Look in the mirror, Terry. YOU are exactly what you accuse others of being.
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Shifting the burden
Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Once again, for the pandering, lame, blind and obtuse, I am the respondent not the asserter. Therefor, it is not my obligation to respond to an asserter who has not met his BoP in a timely fashion.
No, you are the asserter. For the 3rd time, you said that Voice explicitly claimed that this was the UK's stated position in 1960. It is your burden of proof, and after failing for multiple posts to provide any, you are now trying to slither out of it by shifting the burden.
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Terry, the reason you can't find any proof is that you are wrong. All your lies, dodging, and libel are never going to change that simple fact. Be honest with yourself for once and admit it.
dab14763
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Who ever uses Free Association in an ordinary, everyday meaning...
Not Bob that's for sure...
The Falklands have a very specific relationship with the UK legally, it has no International Identity separate from the UK...free association from a partially governed dependant was never an option and their choice was to remain an overseas territory of the UK
They did not vote for free association or to emerge into any other political status freely determined by themselves...
I know exactly where Bob was going with this and there was no misunderstanding....
“Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?
YES or NO”
One can be sure without a shadow of doubt that the UK set the question that was to be asked so that there would be no misunderstanding to what they were voting for...
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +3asserter “to be free from Britain they would need to be independent the UK does not entertain free association...”
respondent “So unless you can furnish when and where they have entertained such a view, I'll dismiss it”
But failure to timely meet a burden, will conclude in an adverse inference.
Like I have previously stated any errors and omissions, are the result of the asserter's evasions, by his failure to provide full citation when requested.”
If you fail to respond in a timely manner in a legal setting, your barred as is Argentina over the Islands.
That is both rational and fair based on the premise, your not allowed to put the respondent at any disadvantage.
In other words sophistry cans you.
So tell me where in, ”So unless you can furnish when and where they have entertained such a view, I'll dismiss it” is there a time limit...?
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -3....and at what point did you furnish a time limit...?
I remember...it was after I furnished you with a URL because I realised that you were incapable of finding it after several failed attempts, despite the fact that I had already informed you of its source...
Do you ever quote without a link to the source Terry...?
How about on this page have you quoted without a link...;-)
You are a master of quoting without a link...the countless times I've had to find the source because you have part quoted to twist the meaning...purposefully...
Shall we see if we can find one, perhaps even on this page...huh...?
Voice
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +2or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“The countless times I've had to find the source because you have part quoted to twist the meaning...purposefully...
Shall we see if we can find one” Please indulge me, I see your tag-team buddy has gone for a rest.
Aha. Bob, since you have reappeared, do you mind explaining why you wrote 'freely associated with the UK', if what you meant was 'any other political status'?
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -3You're knowledgeable enough about the subject, and clearly know the difference. You even put it in quotes, showing you meant the technical term and weren't just using it as a phrase.
-Who ever uses Free Association in an ordinary, everyday meaning...
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Not Bob that's for sure...
Come on. It's evident from Bob's statement, which says 'freely associated' not 'Free Association' and his link that is what he meant. He linked 'freely associated' with 4th option, not the 2nd.
-They did not vote for free association
Nobody has said they did
-or to emerge into any other political status freely determined by themselves...
yes they did. The political status of an OT falls within the definition of 'any other political status' 'freely determined by themselves' means the OT gets to vote on it. Which is what happened in the referendum.
-One can be sure without a shadow of doubt that the UK set the question that was to be asked so that there would be no misunderstanding to what they were voting for...
Wrong
http://www.fig.gov.fk/assembly/component/jdownloads/send/69-29-august-2012/520-205-12p-referendum-on-political-status
http://www.fig.gov.fk/assembly/component/jdownloads/send/69-29-august-2012/520-205-12p-referendum-on-political-status
Are you having a larfff...
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Bob was doing his usual...leading us to his papers with the links...
...and he has just confirmed above where he was going with it...like I didn't know...
Spouting the same tired old stuff that no State or emerging State has ever done...the fourth option...the guiding ideals of the UN, there is no legality involved in optional ideals...
The political status of BOT's have not evolved they are what the are... a colonial relic to an inglorious past...they even have a Governor with a fancy hat...
..and the UK has no intention of giving them any other political status...
There isn't a choice to freely choose when there is no other options on the table...it was a simple take it or leave it Status Quo...
Hobson's Choice...
Terry
There you go...
”Terence Hill
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major “Since when is there a time limit in offering Links...?” You'd have to ask the following. “TYPES OF ”FALLIBLE“ ARGUMENTS: ONE BASED ON TRUTH CLAIMS, AND THE OTHER BASED ON THE TIME-RESPONSIVE DISCLOSURE” Argument From Wikipedia If there wasn't anything untoward in your behaviour, why wouldn't you present your claim in a proper manner? If I make a claim then there is an accompanying citation. ”exercising ordinary diligence ” Thats not my onus as the BoP is yours alone.”
Where is the link to the quote and did you part quote it to suit your argument...yes you did..
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“There you go...” No problem, I never claimed to be infallible. No fuss, no muss, no equivocation, no delay or evasion.
http://www.wiki-zero.co/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQXJndW1lbnQ
Too late...according to you one shouldn't quote without a link...
Aug 02nd, 2018 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Apparently it is so common to quote without a URL that you did it only a few posts ago whilst accusing people of fraud for doing the exact same thing...
Can you not see your hypocrisy yet...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 03rd, 2018 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Apparently it is so common to quote without a URL ...” Thats not issue, its your deliberate avoidance.
I have shown clearly how fast a URL can be produced if you're willing, unless you're being deliberately evasive. Thanks for confirmation. Can you not see your hypocrisy yet...?
@Voice
Aug 03rd, 2018 - 07:00 am - Link - Report abuse -2He doesn't understand that other people don't know what he knows. He knew it was a link he wanted from you, so he assumes you knew too, even though he never actually asked for one. It's called theory of mind.
Probably explains why he gets so nasty, too. He can't understand why someone would honestly disagree with him, so he attributes it to bad motives.
Voice
Aug 03rd, 2018 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse +1You and the other members of the Flat Earth Society motivated me to produce the paper concerned. Many thanks.
@Brit Bob
Aug 03rd, 2018 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse -1I guess that means you *do* mind explaining why you wrote that, huh?
You mean consistently Spam links to your boring opinions...Bob...
Aug 03rd, 2018 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse -1The only thing that motivated you to bore people to death was your ego...Bob..
Voice
Aug 03rd, 2018 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm going to have fun with the Spanish version...Chuckle chuckle.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Aug 03rd, 2018 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“so he assumes you knew too,”
Here the lesser part of the tag-team offers his solace sophistry. Whereas the reality is clearly precedented thus.
“private websites are not self-authenticating and therefore require additional proof of the source of the posting or the process by which it was generated...Because of the increased dangers of falsehood and fraud with this new type of medium, courts have imposed a heavier burden of authentication on social network messages and postings.”
http://mnbenchbar.com/2013/10/admissibility-of-electronic-evidence/
”The URL (internet address) of any source cited should of course be given.“
”the URL provided by the database in the access element of your citation.“
” and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found”.
http://mnbenchbar.com/2013/10/admissibility-of-electronic-evidence/
“I HAVE asked you for a link,” Already asked and answered ”Like I have previously stated any errors and omissions, are the result of the asserter's evasions, by his failure to provide full citation when requested.”
Te he he...funny guy...
Aug 03rd, 2018 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Authentication of such evidence is perhaps the most difficult challenge as courts seek to determine its admissibility.”
http://mnbenchbar.com/2013/10/admissibility-of-electronic-evidence/
This is about admissibility in a Court you numpty...
Not about folk answering a question on a public forum...
Did you read your link...?
Don't you think others might follow your link and think...what is this idiot doing now...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 03rd, 2018 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“This is about admissibility in a Court ...” No this is about you failing to meeting your BoP, this is purely by way of illustration. Or is it your view that there is neither reason nor rules are applicable?
”The URL (internet address) of any source cited should of course be given.“
Citation of electronic sources - Thuto .org www. thuto.org/ubh/web/cite.htm
”the URL provided by the database in the access element of your citation.“
Q. DOI, URL, database name and accession number, or permalink ...
rasmussen .libanswers.com/faq/32657
”Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. .... and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found”.
https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
So there was a deliberate attempt of concealment, and thus fraud.
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/07/27/argentina-questions-falklands-release-on-a-second-flight-proposals-are-still-under-consideration/comments#comment490896
You're a much bigger fraud then, and a hypocrite to boot. I have asked you to link to where Voice mentioned 1960 way more than 6 times, and you have refused, pretended to misunderstand me, lied that you have already answered, and tried to shift the burden of proof.
Aug 03rd, 2018 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -1-Spouting the same tired old stuff that no State or emerging State has ever done...the fourth option...the guiding ideals of the UN, there is no legality involved in optional ideals...
Aug 03rd, 2018 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Sure about that?
Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, Aruba, Curacao, and Sint Maarten are not independent, in Free Association with, or integrated into their parent States, so their political statuses by definition must be covered by the fourth option.
-The political status of BOT's have not evolved they are what the are... a colonial relic to an inglorious past...they even have a Governor with a fancy hat...
Utter nonsense. Going from having their constitutional arrangements determined by Letter Patent issued by the Monarch on advice of the Privy Council to each inhabited territory having its own constitution IS a change in political status. And the Governor’s hat thing is irrelevant to the argument.
-and the UK has no intention of giving them any other political status...
There isn't a choice to freely choose when there is no other options on the table...it was a simple take it or leave it Status Quo...
Hobson's Choice...
British Overseas Territory simply means that they are territories that are overseas and are British. It is not a one size fits all arrangement, forever set in stone. There are plenty of ways in which a territory can change both in its internal constitution and in its constitutional relation with the UK and still remain a BOT.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Aug 04th, 2018 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I have asked you to link to where Voice mentioned 1960 way more than 6 times, and you have refused, ”
Eleven according to to your last projection and I have refuted every time thus“
”Already asked and answered. Like I have previously stated any errors and omissions, are the result of the asserter's evasions, by his failure to provide full citation when requested.”
Not once, have you denied the truth of my rebuttal. Which gives rise to the following affirmation.
“.. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
dab
Aug 04th, 2018 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah I'm sure the're called dependants....
Add Isle of Mann...Jersey etc if you are trying to squeeze existing situations into the fourth option..
The political status has not evolved it is entirely internal for Bot's and not external, hardly more than a Borough politically...
Are you quoting without links again...Terry?
@dab14763
Aug 04th, 2018 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you that the political status of the remaining BOTs has changed and evolved. However, what Voice's quote makes clear is that the UK will never give up its ultimate control over them, unless and until they decide to become formally independent. Their powers of self rule, however extensive, are given to them by the UK government, and can be revoked at any time. They can't change their constitution without the agreement of the UK government. They are dragged in and out of EU associate status according to the UK's decision, and, except for Gibraltar, had no say in the matter. Their British citizenship is given, or taken away, according to the whim of the British government. So although they are run very differently now, they are still, in some essential respects, colonies.
@Terence Liar Hypocrite
Your nose must be long enough to use as a space elevator by now. I have refuted your bullshit reply every time by asking you for a link, which according to your own words is compulsory, and which you have refused to provide, proving that you are a FRAUD.
“According to you, a link is what you supply if you intend to meet your BoP. You have not supplied a link. Therefore by your own reasoning, you have failed to meet your burden of proof.”
As for your 'silence gives consent', it is not applicable as it is talking about the law, not ordinary debates, and even there it is not true:
“The general rule is that silence does not constitute acceptance.”
https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/silence-as-acceptance
Jesus Christ!
Aug 04th, 2018 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Woke up about an hour ago for a lazy Saturday morning with not much on. Thought I’d have a quick look at Mercopress...
If ever anyone needed proof that most of the arguments that TH and Voicey get into are pointless...
Did anyone except TH, Voicey and DT actually read any of that shite!
Go and do something meaningful you clowns.
Chuckle chuckle.
Time to go; Mrs Bloggs has a walk lined up for us. Nice day here in Stanley this morning so far.
Meaningful like going for a walk...?
Aug 04th, 2018 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess that must be high on the cosmic list of meaningful things to do with your time...
...what's next, sitting down...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Aug 04th, 2018 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Are you quoting without links again...Terry?” See easy-peasy, no 'sand-bagging'.
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=BIxyWH0FKgYC&pg=PT490&lpg=PT490&dq=silence,+SOMA%27S+DICTIONARY+OF+LATIN+QUOTATIONS+MAXIMS+AND+PHRASES+A+Compendium+Of+Latin+Thought+And+Rhetorical+Instruments+For+The+Speaker+Author+And+Legal&source=bl&ots=pKwDu6Q0q8&sig=suCAqt4DpJHZg0mOkJS9AT9o8F8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjXrdHe09PcAhUNl5AKHeU-CG8Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=silence%2C%20SOMA'S%20DICTIONARY%20OF%20LATIN%20QUOTATIONS%20MAXIMS%20AND%20PHRASES%20A%20Compendium%20Of%20Latin%20Thought%20And%20Rhetorical%20Instruments%20For%20The%20Speaker%20Author%20And%20Legal&f=false
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
“which you have refused to provide” Fraud nullifies any obligation.“If a claim is made by the person who has committed the fraud, it may be resisted on the ground of the fraud”
https:// books.google.com.br/books?id=3kRjAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=fraud+nullifies+any+obligation&source=bl&ots=w64z_qwcc2&sig=0dAPQkPAFLJTbWdulPkO3aJ9mP0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiypu6q1dPcAhVCEpAKHQbcBTo4ChDoATAFegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=fraud%20nullifies%20any%20obligation&f=false
“it is not applicable as it is talking about the law, not ordinary debates, and even there it is not true?”
Your just frantically guessing as the title refutes your claim.
“A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author..”
JB
“get into are pointless..Go and do something meaningful” Somewhat of a contradiction since you are compelled to comment. “a walk lined up..” Wonderful since I was going to suggest, take a hike.
@JB
Aug 04th, 2018 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've been out flying drones at the abandoned road with some friends, walked home, done two loads of washing and some tidying, and dug up some potatoes for tea tonight.
Now I'm going to trim the willow bush because it's getting out of hand. Hope your walk was good. It's a bit cooler here today (only 25C) with a pleasant breeze, and the lawn's looking greener since it rained last weekend.
Anyway, what Voice said was perfectly sensible, it's just Terry doesn't live in the same reality as the rest of us, and is incapable of saying anything sensible.
DT
Aug 04th, 2018 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hope you enjoyed your drone flying; remember the 50m rule. Sounds like you’ve had an active day so far and glad to hear the U.K. has had some rain.
Whether what Voicey said was perfectly sensible or not- and that would be a turn up for the books- I was bemused to see he’d spent so much time trying to prove he was right... ...and for what?
Always gotta get the last word I guess. Maybe he’s younger than I had him; for someone so bitter and twisted...
As long as it was meaningful for him. Walking’s meaningful for me because I achieve cardiovascular fitness, I socialise with others, I almost always (including today) include a beach with lots of birds and other wildlife, it keeps the girth at a reasonable size and last but not least, walking showcases what a beautiful island I live on.
I engage in enough discussion, debate, negotiation and decision making at work which I think negates the need for it on here. Surprisingly many of the subjects that cross my desk end up on here and it’s always interesting to see how correct some people’s posts are and how wrong other people’s posts are. I, of course, never comment on things I am directly involved in for obvious reasons.
Hey Joe....
Aug 04th, 2018 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't believe that you went for a walk, I see no evidence that you went for a walk...just because you stated it doesn't mean it's true...I want a link that proves that you go for walks..
Welcome to my world Joe...that's how it begins...
The key difference is Voicey, that I couldn’t give a shit what you think and I therefore wouldn’t lock horns with you, or anyone else on here, to prove a point. Whereas it’s clearly more important to you. As long as it’s meaningful to you I suppose.
Aug 04th, 2018 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I need inspiration for dinner, what shall I cook? We went out for a nice meal last night and bought a ready-made lunch from the supermarket today so I really want to cook something nice for dinner. Perhaps fish.
What’s Everyone else having?
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Aug 04th, 2018 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“is incapable of saying anything sensible.”
Sounds like the lament of one who has lost the argument by relying on one specific jurisdiction that has opted out. But failing, as the general governing principle is as I stated.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“Welcome to my world Joe” I like to say what ever I feel like, and resent deeply being challenged to justify it.
JB
“What’s Everyone else having?” Looks like they are eating their words. “I need inspiration for dinner” As for you, life sounds decidedly mundane.
@JB
Aug 04th, 2018 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I argued with Terry the Liar because I was bored, plus his stupidity and hypocrisy are infuriating. I don't know what Voice's excuse is.
And I'm sure the question of free association has never crossed your desk.
I wouldn't swap you the weather, even if it wasn't winter there, but I do envy you the beach. I grew up close to sea but it's a long away away from where I live now.
We had sausages and mash for dinner, plus the left over roasted new potatoes and vegetables from yesterday. And yesterday I had baked stuffed trout, which I'm only telling you because I removed the bones myself for the first time and want to boast about it. ;)
Terry...
Aug 04th, 2018 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Welcome to my world Joe” I like to say what ever I feel like, and resent deeply being challenged to justify it. ”
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/07/27/argentina-questions-falklands-release-on-a-second-flight-proposals-are-still-under-consideration/comments#comment491056
Happy with the link...?
Sooo.....was what I said right or was it wrong...?
Of course you won't answer that with a direct right or wrong...
Speaking of mundane...what exciting things have you got to do...
A train or two to spot....?
DT
Aug 04th, 2018 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sausages and mash are always a winner in the Bloggs household. Baked, stuffed trout also sounds okay but I have to admit I am not a big fan of trout. Tonight I’ve gone for a Mary Berry recipe: Swiss Chicken Spinach Mushroom bake. It’s quick and easy and everyone loves it.
I love our weather but I always like a bit of warmer weather for a change when we go on holidays as well. I appreciate that we’re lucky enough to have the freedom to get away 2 or 3 times per year and I am sure that makes a big difference. This year is a bit of an exception and we’ll have been away on 5 trips by the time we’re relaxing on Christmas Eve.
It’s funny, 20 years again I would’ve felt the need to take on someone who I thought was wrong and prove the point. About 10 years ago I recall starting to ask myself what difference it would make whether I made my point or not in a situation that really didn’t matter. Would making my point change any outcome? Did I really care if someone thought I was wrong? Was it my professional reputation at stake or just my reputation with keyboard warriors (no offence)? All of a sudden the answer was clear.
TH
I am happy with mundane these days. I’ve done my busy executive job, living out of suitcases and waking up forgetting what country I was in. Meeting all sorts of people in all sorts of places and performing for bonuses. It was a buzz at the time and I am proud of what I achieved but I am no longer motivated by that lifestyle. A nice long walk with the dog and Mrs Bloggs, sharing meals with friends, tennis with different friends, RBL with others and keeping the garden attractive; with two or three holidays per year is rewarding for me these days. Grandchildren are shortly on the way and that will be a new chapter again. If that’s mundane, mundane I am.
Do you even get trout down there in the Falklands? You have the fishing industry now, but it wasn't traditionally a thing, so are you able to enjoy the fruits of it locally? The Swiss chicken sounds nice, we had one coeliac and one person allergic to mushrooms to cater for, which makes things harder. Everyone seems to be allergic to something these days, it's ridiculous.
Aug 04th, 2018 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I like hot weather so I'm happy with the heat wave, finally getting some use out of my shorts, and only wish we were near a beach or an outdoor pool. I'm glad I didn't plan a holiday in Europe this year though, it was 46C in Portugal today, and there have been awful wildfires all over. It's a pain with the garden too, I even had to water the lawn, it really makes you appreciate the rain. Also, my potato plants have grown tomatoes on them, which is really weird.
Five trips in a year must be pretty expensive. Where d'you go? UK? South America?
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Aug 04th, 2018 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I argued with Terry the Liar because” I cannot marshal sufficient evidence to support what I claim, so I'm reduced to name calling.
DT
Aug 04th, 2018 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We have plenty of trout here and those who love fishing it say the fishing here is world class. I’ve never been into trout fishing, always preferring the easier, less technical mullet fishing instead. Quite a few serious anglers come each year for the fishing alone and you’ll find plenty of articles online if you look. Don’t ask me for a link! We also get ample access to the fishing industry’s products and it’s in the supermarkets.
We’ll be over in the U.K. again shortly and whilst we’re looking forward to some warm weather, we’re hoping for mid-20s rather than 30s and that’s not entirely because we can’t bear the 30s but mostly because we find the U.K. isn’t really set up for those temperatures.
Travel from here is expensive and we’re keen that the second flight will address that but as Think says, let’s wait and see. I am confident it will.
...and you’re right, free association doesn’t cross my desk...
I've never tried fishing, I always got the impression it's pretty dull since you spend most of your time just sitting there. But I like trout and it's supposed to be good for you so win-win. On the other hand, I've never liked squid and isn't that a big part of your industry? I guess it must be pretty popular in some countries.
Aug 04th, 2018 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know what you mean about the UK; no aircon, and then they say the trains can't run at full speed, and the roads start melting. It's ridiculous. I'm sure you'll be okay though. I'm going to a friend's wedding next weekend, so I hope it's nice for that.
The second flight would mean more capacity, but would it really make anything cheaper? I suppose it might mean less changes, at least?
And I shouldn't think free association crosses anyone's desk, since the UK ruled it out years ago. It's independence or nothing, do you think the Falklands can become independent some day?
@Terrible Hypocrite
Yes, exactly. You were long ago reduced to name calling, arrogantly calling me a traitor just for pointing out your lies and hypocrisy.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Aug 04th, 2018 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“calling me a traitor” It didn't come without any justification?
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/07/27/argentina-questions-falklands-release-on-a-second-flight-proposals-are-still-under-consideration/comments#comment490950
All that's missing is the proof of your claim, since your failure what does that make you?
It makes me honest, since I won't lie just someone is saying something I don't like.
Aug 05th, 2018 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse -1And it makes you delusional, a hypocrite, and a liar, since you're now pretending I made a claim to cover up the fact you have conclusively refused to give any evidence for yours.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage and traitor
Aug 05th, 2018 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0“That makes me honest, since I won't lie just someone is saying something I don't like”
No that is entirely 'self-serving', without a scintilla of proof.
“You have conclusively refused to give any evidence for yours”. I have always given evidence for mine. As I have shown, with the exception of fraud, where there is no obligation on me when 'sandbagging', is perpetuated.
sandbagger - “to hide the truth ...so as to gain an advantage over another'”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sandbag
DT
Aug 05th, 2018 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Squid is one of the major products our industry catches. Along with various other fish such as Toothfish, Hake, Hoki and Rock Cod. Total annual catches are around 200,000 tonnes with squid being by far the most prolific at about 75%.
One of the objectives that Aviation Economics were given when negotiating the second flight, according to FIG public sources, was to get lower airfares. Whoever got the second flight had to give assurances of pricing. There were several bidders, not just LATAM, so if LATAM have been chosen I am reasonably confident they’ve presented an all new pricing structure for their flights. Rumour is they are proposing a larger aircraft for the São Paulo route and generally, the larger the aircraft the cheaper per passenger mile to fly. Fingers crossed.
Have you read the White Paper from 2012 about the BOTs? It sets out what the U.K. Gov’t pledges to do in way of support and it sets out our obligations and accountabilities with regards being a BOT. You might find it interesting.
You may also find some of Dr Peter Cleggs reports/ discussions interesting. He is a professor of politics at Bristol (I think) University. Although he tends to focus on the Caribbean, his comments and interpretations largely apply to the Caribbean also; because we have the same status as the Caribbean BOTs.
@JB
Aug 05th, 2018 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Do you eat much of the squid locally, though? I'm guessing it may not be the most popular in it's place of origin. It must be hard to get a variety of foods, with few transport links and a small population; isn't that what Islander1 was complaining about?
I hope you do get cheaper flights, I didn't know that was one of the aims. And speaking of Islander1, are you worried at all by his scenario of the stop being moved to Bs As in the future?
I had a look at one of Dr Clegg's reports. It confirms what we already knew about the political status:
”Neither the UK nor the territories favour incorporation; even direct representation in the UK parliament has little support. A move towards Free Association, although favoured by some territories (such as Anguilla) is also not a viable option at present, because the UK government is committed to retaining certain key powers and responsibilities. The stance of the UK also limits the opportunities under UN GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) that considers “the emergence of any other political status freely determined by the people” as a way of implementing the right to self-determination.”
The section on belonger status as more interesting; according to him belongers now make up only 40% of the total population of the Turks and Caicos Islands, while in the Caymans it's 59%, and a majority of the working age population are not belongers. These people form a major part of the population, and are clearly very important for the economy, yet have no political voice - an awkward situation. In the Falklands it's not so extreme, but probably still worth thinking about. Has your government ever considered giving your equivalent of citizenship to everyone born there, like most countries in the Americas do?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!