Adrian Vasilescu is persistent.

He keeps presenting us with the "good alternative" of the odyssey of Bank of Cyprus, by telling us that the bank's Romanian branch can't default, because that's what the law says (yes!, even Lenin thought he could abolish the law of value, because he thought it was an actual law, but beneath the chaos he has created in Soviet Union, he was forced to "reinstate it", after two years); and he keeps responding to the articles in the media, claiming that they are presenting opinions from "specialists with reputation, but without any information".

I like seeing someone being persistent against the crowd's opinion (like Boris Vian said: "It's been constantly proven that the individuals are right, and the crowd is wrong"), but being stubborn when it comes to acknowledging the meaning of simple facts, can no longer be called "non-conformism".

Of course, Bank of Cyprus is bankrupt, at home, in Cyprus.

Whether it has been declared in default or not, it is a Leninist question.

But Bank of Cyprus can no longer return the money of the depositors and it can't borrow from the market, to turn itself around, because there is no hope of a turnaround without an outside intervention.

So, it's broke.

Perhaps even worse.

From the moment the idea of recapitalizing the bank using money confiscated from its depositors surfaced, we can no longer speak of "Bank of Cyprus", only "...of Cyprus".

Since we're arguing definitions, then it should be said that making off with the depositors' money does not fit the notion of "bank", because, fundamentally, banks provide services of safeguarding the money and making payments upon the request of the banks' owners.

So, it's just ..."of Cyprus".

And then we have the correct observation of Vasilescu, that, among Romanians, there must have been some careless dep