From: travissarg...@aol.com (TravisSargent)
Subject: Re: Great story
Date: 2000/07/05
Message-ID: <20000705165635.02065.00002726@ng-cg1.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 642807094
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
X-Admin: n...@aol.com

On 5 Jul 2000 02:15:26 GMT, kes...@cyberpass.net (keshet) wrote:

>TravisSargent said in <20000704122659.02669.00002...@ng-ch1.aol.com>:
>
>	<snip>
>
> > Hey Keshnet -- you seem to be suffering from excessive "p.c. inundation,"
> > (politically correct thinking -- some people nowadays cannot read
~anything~
> > without turning it into some racial issue by various internal mental
> > machinations).  
>
>Yes, pardon my PCishness, I'm afraid I still take offense at
>racist remarks. I guess I haven't flattened that button yet.
>
> > He was simply describing the individual for crying out loud.
>
>Then I ask again, how was the crack dealer's race relevant? 

Af far as I'm concerned it wasn't.  It appears you've made it so though.

>Why
>were the 4 young girls not described as "white"? 

Because they were.  So what?  Does every ~mention~ of race have to be "racist"
in nature?  

>Because the
>author presumes his or her readers are white and it's not
>necessary to point out the girls' "sameness". However, the 
>author identifies the dealer as black in order to emphasize 
>his difference, his "otherness", his "nonmembership-in-our-
>society" status, which makes him more threatening.

However believable they seem to you, you have to admit that your remarks above
are nothing more than assumption.  It would seem that you may be the racially
biased one.
>
>And I'm sorry, but having a "huge black guy" confront innocent
>little white girls is just way too obvious to be anything but 
>a deliberate attempt to play on white racist fears. I find it
>truly amazing that Scientology is so culturally ignorant that 
>the bigotry of this bloody stupid tale escapes you. 

Oh I can see it from your point of view quite easily.  The problem is that
whether any of us like it or not, that is very common language to describe such
an encounter in the real world.  

I noticed you haven't said a peep about the good work the guy did though.  Only
how "racist" he is.  Take an oviously intimidating criminal source off the
street, rehab him to a certain extent, get him to stop committing crimes, have
him turn around and start helping OTHERS, etc., etc. ... and all you can find
to say about him is he's "racsist."  What's this world coming to?

Well, it happened.  It's over.  And I really don't care how you find it.  You
will twist it to suit your agenda any way you can.
>
>BTW, Travis, is the author, in fact, male? Or are you engaging 
>in *sexist* assumptions, along with your racist ones?

Am ~I~ engaging in sexist assumptions??  Well, honestly that thought never even
occurred to me.  I see it occurred to you though.  Why?  Are you operating on a
secret agenda?  The author is male.  
>
> > But you saw an opportunity to turn an otherwise innocent remark to your
> > advantage in order to denigrate the guy ... and thus Scientology, didn't
you? 
>I saw an opportunity to point out a bit of racist thinking. I
>don't consider that "innocent". 

Well get that it WAS innocent.  

You remind me of the prim & proper old maid who sees "sex" in every sentence,
word, event or action.  Clean your windscreen (you are a Brit are you not?) and
things won't look so "dirty" to you all the time.

Remember, if you have a dirty windscreen (windshield in the states), everywhere
you go ... it's dirty.  A good wash job can do wonders for how you see OTHER
people.