(OT) McDonald's freaks out at dwarven customer
牛é”王
**********************************************************************
http://www.wyff4.com/news/15705309/detail.html
Little Person Says Clerk Screamed, Ran From Him
Restaurant Promises Additional Training For Workers
POSTED: 5:16 pm EDT March 25, 2008
UPDATED: 6:13 pm EDT March 26, 2008
GREENVILLE COUNTY, S.C. -- A little person says he encountered a big
problem at an Upstate fast-food restaurant.
The McDonald's customer has filed a complaint with the company and
retained a lawyer to advise him after he said that a restaurant
employee screamed and ran away from him because he is a little person.
Ethan Wade had made a purchase at the drive-through window of the
McDonald's on Howell Road in Greenville County, and when there was a
problem with the order, he went inside.
He said one counter employee made it clear that she didn't like the
way he looked.
Wade said, "Young lady had her back turned to the counter and when she
turned around and spotted me she threw her hands up in the air,
started yelling 'Oh, my gosh! Oh my gosh!' and ran to the back of the
restaurant, continuing to yell as she was in back of the restaurant."
Wade said that the employee's response caught the attention of other
customers, as well as her co-workers.
He said, "The person that was coming to help me actually responded, 'I
thought you had a gun. I thought you were robbing the place.' "
Wade said that the shift manager and store manager apologized after
the incident. He said the employee who screamed told a supervisor that
she had a phobia of little people.
And employee in the franchise office told Wade about what the woman
had said.
Wade said, "The employee had stated to her, 'Imagine if you saw a
snake or a spider, how would you respond?' And that employee said she
understood that. And I said, 'That's unbelievable. I am a human
being.' "
"How could you compare the fear of a snake and spider to a human
being? That makes no sense to me," Wade said. "I've seen kids kind of
react like that. Understandable. But grown adults to act like that?
That's just not acceptable."
The restaurant deferred comments on the matter to the franchise
office.
The person who answered the phone at the franchise office when WYFF
News 4 called said the only people who could discuss this case are the
franchise's attorneys, insurance company and the owner, but they
refused to give out any of their names.
After WYFF spoke to a media spokeswoman at the corporate level, the
franchise owner, Cynthia Samour, released a statement saying, "We take
these matters seriously and do our very best to serve our customers
with the utmost care and respect.
"We have a strict policy prohibiting any form of discrimination and we
continually strive to maintain an environment in which everyone feels
valued and accepted."
Wade said he wants to make sure all the employees at the restaurant
receive disability awareness training,
He said, "Little People of America is going to write a letter on my
behalf stating that they do some type of disability awareness
training."
According to the franchise owner's statement, all her employees will
receive additional training to ensure they serve all customers with
respect.
Wade said, "You can't have a phobia of a person. I'm a human being.
You can't have that type of phobia."
Adding insult to injury, Wade said that the restaurant never corrected
his order or gave him anything to compensate for it.
"I haven't even gotten anything from that yet," he said. "You know, I
was thinking a coupon or something."
Wade said he has no intention of filing a lawsuit. He said he is
working with an attorney because he wants to go through all the right
channels to make sure McDonald's will be sure their workers receive
disability awareness training.
Wade Talks About Being A Little Person
He said, "A lot of people think midget is the correct terminology.
Actually, that is so wrong. It's a very, very slang word to the Little
People society and reason being is that word originates from the early
18th century when they used to do the circuses and fairs and they
would put little people in situations as part of a 'freak show' and
they would title it a 'freak show.' And that it is why it's so
unacceptable to little people."
Wade said that there is an appropriate way for others to deal with
those who they think are different than them.
"I want people to say, 'That's a little person or dwarf,' and then I
want them to come up to me and introduce themselves because I want
them to get to know Ethan Wade and who Ethan Wade is."
2nz
> Wade said, "Young lady had her back turned to the counter and when she
> turned around and spotted me she threw her hands up in the air,
> started yelling 'Oh, my gosh! Oh my gosh!' and ran to the back of the
> restaurant, continuing to yell as she was in back of the restaurant."
>
Oh, it's probably just because he ordered BIG Macs.
I'm sure she would have OK if he had asked for "small fries".
Hyfler/Rosner
>
> Adding insult to injury, Wade said that the restaurant
> never corrected
> his order or gave him anything to compensate for it.
>
> "I haven't even gotten anything from that yet," he said.
> "You know, I
> was thinking a coupon or something."
Oh, man. That's funny.
Jim Beaver
"牛é”王" <Gyu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0f1cd50a-02ba-4d93...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> He said, "A lot of people think midget is the correct terminology.
> Actually, that is so wrong. It's a very, very slang word to the Little
> People society and reason being is that word originates from the early
> 18th century when they used to do the circuses and fairs and they
> would put little people in situations as part of a 'freak show' and
> they would title it a 'freak show.' And that it is why it's so
> unacceptable to little people."
He's fortunate it didn't happen in Indonesia, where the name for little
people is "orang katai."
doomella
> "牛é”王" <Gyum...@aol.com> wrote in message
"Orang" just means "man" (human) in Bahasa Indonesia ("orang utan"
comes from that -- just means "man of the forest"). But `I love their
patched-together word for lesbian: "homoseks wanita." Speaking of
words, I've never heard "dwarven" before!
Alan Hope
>Speaking of
>words, I've never heard "dwarven" before!
Dost live in some strange nether-world, sirrah? where the tongues of
Man are unbeknownst to thee? What, prithee, call ye the dwarven folk
of your realm?
--
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com
R H Draney
>
>doomella goes:
>
>>Speaking of
>>words, I've never heard "dwarven" before!
>
>Dost live in some strange nether-world, sirrah? where the tongues of
>Man are unbeknownst to thee? What, prithee, call ye the dwarven folk
>of your realm?
William Morris agents....r
--
What good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone?
2nz
> Alan Hope filted:
>
>
>
> >doomella goes:
>
> >>Speaking of
> >>words, I've never heard "dwarven" before!
>
> >Dost live in some strange nether-world, sirrah? where the tongues of
> >Man are unbeknownst to thee? What, prithee, call ye the dwarven folk
> >of your realm?
>
> William Morris agents....r
Irving Azoff
Geoff Miller
WTF is a "little person?"
Does the article mean to say that the guy is a *midget?*
A *dwarf?* Why not just come out and say so?
Geoff
--
"I know! How about combining a compressed-air catapult
with the trap? To unload the trap, you would fire the
coon into the air like a skeet." -- Alan Gore
Forge
> WTF is a "little person?"
>
> Does the article mean to say that the guy is a *midget?*
> A *dwarf?* Why not just come out and say so?
Says an interviewed person of diminutive proportion, on a popular radio
show, "'Midget' is roughly the same as 'nigger.'"
"Little person" is the most widely-accepted generic term for people
under a certain size limit.
PT
wrote:
> In article <13usutf2g27d...@corp.supernews.com>, geo...@lava.net says...
>
> > WTF is a "little person?"
>
> > Does the article mean to say that the guy is a *midget?*
> > A *dwarf?* Why not just come out and say so?
>
> Says an interviewed person of diminutive proportion, on a popular radio
> show, "'Midget' is roughly the same as 'nigger.'"
I just got a vision of all these little people going around calling
each other the "M" word.
pt
leno...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> In article <13usutf2g27d...@corp.supernews.com>, geo...@lava.net says...
Strange....the way I'd always heard it, "dwarf" is the term for
someone whose build and limbs, because of the disorder, are clearly
not "in proportion" with that person's height, while a "midget's" body
IS proportional, sort of like a child's, because it's a different
disorder.
Lenona.
Forge
@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, pigtr...@comcast.net says...
> > > WTF is a "little person?"
> >
> > > Does the article mean to say that the guy is a *midget?*
> > > A *dwarf?* Why not just come out and say so?
> >
> > Says an interviewed person of diminutive proportion, on a popular radio
> > show, "'Midget' is roughly the same as 'nigger.'"
>
> I just got a vision of all these little people going around calling
> each other the "M" word.
He did say they in fact do that. "Yo midget, what up?"
Forge
2043aa...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, leno...@yahoo.com says...
> > > WTF is a "little person?"
> >
> > > Does the article mean to say that the guy is a *midget?*
> > > A *dwarf?* Why not just come out and say so?
> >
> > Says an interviewed person of diminutive proportion, on a popular radio
> > show, "'Midget' is roughly the same as 'nigger.'"
> >
> > "Little person" is the most widely-accepted generic term for people
> > under a certain size limit.
>
> Strange....the way I'd always heard it, "dwarf" is the term for
> someone whose build and limbs, because of the disorder, are clearly
> not "in proportion" with that person's height, while a "midget's" body
> IS proportional, sort of like a child's, because it's a different
> disorder.
This is the case; dwarfism is a clearly-defined set of physical
characteristics. But people still aren't fond of being classified like
that. Y'know what I'm sayin'?
Brad Ferguson
<ddb41d2b-e97d-4084...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
<leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I can see why a person might not want to be referred to as a midget,
but for the life of me I don't see how the word "is roughly the same as
'nigger'."
John M.
To see that you have to expand your mind. IOW, it's too small right now. Go
on, try making it a little 'bigger'.
--
John M
Bill Schenley
> > > popular radio show, "'Midget' is roughly the same as 'nigger.'"
>
> > I just got a vision of all these little people going around calling
> > each other the "M" word.
>
> He did say they in fact do that. "Yo midget, what up?"
Or, "Gimme' some skin ... What little you have ..."
Stacia
> I can see why a person might not want to be referred to as a midget,
> but for the life of me I don't see how the word "is roughly the same as
> 'nigger'."
He's most certainly just trying to get across the way it makes many
little people feel when they're called "midget" or "dwarf" or some
other term they don't wish to be associated with. You're not a
little person, of *course* you're not going to fully understand the
problem(s) with the term, but you could at least try. If a little
person tells you that "midget" or "dwarf" is extremely offensive, why
would you even question that?
("You" in the general "all y'all" sense, not in the "You are the
only one I'm addressing, Brad Ferguson, you magnificent stallion"
sense.)
Stacia
Brad Ferguson
<7e1d9b78-5f93-444a...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Stacia <glitte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 11:08 pm, Brad Ferguson <thirt...@frXOXed.net> wrote:
>
> > I can see why a person might not want to be referred to as a midget,
> > but for the life of me I don't see how the word "is roughly the same as
> > 'nigger'."
>
> He's most certainly just trying to get across the way it makes many
> little people feel when they're called "midget" or "dwarf" or some
> other term they don't wish to be associated with. You're not a
> little person, of *course* you're not going to fully understand the
> problem(s) with the term, but you could at least try. If a little
> person tells you that "midget" or "dwarf" is extremely offensive, why
> would you even question that?
>
> Stacia
"Nigger" is an extremely loaded word. What I'm looking for is some
explanation of how using "midget" is like using that word. That's the
question I'm asking. Stipulated that some people are offended by the
use of the word. It's not like I haven't heard that before.
When people ask questions, they are usually trying to understand
something.
John M.
I don't really know how that came across Brad but I wasn't trying to be
insulting. Just trying for a "little" wordplay. :-)
--
John M
Brad Ferguson
<jcm113...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I don't really know how that came across Brad but I wasn't trying to be
> insulting. Just trying for a "little" wordplay. :-)
I appreciate that, John. Don't worry; we're good.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Stacia <glitte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I can see why a person might not want to be referred to as a midget,
> > but for the life of me I don't see how the word "is roughly the same
> > as 'nigger'."
>
> He's most certainly just trying to get across the way it makes many
> little people feel when they're called "midget" or "dwarf" or some
> other term they don't wish to be associated with. You're not a
> little person, of *course* you're not going to fully understand the
> problem(s) with the term, but you could at least try. If a little
> person tells you that "midget" or "dwarf" is extremely offensive, why
> would you even question that?
It's even weirder. This guy has no problem with "dwarf" and even
actively endorses the term. It's "midget" he's on about, and "dwarf"
is A-OK.
And I, for one, would "question" it. I've heard American Indians say
that "Indian" is offensive, but I've heard a lot of others say that
only the activist weirdos -- "city Indians," in one memorable phrasing
-- are the only ones who register that objection. I've seen Chief
Wahoo hats on and near reservations in western Washington. I tend to
believe the latter point of view, and I'll use "Indian" until I am
convinced otherwise. Hauling out one or two or ten Indians, big or
little, to object doesn't meet my standard of convincing evidence.
(I won't call *those* guys, specifically, "Indians," of course.)
Brad has a point. It's not reasonably possible to use the word
"nigger" without knowing its history as a vicious epithet -- even the
benign "my niggaz!" usage is a manifestation of that awareness. That
cannot be said about "midget": millions of people have been using the
term for a century or two without a shred of meanness in their intent.
So there's a difference. It's absolutely understandable why this guy
would exaggerate a point to make his case, but that doesn't obligate
the rest of us to pretend it isn't an exaggeration.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TranslucentAmoebae
wrote:
> In article <13usutf2g27d...@corp.supernews.com>, geo...@lava.net says...
If you examine all the names that various sub-ethnic groups like to be
called, you'll find that it tends to drift from term to term, so that
whenever the general population starts referring to them as 'x'; They
will invariably decide that 'x' is offensive and insist that they want
to be called something else.
A similar effect can be seen in various specialty groups, particularly
when historical terms or names are used... Whenever the general
population begins to use or pronounce a word from that group properly,
the specialty group will change the term or pronunciation.
And as far as ambiguity is concerned; This is most prevalent in sexual
cases, where the news will report a Sexual Assault, but NEVER define
what they mean by this; So that the viewer is left to imagine whatever
they wish it to mean.
mc
> In article
> <7e1d9b78-5f93-444a-ab9b-d223dd1bb...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
I'm assuming it's because the words label those as separate from the
human race. Although not quite sure how "dwarf" doesn't do that...
mc
Stacia
> "Nigger" is an extremely loaded word. What I'm looking for is some
> explanation of how using "midget" is like using that word. That's the
> question I'm asking. Stipulated that some people are offended by the
> use of the word. It's not like I haven't heard that before.
I understand what you're saying, it's just that I figure if I'm not
African-American or a little person, I'm not fully going to understand
the issue, no matter how many questions I ask. If I'm told that the
term "midget" is that offensive and loaded (and it may very well be -
perhaps it has a "circus freak" connotation that's extremely
upsetting) then I figure I should accept that as truth and move on.
Upthread I noticed people saying that a little person essentially
had no right to be offended by the words, which is really what I was
reacting to, not so much the confusion as to the degree of
offensiveness - I should have gone back and replied to one of those
posts instead of yours, but I got lazy. Sorry.
Stacia
Stacia
Baldwin) wrote:
> And I, for one, would "question" it. I've heard American Indians say
> that "Indian" is offensive, but I've heard a lot of others say that
> only the activist weirdos -- "city Indians," in one memorable phrasing
> -- are the only ones who register that objection.
I've had the same experience as well. Generally, though, I err on
the side of caution and "Native American" and hope for the best.
Everyone is different as to what terms are offensive or not. I've
mentioned before that I'm fat and have no problem with the term "fat",
but I would never EVER call another large person "fat". Hoo boy, I
wouldn't even try.
> Brad has a point. It's not reasonably possible to use the word
> "nigger" without knowing its history as a vicious epithet -- even the
> benign "my niggaz!" usage is a manifestation of that awareness.
It might be possible, if the person isn't from the U.S. originally.
And recently LiveJournal started censoring interests with racial slurs
in them, and you'd have been shocked to see how many young people
didn't know what words like "spic" meant. They just didn't grow up
hearing these words, not even in satirical contexts (like "All in the
Family" or "Saturday Night Live").
Stacia
Lars Eighner
<MPG.22587e69b...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
the lovely and talented Forge
broadcast on alt.obituaries:
Why did you attribute the material you quoted to geo...@lava.net?
Why didn't you just say "asshole" or "piece of crap"?
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Countdown: 295 days to go.
Jim Beaver
"J.D. Baldwin" <INVALID...@example.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:fsobn3$r18$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> And I, for one, would "question" it. I've heard American Indians say
> that "Indian" is offensive, but I've heard a lot of others say that
> only the activist weirdos -- "city Indians," in one memorable phrasing
> -- are the only ones who register that objection. I've seen Chief
> Wahoo hats on and near reservations in western Washington. I tend to
> believe the latter point of view, and I'll use "Indian" until I am
> convinced otherwise. Hauling out one or two or ten Indians, big or
> little, to object doesn't meet my standard of convincing evidence.
> (I won't call *those* guys, specifically, "Indians," of course.)
I'm Cherokee in part, and have in the past few years been somewhat more
active in tribal affairs. I don't know anyone who has a problem with
"Indian." And for what it's worth, the National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI), established in 1944 and the oldest and largest national
organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments,
doesn't seem to have a problem with the term, as is evident both from its
name and from its stated purpose: "to preserve for ourselves and our
descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights
secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all
other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and
Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better
understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and
otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people."
Can't imagine the NAACP stating its purpose with "nigger" interpolated in
the manner in which "Indian" is here.
I'm thinking, big diff.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
"TranslucentAmoebae" <transa...@seanet.com> wrote in message
news:67a26570-e798-43b7...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> If you examine all the names that various sub-ethnic groups like to be
> called, you'll find that it tends to drift from term to term, so that
> whenever the general population starts referring to them as 'x'; They
> will invariably decide that 'x' is offensive and insist that they want
> to be called something else.
And sometimes it goes in circles. Once upon a time, "colored people" was
acceptable (NAACP, anyone?), but now it's not. But nowadays, "people of
color" is just fine. Go figure.
Jim Beaver
R H Draney
>
>And sometimes it goes in circles. Once upon a time, "colored people" was
>acceptable (NAACP, anyone?), but now it's not. But nowadays, "people of
>color" is just fine. Go figure.
I'd just like to say that henceforth, I will consider it offensive to allow
myself to be called a "white guy"...I will, however, accept the term "person of
pallor"....r
--
What good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone?
Forge
thir...@frXOXed.net says...
> > > > WTF is a "little person?"
> > >
> > > > Does the article mean to say that the guy is a *midget?*
> > > > A *dwarf?* Why not just come out and say so?
> > >
> > > Says an interviewed person of diminutive proportion, on a popular radio
> > > show, "'Midget' is roughly the same as 'nigger.'"
> > >
> > > "Little person" is the most widely-accepted generic term for people
> > > under a certain size limit.
> >
> > Strange....the way I'd always heard it, "dwarf" is the term for
> > someone whose build and limbs, because of the disorder, are clearly
> > not "in proportion" with that person's height, while a "midget's" body
> > IS proportional, sort of like a child's, because it's a different
> > disorder.
>
>
> I can see why a person might not want to be referred to as a midget,
> but for the life of me I don't see how the word "is roughly the same as
> 'nigger'."
Eh, that's what the guy said.
Seven Quarts
"A" <aa...@hot.net> wrote in message
news:13v0bf8...@corp.supernews.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "J.D. Baldwin" <INVALID...@example.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:fsobn3$r18$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>>
>>> > I can see why a person might not want to be referred to as a midget,
>>> > but for the life of me I don't see how the word "is roughly the same
>>> > as 'nigger'."
>>>
>>> He's most certainly just trying to get across the way it makes many
>>> little people feel when they're called "midget" or "dwarf" or some
>>> other term they don't wish to be associated with. You're not a
>>> little person, of *course* you're not going to fully understand the
>>> problem(s) with the term, but you could at least try. If a little
>>> person tells you that "midget" or "dwarf" is extremely offensive, why
>>> would you even question that?
>>
>> It's even weirder. This guy has no problem with "dwarf" and even
>> actively endorses the term. It's "midget" he's on about, and "dwarf"
>> is A-OK.
>
> are offended by, whereas other similar insults roll off their back without
> a peep of objection.
>
>> And I, for one, would "question" it. I've heard American Indians say
>> that "Indian" is offensive, but I've heard a lot of others say that
>> only the activist weirdos -- "city Indians," in one memorable phrasing
>> -- are the only ones who register that objection. I've seen Chief
>> Wahoo hats on and near reservations in western Washington. I tend to
>> believe the latter point of view, and I'll use "Indian" until I am
>> convinced otherwise. Hauling out one or two or ten Indians, big or
>> little, to object doesn't meet my standard of convincing evidence.
>> (I won't call *those* guys, specifically, "Indians," of course.)
>>
>> Brad has a point. It's not reasonably possible to use the word
>> "nigger" without knowing its history as a vicious epithet -- even the
>> benign "my niggaz!" usage is a manifestation of that awareness.
>
> nowadays *by blacks* for other blacks compared to whites using it against
> blacks. How come blacks don't get upset when their own race uses it
> for/against themselves, but they get all wound up when a white person uses
> it?
>
>
>> That
>> cannot be said about "midget": millions of people have been using the
>> term for a century or two without a shred of meanness in their intent.
>> So there's a difference. It's absolutely understandable why this guy
>> would exaggerate a point to make his case, but that doesn't obligate
>> the rest of us to pretend it isn't an exaggeration.
>
>
I was called a cracker once. It didn't bother me because coming from up
north I never heard this name used on a white person before. I just assumed
I was being call a saltine or maybe even a Ritz. lol! Even after I found out
what it meant it still didn't bother me... I've been called worse.
/Seven
R H Draney
>
>"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:fspfi...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>> I'd just like to say that henceforth, I will consider it offensive to
>> allow
>> myself to be called a "white guy"...I will, however, accept the term
>> "person of
>> pallor"....r
>
I'm not quite up there with Lestat and company, but I do the best I can....r
Rob Cibik
> > > I just got a vision of all these little people going around calling
> > > each other the "M" word.
>
> > He did say they in fact do that. "Yo midget, what up?"
>
> Or, "Gimme' some skin ... What little you have ..."
"yo! what up, pup?"
DDark
<fo...@killallspammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
>In article <13usutf...@corp.supernews.com>, geo...@lava.net says...
>> WTF is a "little person?"
>>
>> Does the article mean to say that the guy is a *midget?*
>> A *dwarf?* Why not just come out and say so?
>
>Says an interviewed person of diminutive proportion, on a popular radio
>show, "'Midget' is roughly the same as 'nigger.'"
To quote Christopher Titus, "Is it really? Cause I don't remember a
time in our nation's history when we took a bunch of boats to
MunkinLand, filled them to the top with midgets, brought them back,
and made them pick cotton for the next four hundred years. Although
cotton's only about that high, so it's a better idea."
Jim Beaver
"DDark" <dreami...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pt28v392a03qfba1l...@4ax.com...
I thought about this story last night while at the movies watching IN
BRUGES, which has the funniest take on the whole little-person/midget/dwarf
issue I've ever seen. It's beautifully, hilariously, perfectly politically
incorrect.
One of the best films I've seen in a long time. And the second home-run
performance in a row for Colin Farrell. Not to mention sterling work by
Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes. Great script.
Jim Beaver
mc
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:27:54 -0400, Forge
>
> <fo...@killallspammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
> >> WTF is a "little person?" Â
>
> >> Does the article mean to say that the guy is a *midget?*
> >> A *dwarf?* Â Why not just come out and say so?
>
> >Says an interviewed person of diminutive proportion, on a popular radio
> >show, "'Midget' is roughly the same as 'nigger.'"
>
> To quote Christopher Titus, "Is it really? Â Cause I don't remember a
> time in our nation's history when we took a bunch of boats to
> MunkinLand, filled them to the top with midgets, brought them back,
> and made them pick cotton for the next four hundred years. Â Although
> cotton's only about that high, so it's a better idea."
lol. I never heard of that guy so I looked him up. His Mom's
Thanksgiving is priceless. How can you make a story of your mother
killing her husband funny?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P2kxPEQ11Q&feature=related
mc
aroberts
I long for the day when all of this color-awareness is just a pigment of the
imagination.
J.D. Baldwin
Hue made a good one.
Bill Schenley
> > > offensive to allow myself to be called a "white guy"...
> > > I will, however, accept the term "person of pallor"....r
>
> > a pigment of the imagination.
>
> Hue made a good one.
Whey better than I could'a done ...
La N
"Bill Schenley" <stra...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47f59101$0$11333$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Upon pondering the anniversary of the death of MLK, I look forward to when
the dark greens no longer have to sit at the back of the bus and can sit up
front with the light greens ....
- nilita
DDark
>lol. I never heard of that guy so I looked him up. His Mom's
>Thanksgiving is priceless. How can you make a story of your mother
>killing her husband funny?
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P2kxPEQ11Q&feature=related
IF you have Netflix (or a local video rental) you should check out his
tv series Titus, it's HYSTERICAL! :)
me
"Geoff Miller" <geo...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:13usutf...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> WTF is a "little person?"
>
> Does the article mean to say that the guy is a *midget?*
> A *dwarf?* Why not just come out and say so?
>
>
>
Because of stupid political correctness.
CaptainCrunch
Fucking dwarfs are the ticket.
Geoff Miller
Forge <fo...@killallspammers.youneedageek.com> writes:
: Does the article mean to say that the guy is a *midget?*
: A *dwarf?* Why not just come out and say so?
> Says an interviewed person of diminutive proportion, on
> a popular radio show, "'Midget' is roughly the same as
> 'nigger.'"
Oh, bullshit. The term has no pejorative connotations at
all.
By the way, I read somewhere (no, not in a J.R.R. Tolkien
novel) that midgets and dwarves are actually different. If
I remember correctly, midgets have normal bodily proportions
and are just very small, while dwarves are the ones with the
compressed features and huge thighs.
Geoff
--
"The future stretches before us, brown and sticky, like the
broad smile of a mongoloid eating peanut butter off a spoon."
-- snide
Forge
says...
> > Says an interviewed person of diminutive proportion, on
> > a popular radio show, "'Midget' is roughly the same as
> > 'nigger.'"
>
> Oh, bullshit. The term has no pejorative connotations at
> all.
Oh? Are you a small person? Do you know this for a fact? Do you have
some sort of oh I dunno, proof of what you say? 'Cuz I heard an actual
midget on an actual radio show saying the word is so close to "nigger"
that small people actually greet each other saying "wut's up, midget?"
in precisely the same way black people greet each other with the N word.
Geoff Miller
Forge <fo...@killallspammers.youneedageek.com> challenges:
: Oh, bullshit. The term has no pejorative connotations at
: all.
> Oh? Are you a small person?
Depends who you ask. I'm small compared to some people, and
big relative to others. As Einstein would say, it's all
relative.
> Do you know this for a fact?
Absolutely and unequivocally.
> Do you have some sort of oh I dunno, proof of what you say?
Sure do. There had to be some term to refer to these people,
right? Until this "little people" crap started very recently,
there was no other term but "midget." It's pretty damned un-
likely that (1) there'd have been only one term, and (2) that
term would be a derogatory one, don't you think? That would be
like not being able to refer to black people without calling
them niggers.
All it takes to grasp this is reasonable intelligence, education,
and common sense. For example, one doesn't need to be Chinese to
know that "chink" is patently offensive and that "Oriental" is not.
Or of the Hebraic persuasion to know that "Jew" is kosher and that
"Christ-killing chopcock" is not.
> 'Cuz I heard an actual midget on an actual radio show
If you only heard him on the radio, then how do you know he
was an actual midget? Snork.
> saying the word is so close to "nigger" that small people
> actually greet each other saying "wut's up, midget?" in
> precisely the same way black people greet each other with
> the N word.
Maybe they were just being short with each other.
The word "nigger" obviously isn't pejorative in the way black
people use it among themselvesa, or they *wouldn't* use it
among themselves. They've "reclaimed" it, just as homosexuals
did with "queer." The context makes it clear that the midgets
in question use "midget" the same way.
Okay, so you heard *one* midget express an opinion on a radio
show. Big deal. First, you're a bit of a hypocrite for claiming
that the word "midget" is derogatory and then using it yourself.
More relevantly, one person's opinion represents one data point
(or maybe just half of one in this case, nyuk nyuk). And you
can't plot much of a curve with one data point. Think about how
absurd you'd sound if you claimed that you heard one white person
express an idea, and then extrapolated that opinion to all white
people.
Forge
says...
If you employed your style of argument in an actual debate, you'd have
been ejected from chambers for not bloody knowing how to debate sometime
around this paragraph here. You suck at this. Give up.
Geoff Miller
Forge <fo...@killallspammers.youneedageek.com> forges ahead:
> If you employed your style of argument in an actual debate,
> you'd have been ejected from chambers for not bloody knowing
> how to debate sometime around this paragraph here.
Why do you believe that this exchange's being on Usenet somehow
makes it not be an "actual debate?" Never heard that one before.
> You suck at this. Give up.
Nice attempt at diversion. Speaking of not knowing how to debate,
you're trying to reframe the discussion in terms of my personal
qualities because you can't refute anything within the substance
of what I said. If you had an education, you'd know that this is
a logical fallacy (or in your case, perhaps "phallusy" would be
more appropriate) known as "argumentum ad hominem."
LOO-zer! LOO-zer!
Forge
says...
> Nice attempt at diversion. Speaking of not knowing how to debate,
> you're trying to reframe the discussion in terms of my personal
> qualities because you can't refute anything within the substance
> of what I said. If you had an education, you'd know that this is
> a logical fallacy (or in your case, perhaps "phallusy" would be
> more appropriate) known as "argumentum ad hominem."
>
> LOO-zer! LOO-zer!
Clearly you're suffering from a delusion that I give a fuck what you
think.
Geoff Miller
Forge <fo...@killallspammers.youneedageek.com> writes:
: LOO-zer! LOO-zer!
> Clearly you're suffering from a delusion that I give
> a fuck what you think.
It isn't just what I think; it's a statement of objective
fact.
Besides, you must care at some level what I think. Why
else would you have gone three rounds with me at this
point, if not to try and convince me of the righteousness
of your so-called "point of view?"
Snork. I'm still giggling about your saying that you knew
some disembodied voice belonged to a midget because you
heard it on the radio. If brains were gasoline, you wouldn't
have enough to propel a moped once around a goddam Cheerio.
(I didn't see the last solar eclipse, but I heard it on the
radio. HAW HAW HAW!)
Geoff
--
"Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Alpha Centauri" -- Jonah Goldberg
R H Draney
>
>(I didn't see the last solar eclipse, but I heard it on the
>radio. HAW HAW HAW!)
I hope, for safety's sake, that you listened through a piece of smoked
glass....r
Forge
geo...@lava.net says...
> : LOO-zer! LOO-zer!
>
> > Clearly you're suffering from a delusion that I give
> > a fuck what you think.
>
>
> It isn't just what I think; it's a statement of objective
> fact.
How can you possibly "state objective fact" that I care what you think?
You don't live in my head. If you think you do, you have bigger problems
than can be dealt with in this forum and you should probably be seeing a
therapist.
> Besides, you must care at some level what I think. Why
> else would you have gone three rounds with me at this
> point, if not to try and convince me of the righteousness
> of your so-called "point of view?"
I am not trying to convince you of any point of view whatsoever, beyond
the fact I couldn't possibly give less of a fuck about you.
> Snork. I'm still giggling about your saying that you knew
> some disembodied voice belonged to a midget because you
> heard it on the radio.
And you're apparently completely unfamiliar with the fact that Howard
Stern's radio show was for eleven years, ending in 2005, supported by a
nightly telecast on the E! network. And that would be where I saw said
small person saying what I said he said. After I'd heard it on the radio
that morning.
> If brains were gasoline, you wouldn't
> have enough to propel a moped once around a goddam Cheerio.
Ah, ad hominem attacks, the very first resort of those who don't just
have a weak argument, but no argument, and never did have any to start
with. Keep going, this is amusing.
Wait, no it's not, it's sad.
> (I didn't see the last solar eclipse, but I heard it on the
> radio. HAW HAW HAW!)
Wow. Your logic is not like our Earth logic. Are you REALLY sure you
want to take this direction? 'Cuz I... really don't need to be told by
anyone when there's going to be a solar eclipse; I can look it up online
myself. That's probably the most astoundingly stupid metaphor I've ever
heard in my life!! Congratulations, you win absolutely nothing. Now go
home sonny, you bother me.
Geoff Miller
Forge <fo...@killallspammers.youneedageek.com> blathers ever onward:
>> Clearly you're suffering from a delusion that I give a fuck what
>> you think.
: It isn't just what I think; it's a statement of objective fact.
> How can you possibly "state objective fact" that I care what you
> think?
The phrase "objective fact" in my quoted passage above doesn't refer
to whether or not you care what I think. It refers to your being a
LOO-zer.
How can you possibly pretend to engage in something approximating
a debate when you can't even keep up with what's being said?
> You don't live in my head.
Thank Ghod for that. The conclusion that you don't spend much time
there yourself is becoming increasingly hard to resist.
> If you think you do, you have bigger problems than can be dealt
> with in this forum and you should probably be seeing a therapist.
But I don't think I do. You know what that means, don't you? It
means I got you to waste time and keystrokes. Whoopsie!
> I am not trying to convince you of any point of view whatsoever,
> beyond the fact I couldn't possibly give less of a fuck about you.
You're trying to demonstrate that my position is flawed and that
yours has merit, which amounts to the same thing. Let's not go
down a rathole over semantics, mmmkay? You're in far enough over
your head as it is.
: Snork. I'm still giggling about your saying that you knew some
: disembodied voice belonged to a midget because you heard it on
: the radio.
> And you're apparently completely unfamiliar with the fact that
> Howard Stern's radio show was for eleven years, ending in 2005,
> supported by a nightly telecast on the E! network.
Oh, that makes the guy a real midget, then. Snork-a-rama.
> And that would be where I saw said small person saying what I
> said he said. After I'd heard it on the radio that morning.
Horse genitals. You're changing your story. What you originally
said was (and I quote):
"'Cuz I heard an actual midget on an actual radio show saying
the word is so close to 'nigger' that small people actually
greet each other saying 'wut's up, midget'? in precisely the
same way black people greet each other with the N word."
For the record, this was in Message-ID
<MPG.228d5f027...@newsgroups.comcast.net>, dated
Thursday, 8 May 2008.
See that? You said you "heard" an actual midget on an actual
"radio show," not that you *saw* an actual midget on a TV show
(or on a telecast of a radio show). There it is in black and
white.
So it in a nutshell, it seems that you're a lying sack of shit.
A prevaricating poke of poop. A feckless phallus of fallacy.
: If brains were gasoline, you wouldn't have enough to propel a
: moped once around a goddam Cheerio.
> Ah, ad hominem attacks, the very first resort of those who don't
> just have a weak argument, but no argument, and never did have
> any to start with. Keep going, this is amusing.
If that were all I had to say, you'd have a point. But it wasn't,
as the fact that we're in our fourth round of debate demonstrates.
If that insult were all I'd had to say, we wouldn't have had nearly
this much to talk about, now would we?
Allow me to try and explain this. I'll type slowly so that you can
keep up. Ready? Here we go.
You see, chucklebunny, an insult made in passing, in the midst of
a lot of other, serious stuff, doesn't somehow invalidate everything
of substance that a person has written. I'm sure you'd like it to,
'cuz that'd be awfully convenient, relieving you of the need to
cobble togther a compelling rebuttal as it would. But I'm afraid
things just don't work that way.
Besides, "You suck at this. Give up." is an ad hominem attack, too,
you hypocrite. Sauce/goose/gander, nest-say poss?
: (I didn't see the last solar eclipse, but I heard it on the
: radio. HAW HAW HAW!)
> Wow. Your logic is not like our Earth logic.
What does logic have to do with my mocking what you said about
hearing a midget on the radio with a joke about "hearing" a
solar eclipse?
> Are you REALLY sure you want to take this direction?
Indeed I am. Without the faintest, most tentatively nascent
glimmering of a doubt, as a hamster of fact.
> 'Cuz I... really don't need to be told by anyone when there's
> going to be a solar eclipse; I can look it up online myself.
When did I offer to tell you when there's going to be a solar
eclipse? I'm really starting to have doubts about your cognitive
competence.
> That's probably the most astoundingly stupid metaphor I've ever
> heard in my life!!
Then again, you *would* say that, wouldn't you?
> Congratulations, you win absolutely nothing. Now go home sonny,
> you bother me.
You remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python And the Holy
Grail, who has three of his four limbs chopped off an insists
that "it's only a flesh wound."
Here's an example of a *proper* dismissive send-off:
Now run along and have a wank. The Big People have matters of
great import to discuss here, and you'd only get frightfully
confused. There's a good lad...
Forge
geo...@lava.net says...
> But I don't think I do. You know what that means, don't you? It
> means I got you to waste time and keystrokes. Whoopsie!
(One hundred fifty-one other lines of utter inconsequential babble
removed)
Er.
Who has gotten *whom* to waste keystrokes?
You're really, really sad.
Geoff Miller
Forge <fo...@killallspammers.youneedageek.com> writes:
> Who has gotten *whom* to waste keystrokes?
*I've* gotten *you* to waste keystrokes. I've expended
a lot more than you have, but mine actually counted for
something. Yours were a waste, not unlike that load of
spooge that you spanked into your bathroom sink this
morning.
> You're really, really sad.
Truth be told, I'm actually in quite a good mood. I got
a lot done around the house today (had some good coffee
and flamed you, did the laundry and installed some nice
wooden window blinds), then showered, dressed, and drove
into Santa Cruz in my big-ass Benz and wandered among the
bookstores.
When I came home, I sat on my deck beneath the redwoods,
had a couple of drinks, and enjoyed my purchases. You?
(See what I mean? I invest a lot of keystrokes, but I do
something worthwhile and entertaining with them. I write
because I enjoy it. You, on the other hand, are just sullen
and petulant.)
Forge
says...
> I've expended
> a lot more than you have, but mine actually counted for
> something
Says...
...
...you?
Good God you're sad.
Geoff Miller
Yet more cognitive cockslobber from the mental meatus of "Forge":
: I've expended a lot more than you have, but mine actually
: counted for something
> Says...
>
>
> ...
>
>
>...you?
Yupperdoodle, snickerdoodle.
It's true. All your responses to me have just been variations
on the childish theme of "Nuh-UUUH!"
> Good God you're sad.
My mother loves me. So does yours, as a matter of fact.
Geoff
--
"Are you in San Francisco Mensa?", asked Tom homogeneously...
-- Alan Gore
aroberts
>
>
> Forge <fo...@killallspammers.youneedageek.com> writes:
>
> : Does the article mean to say that the guy is a *midget?*
> : A *dwarf?* Why not just come out and say so?
>
>> Says an interviewed person of diminutive proportion, on
>> a popular radio show, "'Midget' is roughly the same as
>> 'nigger.'"
>
> Oh, bullshit. The term has no pejorative connotations at
> all.
>
> By the way, I read somewhere (no, not in a J.R.R. Tolkien
> novel) that midgets and dwarves are actually different. If
> I remember correctly, midgets have normal bodily proportions
> and are just very small, while dwarves are the ones with the
> compressed features and huge thighs.
>
>
> Geoff
>
Exactly. How in the hell did "midget" morph into a pejorative? It wasn't
that long ago that the terms were used to differentiate those of normal
proportions but merely smaller, from those who had disproportionate
features. Oddly, people who are dwarves (or dwarfs) don't seem to have a
problem with their appellation--just the um, "others."
When I was in college, I knew a guy who was--and referred to himself as--"a
midget." He was fond of proclaiming to anyone who stared at him that he
intended to sue the university "...for building the sidewalks too close to
my ass." Our ability to indulge in healthy self-deprecation (well, any
deprecation) has been subsumed by PC crap.
One of many sites with comparisons/commentary:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Dwarf_vs_Midget
As a friend with scleroderma once said, "people have to quit being so
thin-skinned."
Geoff Miller
aroberts <a-rob...@comcast.net> writes:
> Oddly, people who are dwarves (or dwarfs) don't seem to have
> a problem with their appellation--just the um, "others."
Which is ironic, when you consider that the ones with the chip
on their collective shoulder are the more normal, appearance-
wise. Everrybody wants to have a grievance these days. No
matter what everybody else calls them, it's suddenly "offensive"
-- nevermind that it had been perfectely acceptable for decades,
until every minority wanted to claim their place on the grievance
bandwagon.
> When I was in college, I knew a guy who was--and referred to
> himself as--"a midget." He was fond of proclaiming to anyone
> who stared at him that he intended to sue the university
> "...for building the sidewalks too close to my ass."
Sounds like the sort of guy I'd be delighted to buy a drink.
> Our ability to indulge in healthy self-deprecation (well, any
> deprecation) has been subsumed by PC crap.
Oh, yeah. Everyone takes himself (and the world) so goddam
seriously nowadays.
My father's best friend in college was a Moslem from India.
This was in the 1950s, when Indians weren't nearly as common
in America as they are today (and when people wrote "Moslem"
as opposed to "Muslim").
As they were walking in silence across the quad at the university
one day, my father's friend kicked at a snowdrift and, turning to
my (white Southern) father, asked, "So do they have this stuff in
*your* country, gook?"
This man, whose name is Mohammed, was present when both I and my
brother were born, and when I graduated from high school. That's
how much "offense" was taken.
> One of many sites with comparisons/commentary:
> http://www.diffen.com/difference/Dwarf_vs_Midget
I see no reason why "midget" should be considered offensive and
"dwarf," not.
> As a friend with scleroderma once said, "people have to quit
> being so thin-skinned."
Excellent. "Barkeep! I'd like to buy this gentleman a drink,
also."