MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, July 24th 2021 - 17:09 UTC

 

 

Falklands/Malvinas architecture and urban planning exhibition in Ushuaia

Wednesday, July 21st 2021 - 09:00 UTC
Full article 35 comments

The Town Hall of Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego province, extreme south of Argentina, together with the local branch of Malvinas war Veterans opened this week an exhibition under the title of “Architecture and Planning in Malvinas, 1764/1833” dedicated to the people that lived in the Falklands/Malvinas Islands during that period of time. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Dirk Dikkler

    Welcome to the Land of Make Believe, only in Argentina can a Fairy Story be sold as reality.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Brit Bob

    I wonder if they know that Louis Vernet’s activities in the Falklands were declared invalid by the Argentine government and that he was also regarded as a pirate! Chuckle chuckle.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Mike Summers

    It just beggars belief.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Liberato

    Dont worry guys!!!, you could visit it too. Mike Summers arent you interested in the history of the islands that lived through 1764/1833 under the goverments of:
    1767 - 1773 - Felipe Ruíz Puente
    1773 - 1774 - Domingo Chauri
    1774 - 1777 - Francisco Gil de Taboada y Lemos
    1777 - 1779 - Ramón de Carassa
    1779 - 1781 - Salvador de Medina
    1781 - 1783 - Jacinto de Altolaguirre
    1783 - 1784 - Fulgencio Montemayor
    1784 - 1785 - Agustín de Figueroa
    1785 - 1786 - Ramón de Clairac
    1786 - 1787 - Pedro de Mesa y Castro
    1787 - 1788 - Ramón de Clairac
    1788 - 1789 - Pedro de Mesa y Castro
    1789 - 1790 - Ramón de Clairac
    1790 - 1790 - Juan José de Elizalde
    1791 - 1792 - Pedro Pablo Sanguineto
    1792 - 1793 - Juan José de Elizalde
    1793 - 1794 - Pedro Pablo Sanguineto
    1794 - 1795 - José de Aldana y Ortega
    1795 - 1796 - Pedro Pablo Sanguineto
    1796 - 1797 - José de Aldana y Ortega
    1797 - 1798 - Luis de Medina y Torres
    1798 - 1799 - Francisco Javier de Viana
    1799 - 1800 - Luis de Medina y Torres
    1800 - 1801 - Francisco Javier de Viana
    1801 - 1802 - Ramón Fernández de Villegas
    1802 - 1803 - Bernardo Bonavía
    1803 - 1804 - Antonio Leal de Ibarra
    1804 - 1805 - Bernardo Bonavía
    1805 - 1806 - Antonio Leal de Ibarra
    1806 - 1809 - Bernardo Bonavía
    1809 - 1810 - Gerardo Bordas
    1810 - 1811 - Pablo Guillén
    1820 - 1821 - David Jewett
    1821 - 1822 - Guillermo Mason
    1823 - 1828 - Pablo Areguatí
    1829 - 1831 - Luis Vernet
    1832 - 1832 - Juan Esteban Francisco Mestivier
    1832 - 1833 - José María Pinedo?

    I dont see this part of “your history” being told in your history books.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Brit Bob

    Liberato - Lots and lots of Spaniards

    Interesting to know that Argentina did not inherit the Falkland Islands from Spain (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/44496176/Argentina_did_not_inherit_the_Falkland_Islands_from_Spain

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Dirk Dikkler

    @Liberato.
    You can`t claim another countries (Spain) history as if its Your own, Please remember that Argentina had No Treaty with Spain and therefore has NOT inherited the Falklands or any other territory that Spain claimed in the Southern Hemisphere. Do keep up !!!

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Brit Bob

    Dirk Dikkler

    Liberato is always there for the taking. Perhaps he's ex Kamikaze and is still trying to get his wings?

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Roger Lorton

    Libby, Spain only claimed one island in 1811. A claim it maintained in 1833 and only abandoned in 1863. The dispute was between Spain and Britain. Argentina was never in the game.

    https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Liberato

    Brit Bob, you want me to unswear to the Potts and Pepper paper or to you?.
    Here is a response from Kohen and Rodriguez that might interest you:
    https://www.academia.edu/33555946/Malvinas_Falklands_Kohen_Rodriguez
    PD: It is a response to Potts and Peppers and not to you.

    Dirk, it is our own. Any nation being the USA, Australia or anyone didnt born from a tomato. They didnt appeared from nowhere. They study their history not since their independence but since the very beggining of the settlement and colonization of the place.
    I dont imagine mexicans just one day after their independence saying: “wow i thought we were spaniards but now i realise i was mexican all my life!”.

    Brit Bob, im not a Kamikaze. You are confused with the japanese in ww2. And i am here, may be becouse you are too lazy to write in spanish in “spanish speaking” “newspapers”.

    Lorton. Spain claimed all the territories in the area and in fact, they were the first to control it. Britain did not controlled anything. They settled Port Egmont hidding from France and Spain in Trinidad Island and left without having any control of the land and sea, as they were even forced to leave the area in 1770. When they returned and left in 1774 they again, were not in controll even of their settlement that were destroyed by Spain. Leaving the islands for almost 60 years of not a single protest or claim of any kind to Spain or Argentina until 1829.
    So i would rather say that it was Britain that was never in the game. And it is a great shame for Britain to claim sovereignty rights in 1829 (after 55 years of no british prescence) for a place they never controlled.
    The first time the british controlled the maritimate surrounding was after the conflict of 1982. Before the war, Argentina controlled the seas around the islands and the endurance comissioned in the 60's was only observing.
    Caradura que sos!.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -3
  • The English Pirate

    What the actual flying f^ck are they on?

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Trimonde

    ROFLMAO hahahaha ha What does it matter what they are doing!? ... Listen to you all!
    You're the sad sad misers. It's like I say, the English never stop trying steal the islands. IT'S IN YOUR HEADS.
    You don't like the fact that they have facts and drawings and documents about the period the Islands were under Buenos Aires before today's occupying population arrived??? Well that's just YOUR PROBLEM, isn't it?

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -3
  • bushpilot

    Your problem Pat.

    They aren't trying to steal anything. They live there.

    Do you want to say anything about the Argentines trying to steal islands from Chile?

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Trimonde

    LOL LOL LOL. IN THEIR HEADS the islanders they act like robbers who look the other way pretending they “don't know what you are talking about” LOL
    “Steal islands from Chile” ?? That's hilarious. Argentina had already reached the Pacific in modern day Chile before Chile started venturing South, after the Vice-royalty of La Plata near Puerto Mont, Cape Horn was already going to be part of our territory and in fact some of the preliminary negotiations with Chile spoke of splitting Tierra del Fuego down the middle all the way to Cape Horn. They are the ones who encroached and hogged up land that was debatable theirs or ours inching their way south, trying to compete with Argentina's larger size. ... “Try to steal islands” ! ROFLMAO ...How about you shut up about things you know nothing about? They are the ones who outright steal territory, Bolivian territory. Straight up stone faced stole it from them with your countries help, of course, needless to say.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -3
  • bushpilot

    Patrick,

    Both Argentina and Chile “agreed” to outside arbitration for the Beagle Channel dispute. Once with the ICJ & the Queen, and once with the Pope. Both rulings favored Chile, both rulings were rejected by Argentina. Argentina made and agreement two times, and broke it.

    If Argentina's case was so strong, as you say, why did a ruling on it go against them? Two times!

    They reneged on their agreement two times, and then Argentina still had the immoral, thieving cajones to use military force to get their way (Operation Soberania).

    But this was not an act of land grabbing thievery?. The other guys were the bad guys you say?

    No wonder no one in the world trusts an Argentine.

    Clepto-fantasies.

    Now, which country is it you say helped Chile defeat Boliva in the War of the Pacific?

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Brit Bob

    Liberato

    Metford (1982) and Hensel et al. (2006) note that the Uti Possidetis principle was initially an agreement between Latin American states, it could only be applied to conflicts between them, and it was not formally adopted until the Congress of Lima in 1847 -1848, almost four decades after the alleged Falklands inheritance from Spain.

    Argentina was not recognised by Spain until 1859, a whole 26 years after the Falklands had come under British control. Spain could not transfer sovereignty to a state it did not recognise.

    Indeed, if all claims of uti possidetis juris were resolved, the world map politically might look profoundly different today!

    Disprove:
    Opinion – Consensual Nature of UPJ - Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis. ( El Quali, Abdelhamid, Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Mike Summers

    Liberato. I understood this exhibition was about “architecture and urban planning”. What contribution did this list of Spanish “governors” make to architecture and town planning ? How many of them actually set foot in the Islands (whatever they called them or whatever their claims ? We are most of us capable of producing/copying lists of people; what really matters is what contribution they made to society.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Trimonde

    Now that's rich! And has COMPLETELY BRIGHTENED UP MY MORNING.
    ...A British person accusing ARGENTINA, of having “clepto fantasies” when they are the ones who have for all of recent history presumed they could just waltz in to other people's territories and enslave half the world, while Argentina never once invaded a foreign country. And YeS, pushing a military into another country through the use of its weapons to invade it and forge its will upon the resources and political governance of another country to its service IS ROBBING, it's more than robbing, its mugging.
    ... You have just showed me how effectively warping British nationalistic self absolving and self aggrandizing propaganda actually works on its own people.

    --- I will respond to your comment on my next entry.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    Libby, I repeat, Spain claimed ONE island in 1811.

    Go learn.

    https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/1775-to-1815.pdf

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Trimonde

    Thanks Roger.
    Are you forgetting that Spain also told the British they could not settle outside fort Egmont when they allowed them to continue using it?
    .
    So; just to stay on track and answer BP's response to me though; SO WHAT?! Precisely because other foreign countries or institutions who are outside “our world” and our history and our own somewhat fraternal badly bound relationship fail in their capacity to see the spirit of injustice in a debate we've had since our expansion south started, means they may easily be wrong. Many defining statements had been made at first that later were forged to be misinterpreted, which outsiders never cared to understand. While we did experience how they would gradually inch they're way through a string of events that started in northern Patagonia where like I said, the Argentine had already reached the Pacific through a passage corridor in the Andes, we gave them that so they could expand south, but felt at the very least they should respect our “Atlantic for Argentina, Pacific for Chile” agreement.That whole eastern side of the Tierra del Fuego Islands clearly face the Atlantic, and we have always sustained that.
    You want to know what the real spirit of injustice and truth is in all this?... which explains how Chile assumed its much smaller settlement could presume attaching western Patagonia when it could not even reach it by land, or how the British felt from 13.000 km away they should take from active Argentine possession islands closely and directly in front of their country, which require being supported for development by being bonded to that mainland ? I'll tell you what the answer is. Argentinians are in the end too good a people at heart, who let others have and take what they want from them. Even if on occasion they act up and attempt to fight for justice, it usually wanes down too soon and they forgive you. Unless of course your some insolent country who continues to insult them by not acknowledging their argument.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Mike Summers

    How did they control the crowds and ensure social distancing. It looks like a very small exhibition ?

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Trimonde

    And as long as I'm on a roll, I'll share something very pertinent to what I often hear comming from this camp. Which is “Fredom is not free”

    - Freedom IS Free. We are born free (or in a “form of apparent freedom” if you want to get metaphysical about it) and most optimally perform organically and natural the closer we are to freedom, in a world that attempts to order and admistrate us.
    Allow me to correct your mix up, yes?
    You and whoever else started this, are talking about “Political Ideological Freedom” In other words, the political ideologizing that uses the term or the word “Freedom” to sustain one of the justification for its principals. Which is a lie to begin with from the start, but rather instead an idea used for a political party or government's self propagandist agenda, of which one of its reasons is the following. It is also most vehemently used as you are all doing so now, to justify the militarism and war pursuits of that country, which as we have always done through history needs to convince their people of the necessity of war when the purpose of that war has more to do with that government's ambitions than with protecting the integrity or sovereignty of that country.
    WHICH BY THE WAY... is not so different at all to all the cow manure narrative the Islanders like cloned drones are taught to repeat incessantly regarding their fake “administrative” government, and their “self determination” and “the islands being vacant and uninhabited by people before them” (that one is pretty funny) and that “the Argentinians are aggressors who don't hate democracy” and yadda yadda yadda all lies written to justify Britain's twisted and irrational egotistical geopolitical ambitions of expansionist power over the our world. A world that belongs to the human race. Not to one or two nor three of four maniacally insane countries, still in this day and age.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    No, Pat ... Spain never said any such thing.
    Go learn.
    https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/1767-to-1774.pdf

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    No Roger, i think your source is wrong. Go learn
    https://Malvinastimeline.files.wordpress.com/concealedownfakesourcetomakemycommentslooksvalid.pdf

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • bushpilot

    Yep, he's hooked on drugs.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trimonde

    No Roger, You're the one who needs to go learn.

    Carta 3ª adjunta de Madariaga a los capitanes ingleses

    Muy señores míos. Ninguno debe hacer establecimientos y mucho menos fortificarse en estas islas, puertos y costas magallanicas, sin permiso del rey católico mi respetable soberano, y no teniéndole vuestras mercedes, como no lo tienen deben desamparar y desalojar esta bahía, baterías de tierra y principiada población.
    Si vuestras mercedes me diesen pruebas autenticas de que ejecutaran breve y buenamente este desalojo pondré pacíficamente mi tropa en tierra y se los tratará con toda aquella consideración y atención que que corresponde ala buena armonía que subsiste entre nuestros soberanos y permitiré que se lleven cuanto tengan en tierra y les pertenezca legítimamente. Y de aquello que no quieran llevar les daré recibo para que sobre este asunto determinen o convengan las respectivas cortes interesadas pero si contra toda esperanza quisieren ustedes sostener su nuevo establecimiento me valdré de las fuerzas de mi mando para hacerles desalojar con el fuego de mis cañones y fusil y ustedes serán la causa de su propia ruina y de las funestas resultas de un ataque ardiente que ejecutaré por mar y tierra para conseguir con la fuerza el cumplimiento de mis ordenes... so on and so forth.
    Fecha 8 de junio de 1770.
    Título: Expulsión de los ingleses establecidos en las Islas Malvinas: documento inédito de 1768-1770 del Capitán Mario Plata

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Swede

    “architecture and urban planning”. That sounds as if there were cities in the Falkands in the 18th century.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    Liberato

    The vast majority of people understand the reality in respect of uti possidetis juris. Of course this does not include indoctrinated people or others with limited mental capacity.

    UPJ Application – Non-Hispanic States - The doctrine of uti possidetis juris is of questionable applicability as a tenet of contemporary international law. As one study curtly put it, “[Because modern international law does not recognize the authority of fifteenth-century pontiffs to bind nations five centuries later, this theory carries little weight today. ”Never mind that the Papal Bull of 1493 long antedated creation of the sovereign nation-state system and the Eurocentric corpus of international law. The fact remains that uti possidetis juris fails to square properly with the legal establishment of non-Hispanic states in the New World, as well as the more recently evolved principles of decolonization” (Anglo-Argentine Rivalry After the Falklands/Malvinas War: Laws, Geopolitical and the Antarctic Connection, Joyner, C.C. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 1.1.1984 p477-478 quoting supra note 48, at 814, n. 43. Also see Hayton, supra note 21, at 603. and See generally, Y. El-Ayouty, The United Nations and Recolonization: The Role of Afro-Asia (1971); L. Bucheit, Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination (1978).

    In any event, the doctrine of uti possidetis can be considered merely as “a principle by which the American Republics have decided to adjust their boundary differences. But in no case has the International Community recognized, as an institution of international law, the principle of uti possidetis .... It remains ... derogatory to general international law ... binding only on those.. . [who] have, by a convention, expressly agreed to it.” Italics in original, ( Uti Possidetis in International Law , Springer, quoting Bloomfield, The British Honduras-Guatemala Dispute, 1953, p. 9

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    Regardless, of the relationships between Spain, Great Briton, and Argentina.
    The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.

    “...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”

    The Nootka Convention: ”...Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain....... there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.......The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
    http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
    http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trimonde

    It's really fascinating reading how the British and some of their scholars go about assuming Argentina's reasoning pertaining its right in incorporating Malvinas, when the Argentinians themselves have not really (not yet anyways) elaborated all that much this aspect beyond certain general statements. Argentina's right to Malvinas is not bond directly to any Papal Bull or to any treaty between Spain and Britain, because in actuality Malvinas was never a detached or autonomous colony of Spain, it was part of Buenos Aires. So when Buenos Aires and Argentina declared their independence from Spain, it included automatically the islands not as a separate entity, like it was considered by Britain for example, but as an integral part of their now consolidating territory. They officially announced it and raised the Argentine flag in 1820 not as a “conquest” of something new for the characteristic of it being a detached archipelago, but as they would when for example the country affirmed its boarders along Patagonia before the country's expansion southwards, so that the natives would be clear about where the “white man” drew his boarders. So in fact, Malvinas was part of Argentina as far as politicians were concerned in Buenos Aires even before southern Patagonia became incorporated to the country, from the very day the 25 of May 1810 they declared their independence. This is not conjecture. If you understood Spanish, and were able to read all the letters and documentation that exists written during that time, you would notice that this is what the semantics of all sentences and wordage convey.
    So the actual debate and confrontation with Britain over the islands is of a completely different nature than what the British want to make it about, by for example trying to use the interpretations of treaties and international laws pertaining to other situations. This is why I always say, “show me where it mentions by name the Malvinas or Falkland Islands”

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Two diplomatic notes from UK were ignored. Argentina resorted to a unilateral act force, by placing an armed garrison.
    So the UK acted likewise, in perfect accord with international legalities, and diplomatic protocol of the time. You lost that power trip, sorry you don't get second kick at the can. It's same as if the issue had been decided judicially, its finito its over. So matters that you now raise don't even get a look in.
    “The Island of Palmas tribunal of the PCA at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
    “If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title—cession conquest, occupation, etc.—superior to that which the other State might possibly bring forward against it.”
    ”the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created ‘prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law’.
    Akehurst's Modern Introduction To International Law by Peter Malanczuk

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Trimonde

    Power trip? I think you got that the other way around BY JUDGING YOUR COUNTRY'S RECORD THE PAST 300 YEARS! roflmao!!
    You're so wrong, it's hilarious. OH what? Britain warns you not to settle a place it wants, and if one reasonably sees that as threat and shores up ones defenses in case bully wants to get aggressive, one is being provocative and invasive?? What happened to using your tongue and language to speak to one another in order to resolve disputes? OH I forgot, that's not something Britain ever takes much into consideration.
    You want to know what is thoroughly entertaining for me to read insofar as the average British logic goes? That when one looks at the semantic suggestion of your choices in sentence construction, the obligatory conclusion for them to make sense is always that “somehow and without explanation” it all starts on the premise of some destiny or god endowed British prerogative of right to that territory or to some sort of implied base righteousness in that situation. It's hilarious! One can always find this in half of your sentences, as if the British people themselves were The Monarchs in the World! LOL
    “International legalities”? LOL LOL OH shut uP already!

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Chicureo

    Just an informative reminder that Terence Hill is actually Skippy Jessop living at home with his mother in Utah.

    (His identity was uncovered using a software algorithm to detect plagiarism.)

    He has his own somewhat abandoned webpage: iamskippy.com

    The authentic Terence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBBrSSyp7_M

    He has a wide presence on social media which prove he’s not an octogenarian RAF veteran of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and his engraved beer mug has been completely debunked!


    ¡Saludos cordiales desde Valle Nevado!

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    “You're so wrong,” Then so is the UN, and binding international law, give your head a shake.
    “He who is silent is thought to consent. ... ”
    SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
    A Compendium Of Latin Thought ...
    SOMA's, also states
    “ex silentio-lit. from silence. This refers to anything arrived at based on a lack of protestation or argument to the contrary. ... Commonly used in the expression argumentum ex silentio-proof from silence proof.”

    Why Do Narcissists Lie So Much?
    September 5, 2020 by Alexander Burgemeester
    Why do narcissists lie? “Because they can”…as the cliché goes. Seriously, many narcissists do lie and they lie constantly. They lie about their education, They Lie About Their Achievements, and they lie about extramarital affairs or What They Had For Dinner.

    “A narcissist will have no qualms whatsoever in assassinating your character. It is an intentional attempt to influence and cause others to develop an extremely negative opinion of you. They manipulate facts, slander and spread rumours in order to paint an untrue picture of their target opening the target up for unwarranted and excessive criticism.
    Otherwise known as 'The Smear Campaign' A. McCrea

    ”The number one rule of understanding a narcissist is very simple all narcissists are notorious liars.
    Sister Renee Pittelli, Narcissistic Confrontations

    Malignant narcissists and sociopaths use word salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track should you ever disagree with them or challenge them in any way
    https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Chicureo

    Terence Hill (Skippy Jessop) in his diatribe perfectly describes himself in his latest post!

    Skippy is a nasty sociopath that hides behind a username declaring himself as the ‘LOKAL LEGEND Terence Hill’ and has continuously insulted without impunity MercoPress contributors due to their nationality and profession.

    Although the sociopath has hid behind a suspicious photograph of an engraved beer mug and falsely claiming the valor of an octogenarian RAF veteran of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis — the actual fact is he’s Skippy Jessop residing in Utah.

    Skippy has a large social media imprint easily searchable on the Internet — including a personal web page and even has his own YouTube channel.

    The Salt Lake Tribune did an article about Skippy in 2012 when he was 34 years old: https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=54485747&itype=CMSID


    He attacked myself for admiring Pinochet saving my country from a similar fate of present day Venezuela and derided our passion of farming fruit and vegetables.

    The weakness of the troll was his consistent habit to habitually quote long passages from obscure and distinct sources which was all complied into a software query and the algorithm uncovered the digital identity fingerprint specifically of Skippy — who posts the EXACT same quotes and exhibits the same personality traits as Terence.


    ¡Saludos cordiales desde Valle Nevado!

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    DEJA MOO
    WHEN YOU KNOW YOU’VE EXPERIENCED THIS
    BULLSHIT
    BEFORE

    Feed your own ego. I'm busy.

    Some people are a human version of migraine.

    Forgive and forget?
    Nah.
    Fuck you and fuck that.
    Fuckology

    “He that falls in love with himself will have no rivals.” – Benjamin Franklin

    “The narcissist would love nothing more than to know you are eating uncooked Top Ramen out of a dumpster for dinner tonight while wearing yesterday’s underwear.” – Tina Swithin

    “The main condition for the achievement of love is the overcoming of one’s narcissism.” – Erich Fromm

    “If anybody studying psychology wants a concrete example of what a narcissist looks like, I advise them to consider any man who cheats on his wife. These guys are the textbook me-firsters, the ones who think the rules don’t apply to them, the ones who tell themselves as long as she doesn’t know, there’s no harm done. No woman needs to sleep with these guys. There are so many single self-absorbed narcissists who will fuck you poorly.”
    —Julie Klausner

    “Some narcissistic people end up believing their own lies.” —Unknown

    “Narcissistic people are always struggling with the fact that the rest of the world doesn’t revolve around them.” —Unknown

    “Narcissists try to destroy your life with lies because theirs can be destroyed with the truth” – Unknown

    You can't force someone to respect you, but you can refuse to be disrespected” – Unknown

    Posted 23 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0

Please log in or register (it’s free!) to comment.