French joke
John Rennie
even Einstein and Picasso did before him. Bush asks, "Who are Einstein and
Picasso?" Satisfied, God lets him in.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:nH48a.136$B85...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> Bush reaches the gates of Heaven. God says he must prove his identity, as
> even Einstein and Picasso did before him. Bush asks, "Who are Einstein and
> Picasso?" Satisfied, God lets him in.
>
Boswell or Pascal were.
PV
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped FW scavenging for scraps, the old cunt>
>Boswell or Pascal
Who?
w00f
JIGSAW1695
From: "John Rennie" j.re...@ntlworld.com
Date: 3/1/2003 10:16 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <nH48a.136$B85...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
Bush reaches the gates of Heaven. God says he must prove his identity, as
even Einstein and Picasso did before him. Bush asks, "Who are Einstein and
Picasso?" Satisfied, God lets him in.
===============================
I give it a half a star rating. But nice try.
A Planet Visitor
Proving what we already knew... Your "classical education" is as phony as you are.
PV
>w00f
dirtdog
wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 18:04:02 +0000, dirtdog <dirtdogU...@fruffrant.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 17:53:09 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>>
>><snipped FW scavenging for scraps, the old cunt>
>>
>>>Boswell or Pascal
>>
>>Who?
>>
>Proving what we already knew... Your "classical education" is as phony as you are.
>
Better a 'phony' classical education than none at all, FW.
BTW, any thoughts as to why your were 'surprised' at Desmond's claims
his words could attract copyright yet?
<FW scarpers>
w00f
"A NUCLEAR BOMB is NOT an invention"
(A Planet Visitor) - LMAO!!
A Planet Visitor
>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 06:55:37 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 18:04:02 +0000, dirtdog <dirtdogU...@fruffrant.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 17:53:09 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>>><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>>>
>>><snipped FW scavenging for scraps, the old cunt>
>>>
>>>>Boswell or Pascal
>>>
>>>Who?
>>>
>>Proving what we already knew... Your "classical education" is as phony as you are.
>>
>
>Better a 'phony' classical education than none at all, FW.
LOL... See
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/diploma.jpg
and
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
PV
>
>BTW, any thoughts as to why your were 'surprised' at Desmond's claims
>his words could attract copyright yet?
>
Yes... I was surprised at his arrogant presumption that he has ever posted
anything that DESERVES copyright. I mean... does one copyright graffiti
on a toilet stall wall?
PV
>w00f
<rubbish clipped>
dirtdog
wrote:
<snip>
>
>LOL... See
>url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/diploma.jpg
'Bachelor of Sciences' in _what_, FW?
>and
>url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
ROTFL!!
'I'm an Engineer!'
Ho ho ho. FW's son is an electrician!
Do you really think that I wouldn't notice your obfuscating the dates,
FW?
L-O-*F*-L!!!!!!!
w00f
dirtdog
wrote:
<snip>
>url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
Hang on a second... Let's look at that one closely...
You've edited the name of the degree in yourself! Look! It's on the
piss!
L-O-L!!!!
My fucking Lord. You're not going to be allowed to forget _that_ one!
Ho ho ho. FW has a degree in 'Home Economics'.
w00f
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> LOL... See
> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/diploma.jpg
> and
> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
So we can now call you "Jim"? ;)
I note that Australian universities (and, IIRC, UK universities) have
seen fit to abbreviate Bachelor of Science to B.Sc. which most
recipients refer to as "Bull Shit coming" (the expansion of M.Sc. is, by
now, obvious). It appears that US universities prefer the joke (such as
it is) to be rather more obvious.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
dirtdog
<jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote:
>In article <ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>, A Planet
>Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>> LOL... See
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/diploma.jpg
>> and
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
>
>So we can now call you "Jim"? ;)
You can if you wish to address your posts to FW's son!!!!
LMAO!!!
w00f
David McDonald
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>le Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:13:58 GMT, dans l'article <ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> LOL... See
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/diploma.jpg
>> and
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
>
>ROTFLMAO !! Poor, insecure ol' FuckWit provides a scanned degree that
>could have been awarded to _anyone_ !! LOL !! Why not provide a
>'certificate' that 'proves' that you're Moses, FuckWit ?
>
>Ho, ho, ho ... poor, uneducated, pseudo-intellectual FuckWit.
Poor Deswaldo,
French Lesbian Literature! LZ!!!
NLD
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:13:58 GMT, dans l'article <ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> LOL... See
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/diploma.jpg
>> and
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
>
>ROTFLMAO !! Poor, insecure ol' FuckWit provides a scanned degree that
>could have been awarded to _anyone_ !! LOL !! Why not provide a
>'certificate' that 'proves' that you're Moses, FuckWit ?
>
>Ho, ho, ho ... poor, uneducated, pseudo-intellectual FuckWit.
>
Nonetheless... the evidence is there for those who wish to examine it.
I never expected you to do anything but what you are famous for. Making
an ass of yourself in public. Little wonder that you've been called the
'Freddy Krueger' of abolition.
PV
>--
> Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
> |Spiritual Leader of the Universal
> |Right to Life Church. (umm... get
> |away from me -- you filthy black
> |starving child in Africa) 'My church'
> |isn't for you.
The words of desi in his favorite post -- "I engage in 'abuse' of deathies as a
matter of course. That's what they're there for. `echo $DEITY` gave them to us, much
as She gave sparrows to the domestic cat. They're our playthings. They have no
relevance in the real world, except to remind us of the dark side to human nature,
that can exist in all of us. They're like child rapists. Nazis. Torturers of small
animals. All this pretence of 'let's be civil to one another' is nauseating. How can
you be 'civil' to garbage ?" To seen what desi hopes to make of the retentionist --
see url:http://www.things.org/~muffy/pages/kitties/death.html and
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/sparrow.jpg
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:44:15 +0000, dans l'article <8j556voolin5nok7k...@4ax.com>, dirtdog <dirtdogU...@fruffrant.com> a dit ...
>
>>>url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
>
>> Hang on a second... Let's look at that one closely...
>>
>> You've edited the name of the degree in yourself! Look! It's on the
>> piss!
>>
>> L-O-L!!!!
>>
>> My fucking Lord. You're not going to be allowed to forget _that_ one!
>>
>> Ho ho ho. FW has a degree in 'Home Economics'.
>
>Yes indeed, if you zoom in on the image with a 'paint' programme (I used
>the Gimp), you can see that there is a faint 'box' around the name of the
>degree, that doesn't exist in the other sections, thus indicating that the
>text was added _after_ the scan.
>
You can lie all you wish... But it's there to see, and nothing has been
_edited_. My name and date was of course removed with a paint program.
>How sad ... LOL !!!
Yes... you certainly are. ROTFLMAO. But I'm glad to see that you've
examined it. Because it demonstrates you are ---- afraid.
PV
>--
>Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
> |Spiritual Leader of the Universal
> |Right to Life Church. (umm... get
> |away from me -- you filthy black
> |starving child in Africa) 'My church'
> |isn't for you.
http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html Am I obsessed with fighting
'evil'? Damn... I'm 'Superman' when it comes to fighting desi's 'forces of evil.'
References to a post which insightfully pronounced of desi -- "'Cancerous' is almost
a compliment when one views most of desi's comments -- other forms spring more easily
to mind -- it is a parasitic diarrhea of the brain... it is crazy chick disease
transferred to our thinking process -- it is a swarm of latrine flies settling on our
ability to process information --- it is maggots feasting on the bodies of numberless
victims of murder. It is madness. utter madness. It is Desmond Coughlan." Every evil,
vile thought that has ever swept across this group from desi's pen, as Genghis Kahn
(or Attila the Hun, if you prefer) swept his broad scythe of rape, death and
destruction, in long, broad, excruciating strokes across the face of humanity, stand
as stark images of his perverse character. And we stand witness to that depravity.
A Planet Visitor
>On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:13:58 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>LOL... See
>>url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/diploma.jpg
>
>'Bachelor of Sciences' in _what_, FW?
>
>>and
>>url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
>
>ROTFL!!
>
Louise is lonesome again. ROTFLMAO.
>'I'm an Engineer!'
>
>Ho ho ho. FW's son is an electrician!
>
>Do you really think that I wouldn't notice your obfuscating the dates,
>FW?
>
I REMOVED them, dummy. Purposely. Just as I removed my last
name.
>L-O-*F*-L!!!!!!!
PV
>
>w00f
>
A Planet Visitor
Nah... it was Master of Science in spanking dickheads.... dickhead.
So many of your lies... so little time to spread them, eh??
PV
>
>
>w00f
A Planet Visitor
<jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote:
>In article <ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>, A Planet
>Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>> LOL... See
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/diploma.jpg
>> and
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
>
>So we can now call you "Jim"? ;)
>
I already had mentioned to desi, that my given name was James, when
he _argued_ that Jake was the _nickname for James. LOL.
PV
JIGSAW1695
From: A Planet Visitor abc...@zbqytr.ykq
Date: 3/3/2003 4:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3s666vsgrpd4hjmfl...@4ax.com>
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:01:46 GMT, "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
<jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote:
>In article <ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>, A Planet
>Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>> LOL... See
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/diploma.jpg
>> and
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
>
>So we can now call you "Jim"? ;)
>
I already had mentioned to desi, that my given name was James, when
he _argued_ that Jake was the _nickname for James. LOL.
PV
>I note that Australian universities (and, IIRC, UK universities) have
>seen fit to abbreviate Bachelor of Science to B.Sc. which most
>recipients refer to as "Bull Shit coming" (the expansion of M.Sc. is, by
>now, obvious). It appears that US universities prefer the joke (such as
>it is) to be rather more obvious.
>
>Mr Q. Z. D.
===============================
And for those seeking a higher education:
MS : More of the Same
PhD: Piled higher and Deeper
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: French joke
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 23:30:46 +0000
>
>le Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:13:58 GMT, dans l'article
><ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> LOL... See
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/diploma.jpg
>> and
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
>
>ROTFLMAO !! Poor, insecure ol' FuckWit provides a scanned degree that
>could have been awarded to _anyone_ !! LOL !! Why not provide a
>'certificate' that 'proves' that you're Moses, FuckWit ?
>
>Ho, ho, ho ... poor, uneducated, pseudo-intellectual FuckWit.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: French joke
>Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 23:30:46 +0000
>Lines: 25
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <5qgaj-7...@zeouane.org>
>References: <nH48a.136$B85...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
><9s68a.62087$Cv4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><8et16v0mb6n6mhspq...@4ax.com>
><4ka36v0cqssh85h04...@4ax.com>
><pvt36v4tkt059lgm6...@4ax.com>
><ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1046648252 61183198 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Scooter-Boy's-Moped:
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/drewls_wifes_scooter.jpg
>X-Scooter-Boy: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
Dolly Coughlan Jr, the legend continues!
As Desi lies, the archive grows!
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: French joke
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 23:59:44 +0000
>
>le Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:44:15 +0000, dans l'article
><8j556voolin5nok7k...@4ax.com>, dirtdog
><dirtdogU...@fruffrant.com> a dit ...
>
>>>url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Diploma1.jpg
>
>> Hang on a second... Let's look at that one closely...
>>
>> You've edited the name of the degree in yourself! Look! It's on the
>> piss!
>>
>> L-O-L!!!!
>>
>> My fucking Lord. You're not going to be allowed to forget _that_ one!
>>
>> Ho ho ho. FW has a degree in 'Home Economics'.
>
>Yes indeed, if you zoom in on the image with a 'paint' programme (I used
>the Gimp), you can see that there is a faint 'box' around the name of the
>degree, that doesn't exist in the other sections, thus indicating that the
>text was added _after_ the scan.
>
>How sad ... LOL !!!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed1.newsreader.com!news
reader.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.ne
t!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.
dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-
>for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: French joke
>Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 23:59:44 +0000
>Lines: 32
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <ggiaj-0...@zeouane.org>
>References: <nH48a.136$B85...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
><9s68a.62087$Cv4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><8et16v0mb6n6mhspq...@4ax.com>
><4ka36v0cqssh85h04...@4ax.com>
><pvt36v4tkt059lgm6...@4ax.com>
><ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>
><8j556voolin5nok7k...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1046649750 60264963 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: French joke
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:15:08 +0000
>
>le Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:18:23 GMT, dans l'article
><bn366v0ckcepndr0o...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>Yes indeed, if you zoom in on the image with a 'paint' programme (I used
>>>the Gimp), you can see that there is a faint 'box' around the name of the
>>>degree, that doesn't exist in the other sections, thus indicating that the
>>>text was added _after_ the scan.
>
>> You can lie all you wish... But it's there to see, and nothing has been
>> _edited_. My name and date was of course removed with a paint program.
>
>And the name of the 'degree' was added ... ho, ho, ho ...
>
>>>How sad ... LOL !!!
>
>> Yes... you certainly are. ROTFLMAO. But I'm glad to see that you've
>> examined it. Because it demonstrates you are ---- afraid.
>
>LMAO !! Yeah, right. Ho, ho ... poor, sad, uneducated and (most
>important) _unread_ FW ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!uio.no!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!un
i-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: French joke
>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:15:08 +0000
>Lines: 32
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <r2qbj-9...@zeouane.org>
>References: <nH48a.136$B85...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
><9s68a.62087$Cv4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><8et16v0mb6n6mhspq...@4ax.com>
><4ka36v0cqssh85h04...@4ax.com>
><pvt36v4tkt059lgm6...@4ax.com>
><ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>
><8j556voolin5nok7k...@4ax.com> <ggiaj-0...@zeouane.org>
><bn366v0ckcepndr0o...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1046690547 61153945 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: French joke
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:03:04 +0000
>
>le Mon, 03 Mar 2003 09:10:16 GMT, dans l'article <3s666vsgrpd4hjmfl46mrrt=
>ftqeh...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...=20
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>So we can now call you "Jim"? ;)
>
>> I already had mentioned to desi, that my given name was James, when he
>> _argued_ that Jake was the _nickname for James. LOL.
>
>Why, I had almost forgotten that particularly brutal savaging that I
>delivered to you (there are so many ...); thanks for reminding me. Of
>course, 'Jake' _is_ ... sorry, 'IS' (sic) a nickname for 'James', and
>indeed a quick search on 'goggle' (sic) shows us that the two are used
>interchangeably.
>
>So quite obviously, you are wrong again ... sorry, 'AGAIN' (sic), and
>'Jake' is an accepted form of 'James'. However, lest AADP forget the
>context of that hammering I gave you, as you are obviously seeking to mak=
>e
>others ... sorry, 'other's' (sic) forget it, let's cast our minds back to
>of your most blatant strawmen, when you wrote ...=20
>
> 'You simply cannot deny that "Becky" is a common nickname for i
> Rebecca' [1]
>
>Total and complete dishonesty on your part, of course, as at no time had =
>I
>_tried_ to 'deny' that it was. news:alt.activism.death-penalty is still
>trying to work out not only why you lie on an almost constant basis, but
>also why you make your lies so _easy_ to expose (cf. 'dirt is anti-
>Semitic', 'desi [sic] is racist', 'FW didn't advocate a contract killing'
>etc.).=20=20
>=09
>In fact, what you were trying to convince the newsgroup of, was that as
>'Becky' is a nickname for 'Rebecca', thus everyone being called the
>latter, _must_ ... sorry, 'MUST' (sic) necessarily respond to the former.
>Which means that by your own 'logic' (sic), you ... sorry, 'YOU' (sic) mu=
>st
>answer to the name 'Jake'. LMAO !!
>
>The flaws in your 'logic' (sic), as well as the quite crippling lack of
>formal education that you seem hellbent on demonstrating over and over an=
>d
>over to everyone on news:alt.activism.death-penalty, are utterly hilariou=
>s.
>The other most humiliating spanking for you concerning the 'language [sic=
>]
>of logic' came about when you tried to claim that as Light Dwellers canno=
>t
>prove that the death penalty does not deter, it automatically must be
>assumed that it does. This came to be 'codified' into gimmick n=B0 75 ..=
>.
>
>url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/75.html
>
>... and how news:alt.activism.death-penalty _roared_ with laughter at you=
>r
>monstruous idiocy. Just as I'm doing now ... ho, ho, ho ...=20
>
>[1] url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=3DISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3DhbEG9=
>.340746%24r7.5999829%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&lr=3D&hl=3Dfr
>--=20
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/=20
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _=20
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!pln-w!extra.newsguy.com!l
otsanews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!151.164.30.35!cyclone.swbell.net!newsfeed1
.easynews.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!newsfeed.news2m
e.com!newsfeed.icl.net!news
>feed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!skynet.be!skynet.be!
fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: French joke
>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:03:04 +0000
>Lines: 72
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <o0pcj-1...@zeouane.org>
>References: <nH48a.136$B85...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
><9s68a.62087$Cv4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><8et16v0mb6n6mhspq...@4ax.com>
><4ka36v0cqssh85h04...@4ax.com>
><pvt36v4tkt059lgm6...@4ax.com>
><ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>
><jonathan-8FE784...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><3s666vsgrpd4hjmfl...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1046721953 61209677 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:18:23 GMT, dans l'article <bn366v0ckcepndr0o...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>Yes indeed, if you zoom in on the image with a 'paint' programme (I used
>>>the Gimp), you can see that there is a faint 'box' around the name of the
>>>degree, that doesn't exist in the other sections, thus indicating that the
>>>text was added _after_ the scan.
>
>> You can lie all you wish... But it's there to see, and nothing has been
>> _edited_. My name and date was of course removed with a paint program.
>
>And the name of the 'degree' was added ... ho, ho, ho ...
>
I knew that the more I provided of my background the more lies, and
distortions it would create. And I knew exactly beforehand, where it would
come from. The unbelievable duo. It's unfortunate that I felt it necessary to
prove anything to you, because those distortions were certain to occur.
So, let me add two additional items to my anonymous resume here, and in
a week I will remove everything, because I have nothing to prove here.
Were I to only have a sixth-grade education, that would only reflect on your
inabilities to handle arguments from a sixth-grader. So... these are the
documents I will provide, and that's the end of it. I have better things to do
then accept insults when I function in good faith. But it was to be expected.
This can be a sorry group at times. Little wonder that I remain anonymous --
1) My retirement certificate from the U.S. Air Force in April 1973 -- See --
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/retirement.jpg
2) My wife's EU French Passport cover holding dual citizenship -- See
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/eupassport.jpg
3) My U.S. Passport cover, and the Official U.S. Passport cover I used
when traveling on official government business to those areas that required
such a document -- See
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Passport.jpg
The diplomas are still available.
>>>How sad ... LOL !!!
>
>> Yes... you certainly are. ROTFLMAO. But I'm glad to see that you've
>> examined it. Because it demonstrates you are ---- afraid.
>
>LMAO !! Yeah, right. Ho, ho ... poor, sad, uneducated and (most
>important) _unread_ FW ...
>
Yeah, right. If anyone is _unread_ it is someone who was unfamiliar
with John Donne, believes there are only six continents, managed
to misspell "occurence" (sic) FIFTEEN times in his posts here,
was unable to differentiate between an appeal petition to a court
and a ruling from that court, has a frightening ignorance of logical
principles, displayed gross ignorance in a simple arithmetic problem
that Incubus easily solved, believes we are in more danger from a
person who has never murdered than we are from a released
murderer, claimed that there was no bomb in the Lockerbie disaster,
claimed the Balkans (and a great number of other countries) are not
in Europe, claimed that 'quote' is not a noun,and believes that using
the term "Fuckwit" over and over, and other one-word drivel, such
as
*snigger*
*snort*
*cackle*
*boo*
*bwahahhahaha*
*chortle*
*guffaw*
*wheeze*
*dribble*
*cough*
*quack*
*clang*
implies he is _well read_. yeah, right...desi is a real 'intellectual,'
all right. I have things in my refrigerator that are _better read_
than desi. But he's smart... When desi was a kid.. his parents moved
a lot. But he always managed to find them.
PV
>--
> Ayatollah desi
Another poster remarked of desi --
"As I keep on telling the more strident retentionists, Desmond, if you made the
claim, then it is you who must 'prove' it..."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=85jea5%247it%241%40lure.pipex.net
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: French joke
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:57:45 +0000
>
>le Tue, 04 Mar 2003 07:10:05 GMT, dans l'article <c7h86v80t5bukofg0582bnd=
>onjpl...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...=20
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>> You can lie all you wish... But it's there to see, and nothing has be=
>en
>>>> _edited_. My name and date was of course removed with a paint progra=
>m.
>
>>>And the name of the 'degree' was added ... ho, ho, ho ...=20
>
>> I knew that the more I provided of my background the more lies, and
>> distortions it would create. And I knew exactly beforehand, where it
>> would come from. The unbelievable duo. It's unfortunate that I felt =
>it
>> necessary to prove anything to you, because those distortions were
>> certain to occur. So, let me add two additional items to my anonymous
>> resume here, and in a week I will remove everything, because I have
>> nothing to prove here.
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!
>
>'let me add two additional items to my anonymous resume here'=20
>
>...=20
>
>'I have nothing to prove here'.
>
>LOL !! Ha, ha, ha, ho, ho, ho ... excellent, I haven't laughed this much
>on news:alt.activism.death-penalty, since Jigsaw called me an 'idiot',
>FuckWit. You start by jumping up and down on the spot like the obedient
>little puppet that you are (remind us again of percentages, FW ... LOL !)=
>,
>posting photographs of your bookcases to 'prove' that you can read,
>scanning your passport to 'prove' that you're American, and scanning
>your 'degrees', to 'prove' that you're 'educated'. Then you claim, 'I ha=
>ve
>nothing to prove here' ... LOL !!!
>
>> Were I to only have a sixth-grade education, that would only reflect on
>> your inabilities to handle arguments from a sixth-grader.=20=20
>
>Ah, the 'claim of victory', otherwise known as the Saddam Hussein Special=
>,
>codified into gimmick n=B0 68, claim victory in the face of overwhelming
>defeat ...=20
>
>url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/68.html
>
>{ snip remainder of FW quite obviously crying as he types, muttering,
> 'nobody LOVES [sic] me ...' }
>
>LOL !! I _love_ ... sorry, 'L0VE' (sic) this group !!
>
>--=20
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/=20
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _=20
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed1.newsreader.com!news
reader.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.ne
t!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117
.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not
>-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: French joke
>Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:57:45 +0000
>Lines: 65
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <9grej-l...@zeouane.org>
>References: <nH48a.136$B85...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
><9s68a.62087$Cv4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><8et16v0mb6n6mhspq...@4ax.com>
><4ka36v0cqssh85h04...@4ax.com>
><pvt36v4tkt059lgm6...@4ax.com>
><ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>
><8j556voolin5nok7k...@4ax.com> <ggiaj-0...@zeouane.org>
><bn366v0ckcepndr0o...@4ax.com> <r2qbj-9...@zeouane.org>
><c7h86v80t5bukofg0...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1046790141 62417926 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Mon, 03 Mar 2003 09:10:16 GMT, dans l'article <3s666vsgrpd4hjmfl...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>So we can now call you "Jim"? ;)
>
>> I already had mentioned to desi, that my given name was James, when he
>> _argued_ that Jake was the _nickname for James. LOL.
>
>Why, I had almost forgotten that particularly brutal savaging that I
>delivered to you (there are so many ...); thanks for reminding me. Of
>course, 'Jake' _is_ ... sorry, 'IS' (sic) a nickname for 'James', and
>indeed a quick search on 'goggle' (sic) shows us that the two are used
>interchangeably.
>
No... it's not. I've NEVER heard of anything so absurd... And I am a
James. See --
http://www.usgenweb.org/researchers/nicknames.html
Jamie, Jem, Jim, Jimmy are nicknames for James
Jaap, Jake, Jay are nicknames for Jacob
Then see --
http://www.martygrant.com/gen/refs/nickname.htm
Jim is a nickname for James
Jake is a nickname for Jacob.
Then see --
http://www.tngennet.org/franklin/frannick.htm
Jake is a nickname for Jacob
Jamie, Jim is a nickname for James
>So quite obviously, you are wrong again ... sorry, 'AGAIN' (sic), and
>'Jake' is an accepted form of 'James'.
Bullshit.
> However, lest AADP forget the
>context of that hammering I gave you, as you are obviously seeking to make
>others ... sorry, 'other's' (sic) forget it, let's cast our minds back to
>of your most blatant strawmen, when you wrote ...
>
> 'You simply cannot deny that "Becky" is a common nickname for i
> Rebecca' [1]
>
>Total and complete dishonesty on your part, of course, as at no time had I
>_tried_ to 'deny' that it was.
Rubbish.. you claimed that one would not expect that such would be a
reasonable reference to Rebecca.
> news:alt.activism.death-penalty is still
>trying to work out not only why you lie on an almost constant basis, but
>also why you make your lies so _easy_ to expose (cf. 'dirt is anti-
>Semitic', 'desi [sic] is racist', 'FW didn't advocate a contract killing'
>etc.).
>
One thing is for sure -- RACIST is a nickname for Desmond Coughlan.
>In fact, what you were trying to convince the newsgroup of, was that as
>'Becky' is a nickname for 'Rebecca', thus everyone being called the
>latter, _must_ ... sorry, 'MUST' (sic) necessarily respond to the former.
>Which means that by your own 'logic' (sic), you ... sorry, 'YOU' (sic) must
>answer to the name 'Jake'. LMAO !!
What I was contending, and still do.. is that Becky is a nickname for
Rebecca. Nothing else. And it certainly IS -- See
http://www.usgenweb.org/researchers/nicknames.html
Becky is a nickname for Rebecca.
>
>The flaws in your 'logic' (sic),
Given that you don't know the meaning of the word, I can well understand
why you would place a (sic) next to it.
> as well as the quite crippling lack of
>formal education that you seem hellbent on demonstrating over and over and
>over to everyone on news:alt.activism.death-penalty, are utterly hilarious.
>The other most humiliating spanking for you concerning the 'language [sic]
>of logic' came about when you tried to claim that as Light Dwellers cannot
>prove that the death penalty does not deter, it automatically must be
>assumed that it does. This came to be 'codified' into gimmick n° 75 ...
Actually, you were made to look tremendously STUPID in arguing that
you don't have to PROVE something, if someone cannot prove the
contrary. Certainly I am not the only one who realizes the absolute
necessity of that. St. George called you on it before, and implied you
were stupid to presume otherwise... in another of his seminal axioms...
call it Seminal Axiom 7)... when he stated to you -- ""As I keep on telling
the more strident retentionists, Desmond, if you made the claim, then it is
you who must 'prove' it..." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=85jea5%247it%241%40lure.pipex.net
>url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/75.html
>
ROTFLMAO. How totally desperate you have become.
>... and how news:alt.activism.death-penalty _roared_ with laughter at your
>monstruous idiocy. Just as I'm doing now ... ho, ho, ho ...
>
Don't be silly, desi. Everyone KNOWS that you're not laughing, sport.
You've been slapped silly, lately... To the point you needed to BEG and
INSULT the group to _stand by you_. ROTFLMAO.
desi posts a reference to a post that made him look stupid, as usual. How droll.
PV
>--
>Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
> |Spiritual Leader of the Universal
> |Right to Life Church. (umm... get
> |away from me -- you filthy black
> |starving child in Africa) 'My church'
> |isn't for you.
One wonders where that 'Universal Right to Life' is, in this picture --
url:http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0302/feature2/zoom3.html Oh... wait a
minute... I think I see it behind that small brush in the background. There on the
left... see it, desi? Those two hidden eyes of the 'provider of the Universal Right
to Life,' peering from the brush. How COULD I have missed that 'timeless, eternal,
beyond everything' right that all 'life' possesses? Too bad that 'your Church' isn't
for that child.
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Tue, 04 Mar 2003 07:10:05 GMT, dans l'article <c7h86v80t5bukofg0...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>> You can lie all you wish... But it's there to see, and nothing has been
>>>> _edited_. My name and date was of course removed with a paint program.
>
>>>And the name of the 'degree' was added ... ho, ho, ho ...
>
>> I knew that the more I provided of my background the more lies, and
>> distortions it would create. And I knew exactly beforehand, where it
>> would come from. The unbelievable duo. It's unfortunate that I felt it
>> necessary to prove anything to you, because those distortions were
>> certain to occur. So, let me add two additional items to my anonymous
>> resume here, and in a week I will remove everything, because I have
>> nothing to prove here.
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!
>
>'let me add two additional items to my anonymous resume here'
>
>...
>
>'I have nothing to prove here'.
>
>LOL !! Ha, ha, ha, ho, ho, ho ... excellent, I haven't laughed this much
>on news:alt.activism.death-penalty, since Jigsaw called me an 'idiot',
>FuckWit. You start by jumping up and down on the spot like the obedient
>little puppet that you are (remind us again of percentages, FW ... LOL !),
>posting photographs of your bookcases to 'prove' that you can read,
>scanning your passport to 'prove' that you're American, and scanning
>your 'degrees', to 'prove' that you're 'educated'. Then you claim, 'I have
>nothing to prove here' ... LOL !!!
>
>> Were I to only have a sixth-grade education, that would only reflect on
>> your inabilities to handle arguments from a sixth-grader.
>
>Ah, the 'claim of victory', otherwise known as the Saddam Hussein Special,
>codified into gimmick n° 68, claim victory in the face of overwhelming
>defeat ...
>
Where would that _defeat_ be, sport? Does it show up in the BEGGING
you did to the group? Or the INSULTS you provided to the group? Or
the APOLOGY you offered to the group? Pr the RACIST COMMENTS
you've made to the group? Which one specifically do you consider a
_defeat_ for me?? I have a list of FIFTY stupid sayings of yours. I
have a list of 30 racist comments you made to the group. I have a list
of 15 times you misspelled the SAME WORD. I have a list of 7
narcissist comments you made about your _superior education_. I
have a list of a great number of condemnations of you made by reasonable
abolitionists, supposedly what you are. I don't believe that I've ever been
killfiled by a retentionist. I have a list of 16 precise anti-American
comments you've made, plus agreement that you are anti-American from
a number of members here... while you pathetically claim you are NOT
anti-American. I am still WAITING... for a great number of admissions
from you, as to your misstatement of FACTS... that you presume you
ALWAYS admit to. I have a list of seven times that you've called me
a pedophile. I have a list of four tragedies that you found necessary to
make a _humorous_ remark about. I have the Zobel affair, where you
came across as a complete and total ignoramus. And I have those three
disgusting bigoted comments you provided in respect to ALL abolitionists...
one calling on retentionists to torture and kill retentionists. Now which
one of those specifically do you believe represent MY _defeat_?
>url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/68.html
>
>{ snip remainder of FW quite obviously crying as he types, muttering,
> 'nobody LOVES [sic] me ...' }
>
>LOL !! I _love_ ... sorry, 'L0VE' (sic) this group !!
>
Pathetic imbecile. Having been proven to be a racist... resorting to the
only weapon he has... His GIMMICKS. And most here... know that
you only LOVE... to make a fool of yourself in front of an audience.
And a few other things you love that are rather disgusting.
PV
>--
>The Reverend desi
Some other paranoia in the past from desi --
"You (and the others who sought to force me off the group) have yet to provide a
single iota of evidence that I have lied to this newsgroup."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8clfa5.1cl.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
Honest Nev
> Where would that _defeat_ be, sport? Does it show up in the BEGGING
> you did to the group? Or the INSULTS you provided to the group? Or
> the APOLOGY you offered to the group? Pr the RACIST COMMENTS
> you've made to the group? Which one specifically do you consider a
> _defeat_ for me?? I have a list of FIFTY stupid sayings of yours. I
> have a list of 30 racist comments you made to the group.
Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the concept
of free-speech?
> I have a list
> of 15 times you misspelled the SAME WORD. I have a list of 7
> narcissist comments you made about your _superior education_. I
> have a list of a great number of condemnations of you made by reasonable
> abolitionists, supposedly what you are. I don't believe that I've ever been
> killfiled by a retentionist. I have a list of 16 precise anti-American
> comments you've made, plus agreement that you are anti-American from
> a number of members here... while you pathetically claim you are NOT
> anti-American.
Ah, while I do not wish to enter into a petty argument for the sake of
it, surely it is possible to utter anti-US comments while not being
anti-American, per se?
The US is not America. Never has been. Never will be.
> I am still WAITING... for a great number of admissions
> from you, as to your misstatement of FACTS... that you presume you
> ALWAYS admit to. I have a list of seven times that you've called me
> a pedophile. I have a list of four tragedies that you found necessary to
> make a _humorous_ remark about. I have the Zobel affair, where you
> came across as a complete and total ignoramus. And I have those three
> disgusting bigoted comments you provided in respect to ALL abolitionists...
> one calling on retentionists to torture and kill retentionists. Now which
> one of those specifically do you believe represent MY _defeat_?
yrs Neville.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<sffb6vof2a2gfbfu7...@4ax.com>...
>
>> Where would that _defeat_ be, sport? Does it show up in the BEGGING
>> you did to the group? Or the INSULTS you provided to the group? Or
>> the APOLOGY you offered to the group? Pr the RACIST COMMENTS
>> you've made to the group? Which one specifically do you consider a
>> _defeat_ for me?? I have a list of FIFTY stupid sayings of yours. I
>> have a list of 30 racist comments you made to the group.
>
>Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the concept
>of free-speech?
>
If one were a racist... that would be his presumption, of course.
>> I have a list
>> of 15 times you misspelled the SAME WORD. I have a list of 7
>> narcissist comments you made about your _superior education_. I
>> have a list of a great number of condemnations of you made by reasonable
>> abolitionists, supposedly what you are. I don't believe that I've ever been
>> killfiled by a retentionist. I have a list of 16 precise anti-American
>> comments you've made, plus agreement that you are anti-American from
>> a number of members here... while you pathetically claim you are NOT
>> anti-American.
>
>Ah, while I do not wish to enter into a petty argument for the sake of
>it, surely it is possible to utter anti-US comments while not being
>anti-American, per se?
>
Well... when one encounters a certain number of such statements, and
finds agreement from a number of posters here that the poster has
demonstrated such behavior... then yes... I believe by a preponderance
of the _evidence_ it can safety be said that desi is anti-American.
By no means an all-inclusive list, since researching the thousands of posts
that desi has provided is well beyond the time and effort he deserves, I
will offer these few representative proofs --
desi has DENIED being anti-American with these words --"it's a pity that you seem to
have tarred me with the 'anti- American' brush, for I'm certainly not. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pu7e5v4agibnjc07hblct1qeg6ikshqslc%404ax.com
Now Mr D. Always recognized as a reasonable poster and an abolitionist as well,
thus having no specific ax to grind with desi posted -- "Desmond's tenor is usually
fairly anti-American and stereotyped when it comes to all things American." See -
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=jonathan-589598.14351921022003%40newsroom.utas.edu.au
Incubus wrote -- "I have to confess that you anti american bigotry is begenning to
piss me off." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Ti8u9.291%24OM6.20576%40newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net
John Rennie wrote -- "Blind anti-American prejudice can lead you up some strange
alleys, Desmond." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=_9xp9.1502%24345.70338%40newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net
John Rennie also write -- "Still as wildly anti-American as ever, still seizing on
any nonsensical ploy to promote that view."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020117212018.12097.00002164%40mb-fs.aol.com
GeneralZod wrote -- "And Desi is too much of a class-A chicken shit to come here and
spout his anti-American venom in a public place." See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9Qng9.11521%246e2.2616850566%40newssvr30.news.prodigy.com
Jigsaw wrote -- "Recently, our resident Anti-American sage" See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020722185456.19336.00000127%40mb-mp.aol.com
And that is just the quickest of a search for comments on his anti-Americanism. I
have often mentioned it.
Some of his comments --
1) "...Americans don't even know how to spell the word, let alone comprehend
the concept" See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn984mij.8t.desmond%40gateway.voute.net
2) "one can hardly be surprised if all Americans are as stupid as you."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn917fca.3m3.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
3) "One can infer from this that either Americans are stupid, or sadistic bastards."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020723212934.02191.00000601%40mb-mq.aol.com
4) "Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is at present way beyond the reasoning power
of 99 % of Americans."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c%2Bka0dA9qOeyEwhf%40maudit.demon.co.uk
5) "Only to idiotic redneck Americans..."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=RdX3t1AqeyvyEwrD%40maudit.demon.co.uk
6) "'spag /spAIG/ adj. & n. sl. "spastic", "stupid person", used to refer to
Americans..." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021120212944.28561.00001819%40mb-mv.aol.com
7) "typical dumbfuck American's ignorance" See--
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021030212918.28561.00000610%40mb-mv.aol.com
8) "idiotic buffoons that are Americans," See -
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020908212925.09987.00000590%40mb-fp.aol.com
9) Mark posted -- "Frankly, if a way could be found to select only knowledgeable and
rational individuals to make the decisions, both the criminal justice system and the
political system would be in far, FAR better shape! You replied --
"Yes, but American juries would be composed entirely of foreigners, Mark ..." See
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn90i6nq.4lg.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
10) "If you're 'American by birth' (which no one believes you are), then all I can
say is that you're a damning indictment of the American (sic) education (sic) system.
Are they all as illiterate as you ?"
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030223212927.16280.00002535%40mb-mo.aol.com
11) "Considering the sorry state of the 'American [sic] education [sic]' system,
it's hardly surprising that it produces such classless idiots."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030223212940.16280.00002546%40mb-mo.aol.com
12) "one can hardly be surprised if all Americans are as stupid as you."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn917fca.3m3.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
13) "That sort of idiocy, one expects from the nation of fat, uncultured navel-
gazing halfwits that is the United States,"
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8svbie.11gm.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
14) "the United States is one of the least educated nations on earth."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn89gnko.146.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
>The US is not America. Never has been. Never will be.
>
Quite wrong... The OED itself recognizes that The United States of America
is referred to as America. Everyone knows it. And it is only anti-Americanism
that would presume the U.S. cannot CALL itself America in every definition. See -
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20America,%20n.htm
I have taken the liberty of selecting that definition from the DEFINITIVE
arbiter of the English Language... the 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary.
And you will see that in there, America is defined as "the name of the United
States of America."
>> I am still WAITING... for a great number of admissions
>> from you, as to your misstatement of FACTS... that you presume you
>> ALWAYS admit to. I have a list of seven times that you've called me
>> a pedophile. I have a list of four tragedies that you found necessary to
>> make a _humorous_ remark about. I have the Zobel affair, where you
>> came across as a complete and total ignoramus. And I have those three
>> disgusting bigoted comments you provided in respect to ALL abolitionists...
>> one calling on retentionists to torture and kill retentionists. Now which
>> one of those specifically do you believe represent MY _defeat_?
>
>
PV
>yrs Neville.
Honest Nev
> >Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the concept
> >of free-speech?
> >
> If one were a racist... that would be his presumption, of course.
I`m not sure wot you are getting at.
There is a certain duplicity regards racism today: is a black person a
racist if they call another black person a nigger? "Race" as a
notoriously difficult thing to define and stick to (in the UK for
example to call someone a Paki is deemed (in some quarters) as racist,
even though "paki" is a term to denote nationality (even Indians use
it!), yet you would be hard-pushed to find someone who considers the
term "paddy" racist, even when used by a "paki".).
Surely this is opinion, and the biased opinion of yankees (on the
whole). I could say "Desi is pro-American". It is easily done.
Desi appears uncomfortable with using "America" to refer to the US. On
the last two comments you cite he even goes so far as to use "the
United States". It is very easy to fall into the terminology of the
person you are speaking to: I think you should cut Desi some slack.
From the brief excerpts you have provided I would be inclined to say
he is refering to the US only. Would you disagree?
> >The US is not America. Never has been. Never will be.
> >
> Quite wrong... The OED itself recognizes that The United States of America
> is referred to as America.
I`m glad you like the OED and not the Webster!
"America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
the Isthmus of Panama"
Thus the US is not, factually; historically, or geographically
speaking "America": it is a part of America (and not even the main
part of "North America" geographically speaking)
> Everyone knows it. And it is only anti-Americanism
> that would presume the U.S. cannot CALL itself America in every definition. See -
The US can call itsen whatever it wants, but you can not blame the
rest of the world to piss itsen laughing.
I find this a classic:
"And it is only anti-Americanism that would presume the U.S. cannot
CALL itself America in every definition"
Can my friend Cyril quote you in his thesis on "US Imperialism"?
> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20America,%20n.htm
> I have taken the liberty of selecting that definition from the DEFINITIVE
> arbiter of the English Language... the 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary.
> And you will see that in there, America is defined as "the name of the United
> States of America."
Alas it says that "America" is "freq. used also as the name of the
United States of America". Note the "freq. used": this qualification
means it is not correctly (albeit frequently) used in this way. No
such condition is placed upon the correct definition quoted above.
yrs Neville.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<pg3e6v0rb762gtklh...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the concept
>> >of free-speech?
>> >
>> If one were a racist... that would be his presumption, of course.
>
>I`m not sure wot you are getting at.
>
My point, exactly!!
>There is a certain duplicity regards racism today: is a black person a
>racist if they call another black person a nigger?
That's simply racist propaganda, using racist slurs as well, in perhaps
some devious manner to _get away with it_. American Blacks do so,
and have a _right_ to do so, since they recognize the destructive nature
of those slurs. And use them to DIMINISH the power those slurs
presume to hold over them. Whites do not have such an ability.
When Whites use those slurs, they are MEANT to GAIN power over
the ones they have directed those slurs at. For a good examination of
Blacks using those terms, couched in more of a down-to-earth approach,
rather than a supposed _elitist_ examination -- see --
http://www.fox.com/bostonpublic/chat/chat_n.htm
It is rather strange to me that you would DEFEND the use of racist
slurs, for whatever reason. While at the same moment, being sure to
INCLUDE one yourself. We should ALWAYS look to possible
MOTIVE. What is yours??? Since you did not even _bother_ to
put that slur in quotes of any kind.
> "Race" as a
>notoriously difficult thing to define and stick to (in the UK for
>example to call someone a Paki is deemed (in some quarters) as racist,
>even though "paki" is a term to denote nationality (even Indians use
>it!), yet you would be hard-pushed to find someone who considers the
>term "paddy" racist, even when used by a "paki".).
What nonsense... I am more concerned about racism in the U.S. You
should concern yourself about how you view racism in your country. Most
of the racial slurs that desi provides are directed SPECIFICALLY at Black
Americans. I don't find any special permission exists for those in other
societies to express racist slurs toward those in other societies. We are
responsible for OURSELVES.
ROTFLMAO... All racism is OPINION!!! Do you think the KKK
finds any reason to be offended by those racist slurs? If you were to say
"Desi is pro-American," you would be laughed off the stage as an idiot.
No one would believe that for a moment. Some might argue that _their
opinion_ leads them to believe that desi's comments do not PROVE he
is anti-American, but the very idea of stating he is "pro-American," is
laughable. Although you may certainly HOLD that opinion. Since there
is no _natural force_ of the Universe that would PREVENT you from
holding such an opinion. Just as there is none that would prevent you
from hating all American Blacks, if you did. We are provided _free
will_. What is important is how we USE that _free will_.
Are you presuming that if a Brit detects an American providing an anti-British
view, that his opinion has NO MEANING? Because HE'S British??
Mr. D. and John Rennie are two of the most reasonable ABOLITIONISTS
in this group. Both non-Americans. Having no particular ax to grind with desi...and
certainly agreeing with the basic principle of abolition, which forms the heart of
this group. But THEY have certainly found it necessary to express their distaste for
some of desi's anti-American views.
>> Some of his comments --
>>
>> 1) "...Americans don't even know how to spell the word, let alone comprehend
>> the concept" See --
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn984mij.8t.desmond%40gateway.voute.net
>>
>> 2) "one can hardly be surprised if all Americans are as stupid as you."
>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn917fca.3m3.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
>>
>> 3) "One can infer from this that either Americans are stupid, or sadistic bastards."
>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020723212934.02191.00000601%40mb-mq.aol.com
>>
>> 4) "Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is at present way beyond the reasoning power
>> of 99 % of Americans."
>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c%2Bka0dA9qOeyEwhf%40maudit.demon.co.uk
>>
>> 5) "Only to idiotic redneck Americans..."
>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=RdX3t1AqeyvyEwrD%40maudit.demon.co.uk
>>
>> 6) "'spag /spAIG/ adj. & n. sl. "spastic", "stupid person", used to refer to
>> Americans..." See --
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021120212944.28561.00001819%40mb-mv.aol.com
>>
>> 7) "typical dumbfuck American's ignorance" See--
>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021030212918.28561.00000610%40mb-mv.aol.com
>>
>> 8) "idiotic buffoons that are Americans," See -
>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020908212925.09987.00000590%40mb-fp.aol.com
>>
>> 9) Mark posted -- "Frankly, if a way could be found to select only knowledgeable and
>> rational individuals to make the decisions, both the criminal justice system and the
>> political system would be in far, FAR better shape! desi replied --
>> "Yes, but American juries would be composed entirely of foreigners, Mark ..." See
>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn90i6nq.4lg.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
>>
>> 10) "If you're 'American by birth' (which no one believes you are), then all I can
>> say is that you're a damning indictment of the American (sic) education (sic) system.
>> Are they all as illiterate as you ?"
>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030223212927.16280.00002535%40mb-mo.aol.com
>>
>> 11) "Considering the sorry state of the 'American [sic] education [sic]' system,
>> it's hardly surprising that it produces such classless idiots."
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030223212940.16280.00002546%40mb-mo.aol.com
>>
>> 12) "one can hardly be surprised if all Americans are as stupid as you."
>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn917fca.3m3.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
>>
>> 13) "That sort of idiocy, one expects from the nation of fat, uncultured navel-
>> gazing halfwits that is the United States,"
>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8svbie.11gm.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
>>
>> 14) "the United States is one of the least educated nations on earth."
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn89gnko.146.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
>
>Desi appears uncomfortable with using "America" to refer to the US.
I think he finds himself VERY comfortable, in using it to provide his
anti-Americanism insults.... If he does not _like the word_, there is always
his _choice_ not to USE IT. What you would characterize as "uncomfortable,"
I would more see it as "perverse." The fact is he ENJOYS being somewhat
_perverse_ in his usage. Not the first time, nor will it be the last, that he has
shown a _perverse_ side to his character here. Nor only in the subject of
anti-Americanism.
Further, I am not sure how much you really know about desi. He is certainly
bigoted against members of the U.K., as well as Americans. His dialogs with
St. George, in the past, proved that over and over. St. George, perhaps the most
patriotic Brit here, has referred to desi as a "hypocritical bigot," in terms of
desi's hate for the British, as well as Americans. You may be _backing the wrong
horse_. I have the greatest respect, and admiration for the British. We are united
by a common heritage, a common language, and a political and moral common bond
of over 100 years. Which has resulted in a great number of loss of lives for both
the British and Americans, in mutual military endeavors in very large conflicts.
Always as comrades in those more than 100 years.
I believe the British find both their greatest advantage in that 22 miles that
separates them from the Continent, and their greatest curse is that it is ONLY 22
miles that separates them from the Continent. Further, I have always said that desi
is an _equal opportunity_ bigot. Only the FRENCH have any real meaning to
him. The rest of the world is simply against the French, in his view. Just as the
rest of AADP is trying to "force" him off this group, as he once hysterically raged
about in _The Grand Conspiracy against Desi_. And recently when he DEMANDED
that other members here _vote_ for his brand of racism, or they should leave the
group. Nor am I against the French. In fact, my wife is French. Born and raised
in France. Where I first met her. I am simply against the bigotry and racism I see
in ONE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL. Desmond Coughlan. Whoever and
whatever he is.
> On
>the last two comments you cite he even goes so far as to use "the
>United States". It is very easy to fall into the terminology of the
>person you are speaking to: I think you should cut Desi some slack.
>
WHY??? When has he EVER cut any slack to Americans or retentionists?
This is what he has called ALL retentionists. His words --
-------------------------------------------------
1) "When we as abolitionists, gaze down into the pit, and see the teeming
mass of deathies. When we shield our noses from the fetid stench of
rotting corpses mixed with the fresh smell of semen. When we look upon
their squat, evil faces, and yellow hate-filled eyes ... we, as dwellers
of the Light, have a moral duty to lift them from their vile, repulsive,
bestial fantasies. We must show them that orgasming over death, is not
the way that they show their humanity.
We are their betters. Unquestionably better. They dwell in the darkness.
We must bring them to the Light."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021024212911.18726.00000057%40mb-fe.aol.com
2) "I engage in 'abuse' of deathies as a matter of course. That's what they're
there for. `echo $DEITY` gave them to us, much as She gave sparrows to
the domestic cat. They're our playthings. They have no relevance in the
real world, except to remind us of the dark side to human nature, that can
exist in all of us. They're like child rapists. Nazis. Torturers of
small animals.
All this pretence of 'let's be civil to one another' is nauseating. How can
you be 'civil' to garbage ?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021024212910.18726.00000056%40mb-fe.aol.com
3) "The deathies will look upon his departure, wipe the saliva from their chins,
and go back to masturbating over images of the 'gurney' (sic), or the
electric chair. We, the moral masters, the abolitionists, must show them
the huge damage that they have done, by driving out the only reasonable
one in their filthy midst."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021024212912.18726.00000058%40mb-fe.aol.com
------------------------------------------------------
And I would ask you, in respect to his comment 2), above, where he
calls on abolitionists to treat retentionists as "playthings" as the cat
treats the sparrow, to recognize exactly HOW the _cat treats the
sparrow_. In fact, the cat _treats_ the sparrow with teasing torture
and death. But I should _cut him some slack_!!! Sorry... you seem to be
doing enough of that for both of us.
>From the brief excerpts you have provided I would be inclined to say
>he is refering to the US only. Would you disagree?
>
Huh??? Your point is? You presume that I CANNOT call it anti-Americanism,
because he used the words "US," or "United States"??
>> >The US is not America. Never has been. Never will be.
>> >
>> Quite wrong... The OED itself recognizes that The United States of America
>> is referred to as America.
>
>I`m glad you like the OED and not the Webster!
>
>"America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
>consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
>the Isthmus of Panama"
>
>Thus the US is not, factually; historically, or geographically
>speaking "America": it is a part of America (and not even the main
>part of "North America" geographically speaking)
>
Rubbish... See the following on-line dictionary resources
Merriam_Webster Online dictionary.
url:http://www.m-w.com/home.htm
Enter "America," under Merriam-Webster dictionary. Click on
"look it up" --
America -- 3. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dictionary.com. See --
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=America
America -- 1. The United States.
(Source -- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
America -- syn: United States, United States of America, US, U.S., USA,
U.S.A.
(Source -- Wordnet 1.6 - Princeton University)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
yourdictionary.com See --
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0249700.html
America -- 1. The United States
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wordsmyth.net. See --
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=America&matchtype=exact
America -- 1. The United States.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Infoplease -- See
http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0315063.html
America -- See United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My 1664 page, Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of
the English Language, ISBN - 0-517-15141-3.
America -- 1. See United States.
United States -- Also called United States of America; America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You are confusing "America," with "Americas" The Americas
are comprised of North, Central and South America. But one
should specify WHICH America one is speaking of... since the
word America, by itself, can mean, BY DEFINITION the United
States of America. The U.S. does NOT, of course, comprise ALL
of NORTH AMERICA. But that does NOT mean that "America"
is NOT the United States. In fact, desi is engaged in certainly one
of the greatest geographical deceptions of all time here, presuming
to redesign the face of geographic continents, by claiming that _the
Balkans are not in Europe_. Nor are Latvia, Estonia, Bosnia,
Russia, or Turkey, as claimed in various posts offered by desi. Nor
does he even know how many continents there ARE. Once stating
there were SIX continents. Little wonder he is confused as to the
U.S. and America. Now what's YOUR excuse?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Everyone knows it. And it is only anti-Americanism
>> that would presume the U.S. cannot CALL itself America in every definition. See -
>
>The US can call itsen whatever it wants, but you can not blame the
>rest of the world to piss itsen laughing.
>
Someone 'pissing themselves laughing,' about a proven definition, is
only _pissing themselves_. FULL STOP.
>I find this a classic:
>
>"And it is only anti-Americanism that would presume the U.S. cannot
>CALL itself America in every definition"
>
That is certainly true. In fact, even desi has ADMITTED that it must
be recognized as TRUE, although he calls it _folly_, or something on
that order. He has called the Oxford English Dictionary the "SUPREME
ARBITER" of the English Language, and thus CANNOT presume it
is WRONG. Nor could I argue with such a regal work in respect to
words that have a long-standing meaning. Only the newer terms are
often mistaken by the OED, since it moves at a more leisurely pace than
other definitive resources. But there is no question that the OED defines
"America" as synonomous with "The United States of America."
>Can my friend Cyril quote you in his thesis on "US Imperialism"?
>
Your friend "Cyril" can do anything he wishes... regardless of how stupid
it will seem to others. You're proving that for yourself. Quite effectively,
I might add.
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20America,%20n.htm
>> I have taken the liberty of selecting that definition from the DEFINITIVE
>> arbiter of the English Language... the 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary.
>> And you will see that in there, America is defined as "the name of the United
>> States of America."
>
>Alas it says that "America" is "freq. used also as the name of the
>United States of America". Note the "freq. used": this qualification
>means it is not correctly (albeit frequently) used in this way. No
>such condition is placed upon the correct definition quoted above.
LOL... "They may hide from what they refuse to see. But they must
carry their denials with them." PV Š copyright 2003.
PV
>
>
>yrs Neville.
Honest Nev
> >> >Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the concept
> >> >of free-speech?
> >> >
> >> If one were a racist... that would be his presumption, of course.
> >
> >I`m not sure wot you are getting at.
> >
> My point, exactly!!
My point was you should be more lucid and employ logic: woz that yr
point too?
> >There is a certain duplicity regards racism today: is a black person a
> >racist if they call another black person a nigger?
>
> That's simply racist propaganda, using racist slurs as well, in perhaps
> some devious manner to _get away with it_.
Eh? Are you calling afore-mentioned black person a racist or not?
> American Blacks do so, and have a _right_ to do so, since they recognize the > destructive nature
Only "American Blacks"? Of course they have a right to say wot the
fuck the want to. It is part of a concept called free-speech (and they
don`t need yr approval either you patronising so-and-so!).
> of those slurs. And use them to DIMINISH the power those slurs
> presume to hold over them. Whites do not have such an ability.
Eh? Wots a honky? Is it only whites (in yr opinion) who have "no such
ability"? That sounds a bit, er.... racist.
> When Whites use those slurs, they are MEANT to GAIN power over
> the ones they have directed those slurs at.
Could you please step out of the 1980s! PC is passe in Europe: is this
not so in US?
> For a good examination of
> Blacks using those terms, couched in more of a down-to-earth approach,
> rather than a supposed _elitist_ examination -- see --
> http://www.fox.com/bostonpublic/chat/chat_n.htm
> It is rather strange to me that you would DEFEND the use of racist
> slurs, for whatever reason.
I wouldn`t ban them! Perhaps Europe is more libral than US, but the ol
Voltaire thing is still a fine motto here: I may not agree with what
you say....
> While at the same moment, being sure to
> INCLUDE one yourself. We should ALWAYS look to possible
> MOTIVE. What is yours??? Since you did not even _bother_ to
> put that slur in quotes of any kind.
I don`t feel the need to apologise for using a word! I use lots of
words and I don`t feel the need to blush about any of them. Perhaps
you would like "nigger" banned?! Wot next: "paki"? "yid"? "yank"?
"scouser"!?
> > "Race" as a
> >notoriously difficult thing to define and stick to (in the UK for
> >example to call someone a Paki is deemed (in some quarters) as racist,
> >even though "paki" is a term to denote nationality (even Indians use
> >it!), yet you would be hard-pushed to find someone who considers the
> >term "paddy" racist, even when used by a "paki".).
>
> What nonsense...
Which part exactly?
> I am more concerned about racism in the U.S.
That`s yr perogative.
> You
> should concern yourself about how you view racism in your country.
Thanx for telling me wot I should concern mysen with!
> Most
> of the racial slurs that desi provides are directed SPECIFICALLY at Black
> Americans. I don't find any special permission exists for those in other
> societies to express racist slurs toward those in other societies. We are
> responsible for OURSELVES.
Is free-speech a concept you have yet to master?
> >> And that is just the quickest of a search for comments on his anti-Americanism. I
> >> have often mentioned it.
> >
> >Surely this is opinion, and the biased opinion of yankees (on the
> >whole). I could say "Desi is pro-American". It is easily done.
> >
> ROTFLMAO... All racism is OPINION!!!
No shit Sherlock! Do you have a problem with people expressing
opinions? Or just the ones you disagree with? btw this does not alter
the truth of "surely this is opinion...." etc..
> Do you think the KKK
> finds any reason to be offended by those racist slurs? If you were to say
> "Desi is pro-American," you would be laughed off the stage as an idiot.
So far you have only provided anti-US Desi statements at best!
> No one would believe that for a moment. Some might argue that _their
> opinion_ leads them to believe that desi's comments do not PROVE he
> is anti-American, but the very idea of stating he is "pro-American," is
> laughable.
In yr opinion...
> Although you may certainly HOLD that opinion. Since there
> is no _natural force_ of the Universe that would PREVENT you from
> holding such an opinion.
I am open to reason: find me a quote were he attacks a couple of other
American countries.
> Just as there is none that would prevent you
> from hating all American Blacks, if you did.
Which I don`t.
Only totalitarian states (and those on their way) seek to control
language.
> We are provided _free
> will_. What is important is how we USE that _free will_.
Oh no! Yr not one of the
"free-speech-as-long-as-you-don`t-say-owt-we-disagree-with" gang are
you?
> Are you presuming that if a Brit detects an American providing an anti-British
> view, that his opinion has NO MEANING? Because HE'S British
> Mr. D. and John Rennie are two of the most reasonable ABOLITIONISTS
> in this group. Both non-Americans. Having no particular ax to grind with desi...and
> certainly agreeing with the basic principle of abolition, which forms the heart of
> this group. But THEY have certainly found it necessary to express their distaste for
> some of desi's anti-American views.
That`s their perogative, eh? Is dissent not allowed in this group?
> >Desi appears uncomfortable with using "America" to refer to the US.
>
> I think he finds himself VERY comfortable, in using it to provide his
> anti-Americanism insults.... If he does not _like the word_, there is always
> his _choice_ not to USE IT. What you would characterize as "uncomfortable,"
> I would more see it as "perverse." The fact is he ENJOYS being somewhat
> _perverse_ in his usage. Not the first time, nor will it be the last, that he has
> shown a _perverse_ side to his character here. Nor only in the subject of
> anti-Americanism.
Opinion, eh?
> Further, I am not sure how much you really know about desi.
I would say I know nothing about Desi really, excepting the "evidence"
you have furnished me with.
> He is certainly
> bigoted against members of the U.K., as well as Americans. His dialogs with
> St. George, in the past, proved that over and over. St. George, perhaps the most
> patriotic Brit here, has referred to desi as a "hypocritical bigot," in terms of
Of course I have heard "Brit" damned as a racist remark akin to using
"Paki".
> desi's hate for the British, as well as Americans. You may be _backing the wrong
> horse_.
Do I need to agree with everything he says to question his
vilification?
> I have the greatest respect, and admiration for the British. We are united
> by a common heritage, a common language, and a political and moral common bond
> of over 100 years. Which has resulted in a great number of loss of lives for both
> the British and Americans, in mutual military endeavors in very large conflicts.
> Always as comrades in those more than 100 years.
I am not really into this "British" thing mysen like.
> I believe the British find both their greatest advantage in that 22 miles that
> separates them from the Continent, and their greatest curse is that it is ONLY 22
> miles that separates them from the Continent. Further, I have always said that desi
> is an _equal opportunity_ bigot. Only the FRENCH have any real meaning to
> him. The rest of the world is simply against the French, in his view. Just as the
> rest of AADP is trying to "force" him off this group, as he once hysterically raged
> about in _The Grand Conspiracy against Desi_. And recently when he DEMANDED
> that other members here _vote_ for his brand of racism, or they should leave the
> group.
Would not our lives be boring without eccentrics? I think Desi should
be cherished as such! You are a lucky group to have such a `character`
and his input.
> Nor am I against the French. In fact, my wife is French. Born and raised
> in France. Where I first met her. I am simply against the bigotry and racism I see
> in ONE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL. Desmond Coughlan. Whoever and
> whatever he is.
Are we talking about the same Desi? "the late dr. dolly coughlan jr"
et el?
> > On
> >the last two comments you cite he even goes so far as to use "the
> >United States". It is very easy to fall into the terminology of the
> >person you are speaking to: I think you should cut Desi some slack.
> >
> WHY??? When has he EVER cut any slack to Americans or retentionists?
> This is what he has called ALL retentionists. His words --
Perhaps you could initiate an act of generosity and he could
reciprocate.
My point is it is quite possible to be Anti-US while holding
pro-American (as a whole) views. Very similar to being Anti-UK but
pro-Europe for example.
> >> >The US is not America. Never has been. Never will be.
> >> >
> >> Quite wrong... The OED itself recognizes that The United States of America
> >> is referred to as America.
> >
> >I`m glad you like the OED and not the Webster!
> >
> >"America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
> >consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
> >the Isthmus of Panama"
> >
> >Thus the US is not, factually; historically, or geographically
> >speaking "America": it is a part of America (and not even the main
> >part of "North America" geographically speaking)
> >
> Rubbish... See the following on-line dictionary resources
<cuts>
I thought we had settled on the OED! You yoursen consider it "the
DEFINITIVE
arbiter of the English Language". I mysen am rather partial to it. And
you say Desi likes it: wot more could we ask?
I wasn`t being sarcastic. I quoted directly from yr link.
> You are confusing "America," with "Americas"
I`m not.
> The Americas
> are comprised of North, Central and South America. But one
> should specify WHICH America one is speaking of... since the
> word America, by itself, can mean, BY DEFINITION the United
> States of America.
It may mean that to you. It does not mean that to me. The OED, of
course, does not consider yr usage to be correct, although it is
acknowledged as being frequently (and incorrectly) used thus.
> The U.S. does NOT, of course, comprise ALL
> of NORTH AMERICA. But that does NOT mean that "America"
> is NOT the United States. In fact, desi is engaged in certainly one
> of the greatest geographical deceptions of all time here, presuming
> to redesign the face of geographic continents,
Pot meet Kettle, etc..
> by claiming that _the
> Balkans are not in Europe_. Nor are Latvia, Estonia, Bosnia,
> Russia, or Turkey, as claimed in various posts offered by desi.
Of course Russia and Turkey straddle continents, and are only *partly*
in Europe, geographically speaking.
> Nor
> does he even know how many continents there ARE. Once stating
> there were SIX continents. Little wonder he is confused as to the
> U.S. and America. Now what's YOUR excuse?
According to the OED I don`t need one.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Everyone knows it. And it is only anti-Americanism
> >> that would presume the U.S. cannot CALL itself America in every definition. See -
> >
> >The US can call itsen whatever it wants, but you can not blame the
> >rest of the world to piss itsen laughing.
> >
> Someone 'pissing themselves laughing,' about a proven definition, is
> only _pissing themselves_. FULL STOP.
Perhaps they looked it up in the OED? I don`t know why you are getting
all puffed-up about this!
> >I find this a classic:
> >
> >"And it is only anti-Americanism that would presume the U.S. cannot
> >CALL itself America in every definition"
> >
> That is certainly true. In fact, even desi has ADMITTED that it must
> be recognized as TRUE, although he calls it _folly_, or something on
> that order. He has called the Oxford English Dictionary the "SUPREME
> ARBITER" of the English Language, and thus CANNOT presume it
> is WRONG.
Have you read the OED entry?
> Nor could I argue with such a regal work in respect to
> words that have a long-standing meaning. Only the newer terms are
> often mistaken by the OED, since it moves at a more leisurely pace than
> other definitive resources. But there is no question that the OED defines
> "America" as synonomous with "The United States of America."
It recognises that some people use it to refer to the US, but it does
not condone this usage: the "freq. used" condition has been explained
to you.
> >Can my friend Cyril quote you in his thesis on "US Imperialism"?
> >
> Your friend "Cyril" can do anything he wishes... regardless of how stupid
> it will seem to others. You're proving that for yourself. Quite effectively,
> I might add.
Thanx for another of yr opinions!
Cyril sez he`s considering (as a full title): "US Imperialism:
Self-Denial and Self-Righteousness". Wot do you think?
> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20America,%20n.htm
> >> I have taken the liberty of selecting that definition from the DEFINITIVE
> >> arbiter of the English Language... the 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary.
> >> And you will see that in there, America is defined as "the name of the United
> >> States of America."
> >
> >Alas it says that "America" is "freq. used also as the name of the
> >United States of America". Note the "freq. used": this qualification
> >means it is not correctly (albeit frequently) used in this way. No
> >such condition is placed upon the correct definition quoted above.
>
> LOL... "They may hide from what they refuse to see. But they must
> carry their denials with them." PV © copyright 2003.
Don`t berate yoursen!
If it`s any consolation the OED sez it`s a common error.
Yrs Neville.
P.s. what`s desi done to you anyway?
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<se1i6v8bla3gf129b...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >> >Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the concept
>> >> >of free-speech?
>> >> >
>> >> If one were a racist... that would be his presumption, of course.
>> >
>> >I`m not sure wot you are getting at.
>> >
>> My point, exactly!!
>
>My point was you should be more lucid and employ logic: woz that yr
>point too?
>
You've never been able to grasp my point. And it is not my responsibility
to bring you to an understanding.
>> >There is a certain duplicity regards racism today: is a black person a
>> >racist if they call another black person a nigger?
>>
>> That's simply racist propaganda, using racist slurs as well, in perhaps
>> some devious manner to _get away with it_.
>
>Eh? Are you calling afore-mentioned black person a racist or not?
>
No, I am saying that racist slurs are a weapon. And one always feels
more comfortable when that weapon is in their possession. Blacks use
them to suck the power from them, hoping to make them impotent.
If they can call each other those slurs, they find it easier to make them
lose their power when used in other ways. Whites use them for quite a
different purpose.
>> American Blacks do so, and have a _right_ to do so, since they recognize the > destructive nature
>
>Only "American Blacks"? Of course they have a right to say wot the
>fuck the want to. It is part of a concept called free-speech (and they
>don`t need yr approval either you patronising so-and-so!).
>
I can see that this dialog is beginning to show some racist roots from
YOU, my friend. Since you are unable to grasp the concept of
exactly what power is contained in a racist slur. Do not presume to
tell me about American Blacks, which is my primary concern. Because
RACISM breeds hatred, hatred breeds violence, and violence breeds
murder. One can blame an ingrained racism as responsible for that,
through the ghettoizing and disenfranchising of the Black American.
Diminishing him and even how he feels about himself. Racist slurs
contribute to that. I have to concern myself with my responsibilities
to the elimination of this atmosphere in my society, since those murders
are committed on members of my society, not yours. I would be
morally derelict in my personal opinion, were I to not speak out at
least sometimes, when I see racist slurs
>> of those slurs. And use them to DIMINISH the power those slurs
>> presume to hold over them. Whites do not have such an ability.
>
>Eh? Wots a honky? Is it only whites (in yr opinion) who have "no such
>ability"? That sounds a bit, er.... racist.
>
Ah... yes... those racist roots are beginning to show. The word "honky"
was developed for just what I am trying to explain to you. The Black
hoping to take away the POWER contained in a racist slur. "honky"
did not exist before those others, directed against Blacks, that we well
know of.... that number in the dozens... and EXPRESSLY function to
diminish the Black American.
>> When Whites use those slurs, they are MEANT to GAIN power over
>> the ones they have directed those slurs at.
>
>Could you please step out of the 1980s! PC is passe in Europe: is this
>not so in US?
>
What does that mean? That racism is now ACCEPTABLE in Europe, and
the U.S. should not have anyone who speaks out against it? Although it
is easily identified as existing in the U.S.? Thanks... but no thanks.
>> For a good examination of
>> Blacks using those terms, couched in more of a down-to-earth approach,
>> rather than a supposed _elitist_ examination -- see --
>> http://www.fox.com/bostonpublic/chat/chat_n.htm
>> It is rather strange to me that you would DEFEND the use of racist
>> slurs, for whatever reason.
>
>I wouldn`t ban them! Perhaps Europe is more libral than US, but the ol
>Voltaire thing is still a fine motto here: I may not agree with what
>you say....
>
No one is suggesting they be _banned_, or made illegal. I am suggesting
that a reasonably moral person should have the good sense to recognize
they are aggressive weapons, which have a destructive force on our
species. I do not believe in censorship. Nor do I believe you can
presume to censor ME, for speaking out against those racist slurs.
I see that as clearly your intention in arguing _free speech_. It seems
you are only concerned with the _free speech_ of a racist. And
defending desi's racist slurs, presuming I should have offered no
objection to them. If you do not have the common sense, and the
inner morality to recognize how dangerous and destructive those
slurs are, of course you have a _right_ to say them. You have a
_right_ to be a fucking KKK member, if that is your desire. What
is not prohibited, is PERMITTED. White Power groups are all
over the U.S., and operate within the law. But do not presume that I
cannot bring ANYONE'S actions and words to the attention of others
for THEM to see if they see what I see. Regardless of your idiotic
claim that doing so is PC. This is what my purpose is, in remarking
on desi's posts, and calling him a racist... because he IS... IMHO.
Of course, he has a _right_ to use those racist slurs, and even BE a
racist. But do not presume that I HAVE NO RIGHT to tell the
world what I see with his words. PC be damned.
>> While at the same moment, being sure to
>> INCLUDE one yourself. We should ALWAYS look to possible
>> MOTIVE. What is yours??? Since you did not even _bother_ to
>> put that slur in quotes of any kind.
>
>I don`t feel the need to apologise for using a word! I use lots of
>words and I don`t feel the need to blush about any of them. Perhaps
>you would like "nigger" banned?! Wot next: "paki"? "yid"? "yank"?
>"scouser"!?
>
Once again.. you lose the thread. I've never suggested _banning_
the words. In point of fact, our argument is revolving about you
believing you can _ban_ my condemning this racist slurs.
>> > "Race" as a
>> >notoriously difficult thing to define and stick to (in the UK for
>> >example to call someone a Paki is deemed (in some quarters) as racist,
>> >even though "paki" is a term to denote nationality (even Indians use
>> >it!), yet you would be hard-pushed to find someone who considers the
>> >term "paddy" racist, even when used by a "paki".).
>>
>> What nonsense...
>
>Which part exactly?
>
The part where you do not realize what you are saying.
>> I am more concerned about racism in the U.S.
>
>That`s yr perogative.
>
Quite right. Why are you just now admitting it?
>> You
>> should concern yourself about how you view racism in your country.
>
>Thanx for telling me wot I should concern mysen with!
Well you should certainly not concern yourself with my condemnation of
what I see as racist slurs... since it leaves the impression that you oppose
ANYONE condemning racist slurs.
>
>> Most
>> of the racial slurs that desi provides are directed SPECIFICALLY at Black
>> Americans. I don't find any special permission exists for those in other
>> societies to express racist slurs toward those in other societies. We are
>> responsible for OURSELVES.
>
>Is free-speech a concept you have yet to master?
>
Pardon me?? Who here is presuming to stifle MY free speech?
>> >> And that is just the quickest of a search for comments on his anti-Americanism. I
>> >> have often mentioned it.
>> >
>> >Surely this is opinion, and the biased opinion of yankees (on the
>> >whole). I could say "Desi is pro-American". It is easily done.
>> >
>> ROTFLMAO... All racism is OPINION!!!
>
>No shit Sherlock! Do you have a problem with people expressing
>opinions? Or just the ones you disagree with? btw this does not alter
>the truth of "surely this is opinion...." etc..
>
Apparently YOU are the one who has a problem with people expressing
opinions. Especially if those opinions find racist slurs offensive. It would
seem that you are offended by MY use of _free speech_. I cannot
STOP anyone from using a racist slur. But do not presume that YOU
can tell me I cannot express how offended I am by their use, and how
offensive and dangerous I find them to be.
>> Do you think the KKK
>> finds any reason to be offended by those racist slurs? If you were to say
>> "Desi is pro-American," you would be laughed off the stage as an idiot.
>
>So far you have only provided anti-US Desi statements at best!
>
Ummm... sport... that was what I intended to do. Glad to see you
agree.
>> No one would believe that for a moment. Some might argue that _their
>> opinion_ leads them to believe that desi's comments do not PROVE he
>> is anti-American, but the very idea of stating he is "pro-American," is
>> laughable.
>
>In yr opinion...
>
I've never claimed anything else. As I said Racism is an opinion. Both
for and against it. But as far as anti-American... I am not the only one
who has voiced such an "opinion" here, in respect to desi being
anti-American, in those specific words.
>> Although you may certainly HOLD that opinion. Since there
>> is no _natural force_ of the Universe that would PREVENT you from
>> holding such an opinion.
>
>I am open to reason: find me a quote were he attacks a couple of other
>American countries.
>
Hardly. He has been called anti-American. You do not make the
'rules' here. America, spoken alone, clearly means "The United States
of America," and it is the most pitiful argument I can imagine to presume
you can defend his words by claiming anti-US, is not anti-American.
>> Just as there is none that would prevent you
>> from hating all American Blacks, if you did.
>
>Which I don`t.
>
I didn't say you did. But I will say that racist slurs seem to come
easy to you. I certainly can have an opinion as to what that means
to me. You do see the words "if you did," didn't you?
>Only totalitarian states (and those on their way) seek to control
>language.
>
Apparently you are presuming you can _control_ mine. I've
never said desi CAN'T say what he says. While it seems you
are presuming I CAN'T say what I say. desi can be the biggest
racist in the world (he's right up there, IMHO). I certainly
cannot say .. "desi... you CAN'T be a racist." Since certainly
he CAN be, if he wants to be. But you cannot presume to
control my language in remarking on what I see as racism in
his comments. By offering MY OPINION that... "desi...
you LOOK like a racist TO ME."
>> We are provided _free
>> will_. What is important is how we USE that _free will_.
>
>Oh no! Yr not one of the
>"free-speech-as-long-as-you-don`t-say-owt-we-disagree-with" gang are
>you?
>
Apparently you have confused me with YOU. Since this particular
dialog began when you presumed to control MY comments regarding
what I see in desi's.
>> Are you presuming that if a Brit detects an American providing an anti-British
>> view, that his opinion has NO MEANING? Because HE'S British
>> Mr. D. and John Rennie are two of the most reasonable ABOLITIONISTS
>> in this group. Both non-Americans. Having no particular ax to grind with desi...and
>> certainly agreeing with the basic principle of abolition, which forms the heart of
>> this group. But THEY have certainly found it necessary to express their distaste for
>> some of desi's anti-American views.
>
>That`s their perogative, eh? Is dissent not allowed in this group?
>
How the hell do you parse my comment into the reply you've provided?
This group is ABOUT dissent. Probably as much as any other group in
Usenet. Since the subject is totally polarized, with a sharp demarcation
line between _execute some_ or _execute none_, regardless of the
shades which exist within those two polarizations. There is a dividing
line that, regardless of how sensible we see ourselves to be... separates
our views.
>> >Desi appears uncomfortable with using "America" to refer to the US.
>>
>> I think he finds himself VERY comfortable, in using it to provide his
>> anti-Americanism insults.... If he does not _like the word_, there is always
>> his _choice_ not to USE IT. What you would characterize as "uncomfortable,"
>> I would more see it as "perverse." The fact is he ENJOYS being somewhat
>> _perverse_ in his usage. Not the first time, nor will it be the last, that he has
>> shown a _perverse_ side to his character here. Nor only in the subject of
>> anti-Americanism.
>
>Opinion, eh?
>
It would appear so... do you really have an English comprehension problem?
Since the very first two words I posted in my comment were "I think..." which
is impossible to parse any other way than to presume it is my opinion.
>> Further, I am not sure how much you really know about desi.
>
>I would say I know nothing about Desi really, excepting the "evidence"
>you have furnished me with.
>
Gee... a man who admits he _knows nothing_. How refreshing in a group
where everyone knows everything. :-)
You know a little research might help you. Google has much of his older posts,
although he hides his current postings from that archive, having been burnt so
badly in the past with conflicting comments called back to him.
>> He is certainly
>> bigoted against members of the U.K., as well as Americans. His dialogs with
>> St. George, in the past, proved that over and over. St. George, perhaps the most
>> patriotic Brit here, has referred to desi as a "hypocritical bigot," in terms of
>
>Of course I have heard "Brit" damned as a racist remark akin to using
>"Paki".
>
Oh, come on... That's no different from Mercin, or something like that. I know
I have not even spelled it correctly, but that shows how little it affects me. Brit
is simply short for British subject. No more offensive than calling James -- Jim.
I've never heard anyone here complain about the use of Brit... but if you find it
offensive I will not use it anymore. Just let me know. However, this seems very
pathetic and strange to me... since I see it as more of an affectionate term.
I know there are other words... that ARE offensive toward the British, and
I would not use them here, of course.
>> desi's hate for the British, as well as Americans. You may be _backing the wrong
>> horse_.
>
>Do I need to agree with everything he says to question his
>vilification?
>
Why presume that you need to _control_ what I say? Why not go to
the source? If even I... a White American... am offended by his constant
use of those racist slurs... why not call on HIM to not provide what offends
ME? Since you are so into _control_? Clearly I have said above, that if
that word offends YOU, I would not use it. Personally, I am not calling
on desi to stop using those racist slurs. That's not in my power. If he did,
I simply would not comment on what is no longer there. But as long as
they ARE there... I have a _right_ to state that I am offended by his use
of those racist slurs.
>> I have the greatest respect, and admiration for the British. We are united
>> by a common heritage, a common language, and a political and moral common bond
>> of over 100 years. Which has resulted in a great number of loss of lives for both
>> the British and Americans, in mutual military endeavors in very large conflicts.
>> Always as comrades in those more than 100 years.
>
>I am not really into this "British" thing mysen like.
>
>> I believe the British find both their greatest advantage in that 22 miles that
>> separates them from the Continent, and their greatest curse is that it is ONLY 22
>> miles that separates them from the Continent. Further, I have always said that desi
>> is an _equal opportunity_ bigot. Only the FRENCH have any real meaning to
>> him. The rest of the world is simply against the French, in his view. Just as the
>> rest of AADP is trying to "force" him off this group, as he once hysterically raged
>> about in _The Grand Conspiracy against Desi_. And recently when he DEMANDED
>> that other members here _vote_ for his brand of racism, or they should leave the
>> group.
>
>Would not our lives be boring without eccentrics? I think Desi should
>be cherished as such! You are a lucky group to have such a `character`
>and his input.
>
I find desi's presence here to be the most debilitating influence imaginable
to the interchange of ideas in respect to the DP. Of course, IMHO.
Nor am I the only one who has expressed such an opinion. The strange
thing is that many of those opinions have come from those who are
recognized as holding the same agenda regarding the DP as desi does.
Clearly, I don't wish him to EVER leave... since I feel he is one of the better
weapons for the side of the argument that I support. desi is to abolition
what Chernobyl was to _safe nuclear power_. What the Titanic was to
_safe ocean travel_. What bin Laden is to _peaceful Islam_. What
Sharon and Arafat are to _peace in the Middle East_. What Mt.
Vesuvius was to Pompeii. What Waterloo was to Napoleon. All
total disasters... all what desi is to abolition.
>> Nor am I against the French. In fact, my wife is French. Born and raised
>> in France. Where I first met her. I am simply against the bigotry and racism I see
>> in ONE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL. Desmond Coughlan. Whoever and
>> whatever he is.
>
>Are we talking about the same Desi? "the late dr. dolly coughlan jr"
>et el?
>
That all depends. I am speaking of Desmond Coughlan. Unfortunately
_desi_, as he is called here, does not archive his posts, as I've explained
above. Thus, in most newsreaders his posts disappear in about 20 days
tops. dolly was created by someone here as a bot, we have opinions as
to whom, which I will not provide, to insure desi's posts go to google
in archive. So looking at the handle you speak of, in google you can
find desi's posts. Not from him, but as previous remarks which dolly
presumes to answer, without changing desi's words. Older posts from
desi... he took an extended hiatus... and only began hiding his posts from
google when he returned...can still be found in google, under his name
Desmond Coughlan.
>> > On
>> >the last two comments you cite he even goes so far as to use "the
>> >United States". It is very easy to fall into the terminology of the
>> >person you are speaking to: I think you should cut Desi some slack.
>> >
>> WHY??? When has he EVER cut any slack to Americans or retentionists?
>> This is what he has called ALL retentionists. His words --
>
>Perhaps you could initiate an act of generosity and he could
>reciprocate.
>
ROTFLMAO. It does not work... it has been tried... it does not
work.
No... it's not. Not in any of the context which desi provides. Nor in your
rather pathetic refusal to understand that when desi speaks of either the
U.S. or America, he is speaking of the United States of America. Which
is my concern. And when others criticize him, they are also speaking of
anti-U.S. as being synonymous with anti-American.
>> >> >The US is not America. Never has been. Never will be.
>> >> >
>> >> Quite wrong... The OED itself recognizes that The United States of America
>> >> is referred to as America.
>> >
>> >I`m glad you like the OED and not the Webster!
>> >
>> >"America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
>> >consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
>> >the Isthmus of Panama"
>> >
>> >Thus the US is not, factually; historically, or geographically
>> >speaking "America": it is a part of America (and not even the main
>> >part of "North America" geographically speaking)
>> >
>> Rubbish... See the following on-line dictionary resources
>
><cuts>
>
>I thought we had settled on the OED! You yoursen consider it "the
>DEFINITIVE
>arbiter of the English Language". I mysen am rather partial to it. And
>you say Desi likes it: wot more could we ask?
>
Actually, you dismissed the OED, and claimed you preferred something
else. I am simply providing a VARIETY of respected resources providing
definitions in the English language, which ALL state that "America"
means "The United States of America."
>I wasn`t being sarcastic. I quoted directly from yr link.
>
>> You are confusing "America," with "Americas"
>
>I`m not.
>
Of course you are.. and don't be so hardheaded about this. It is
the same as calling England -- the British Isles. Just because
"America" is also PART of the terms "North America," and "South
America," that are CONTINENTS on our planet, does not
preclude the use of "America" by itself. For example --
Australia is BOTH a continent and a country. Just as
contrarily South Africa is a COUNTRY in Africa.
>> The Americas
>> are comprised of North, Central and South America. But one
>> should specify WHICH America one is speaking of... since the
>> word America, by itself, can mean, BY DEFINITION the United
>> States of America.
>
>It may mean that to you. It does not mean that to me. The OED, of
>course, does not consider yr usage to be correct, although it is
>acknowledged as being frequently (and incorrectly) used thus.
>
If it is IN the OED, and it does not state that it is a corruption,
it is recognized as a valid usage.
>> The U.S. does NOT, of course, comprise ALL
>> of NORTH AMERICA. But that does NOT mean that "America"
>> is NOT the United States. In fact, desi is engaged in certainly one
>> of the greatest geographical deceptions of all time here, presuming
>> to redesign the face of geographic continents,
>
>Pot meet Kettle, etc..
>
Hardly... I can justify my usage through a variety of sources. I'd like
to see the source that desi uses to presume there are six continents.
>> by claiming that _the
>> Balkans are not in Europe_. Nor are Latvia, Estonia, Bosnia,
>> Russia, or Turkey, as claimed in various posts offered by desi.
>
>Of course Russia and Turkey straddle continents, and are only *partly*
>in Europe, geographically speaking.
>
Please... when someone says NOT IN... they are speaking in an
inclusive manner. Why are you so intent on making EXCUSES
for these fundamental gaps in intellect??
>
>> Nor
>> does he even know how many continents there ARE. Once stating
>> there were SIX continents. Little wonder he is confused as to the
>> U.S. and America. Now what's YOUR excuse?
>
>According to the OED I don`t need one.
>
Since the OED states that it is USED... that means it is ACCEPTED
as used.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Everyone knows it. And it is only anti-Americanism
>> >> that would presume the U.S. cannot CALL itself America in every definition. See -
>> >
>> >The US can call itsen whatever it wants, but you can not blame the
>> >rest of the world to piss itsen laughing.
>> >
>> Someone 'pissing themselves laughing,' about a proven definition, is
>> only _pissing themselves_. FULL STOP.
>
>Perhaps they looked it up in the OED? I don`t know why you are getting
>all puffed-up about this!
>
I'm not at all... you are the one becoming so obsessed about disproving
what is proven in so many resources... including the OED.
>> >I find this a classic:
>> >
>> >"And it is only anti-Americanism that would presume the U.S. cannot
>> >CALL itself America in every definition"
>> >
>> That is certainly true. In fact, even desi has ADMITTED that it must
>> be recognized as TRUE, although he calls it _folly_, or something on
>> that order. He has called the Oxford English Dictionary the "SUPREME
>> ARBITER" of the English Language, and thus CANNOT presume it
>> is WRONG.
>
>Have you read the OED entry?
>
Umm... it's a page from MY WEB SITE. I extracted it from the OED,
since the OED is not available in full, unless one pays something like
a few hundred dollars a year. I am a subscriber to the OED, and thus
printed to a file ONLY that page, and then pasted that page into my
web site. home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse is my web page. I can guarantee
that I have read it. I am still not sure about you.
>> Nor could I argue with such a regal work in respect to
>> words that have a long-standing meaning. Only the newer terms are
>> often mistaken by the OED, since it moves at a more leisurely pace than
>> other definitive resources. But there is no question that the OED defines
>> "America" as synonomous with "The United States of America."
>
>It recognises that some people use it to refer to the US, but it does
>not condone this usage: the "freq. used" condition has been explained
>to you.
>
I have seldom seen such slithering. If it is frequently used it is
accepted when used as such. Or else it would be termed a corruption.
Look, sport... if it makes you _happy_, then simply presume I, and
everyone else, have been referring to anti-US, when saying anti-American.
And every example I have provided demonstrates an anti-US statement
from desi. This is essentially what I've argued anyway, so we are
quibbling about nonsense that has nothing to do with the meat of
it. Would you agree that he is anti-US? Which is exactly what I am
saying. And others have been saying, as well.
>> >Can my friend Cyril quote you in his thesis on "US Imperialism"?
>> >
>> Your friend "Cyril" can do anything he wishes... regardless of how stupid
>> it will seem to others. You're proving that for yourself. Quite effectively,
>> I might add.
>
>Thanx for another of yr opinions!
>
Anytime.
>Cyril sez he`s considering (as a full title): "US Imperialism:
>Self-Denial and Self-Righteousness". Wot do you think?
>
I seem to find that behavior more in your style. I may be American,
but I am opposed to any concept of Imperialism. Well believing it
has run its course. Although it served its purpose before the collapse
of the former USSR, but collapsed as a concept coincident with
that collapse of the USSR. I am more of a _fortress America and
leave us the fuck alone_ type of guy right now.
Nonetheless, no one can presume to take away MY _right_ to comment
on racism when _I_ see it, regardless if no one else does. Doing so, only
means that others can make up their own minds, but I have provided the
input from mine. Which I believe is the general thrust of our dialog here.
>> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20America,%20n.htm
>> >> I have taken the liberty of selecting that definition from the DEFINITIVE
>> >> arbiter of the English Language... the 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary.
>> >> And you will see that in there, America is defined as "the name of the United
>> >> States of America."
>> >
>> >Alas it says that "America" is "freq. used also as the name of the
>> >United States of America". Note the "freq. used": this qualification
>> >means it is not correctly (albeit frequently) used in this way. No
>> >such condition is placed upon the correct definition quoted above.
>>
>> LOL... "They may hide from what they refuse to see. But they must
>> carry their denials with them." PV © copyright 2003.
>
>Don`t berate yoursen!
>
>If it`s any consolation the OED sez it`s a common error.
>
Actually, it doesn't. And you know that... but are rather hard-headed.
A common trait in Usenet. Since first you rather accepted the OED,
and offered your alternate reference. But when I showed many other
references, you then tried to pick apart what you had already presumed
was a definition.
PV
>Yrs Neville.
>
>P.s. what`s desi done to you anyway?
More like... what's he done to our species???
desi can't "do" anything to me... because he is a functional illiterate.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On 7 Mar 2003 22:05:03 -0800, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
wrote:
>
> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:<se1i6v8bla3gf129b...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> >> >Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the
concept
> >> >> >of free-speech?
> >> >> >
> >> >> If one were a racist... that would be his presumption, of course.
> >> >
> >> >I`m not sure wot you are getting at.
> >> >
> >> My point, exactly!!
> >
> >My point was you should be more lucid and employ logic: woz that yr
> >point too?
> >
> You've never been able to grasp my point.
I should hope not indeed.
Honest Nev
> >> >> >Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the concept
> >> >> >of free-speech?
> >> >> >
> >> >> If one were a racist... that would be his presumption, of course.
> >> >
> >> >I`m not sure wot you are getting at.
> >> >
> >> My point, exactly!!
> >
> >My point was you should be more lucid and employ logic: woz that yr
> >point too?
> >
> You've never been able to grasp my point.
Oo-er Missus! :-)
> And it is not my responsibility
> to bring you to an understanding.
>
> >> >There is a certain duplicity regards racism today: is a black person a
> >> >racist if they call another black person a nigger?
> >>
> >> That's simply racist propaganda, using racist slurs as well, in perhaps
> >> some devious manner to _get away with it_.
> >
> >Eh? Are you calling afore-mentioned black person a racist or not?
> >
> No, I am saying that racist slurs are a weapon.
S/he`s not! Then you agree there`s is a certain duplicity regards
racism today.
> And one always feels
> more comfortable when that weapon is in their possession. Blacks use
> them to suck the power from them, hoping to make them impotent.
> If they can call each other those slurs, they find it easier to make them
> lose their power when used in other ways. Whites use them for quite a
> different purpose.
Can only "white people" be racist, in yr considered opinion?
> >> American Blacks do so, and have a _right_ to do so, since they recognize the > destructive nature
> >
> >Only "American Blacks"? Of course they have a right to say wot the
> >fuck the want to. It is part of a concept called free-speech (and they
> >don`t need yr approval either you patronising so-and-so!).
> >
> I can see that this dialog is beginning to show some racist roots from
> YOU, my friend.
I would defend the free-speech of any person, not just "american
blacks".
> Since you are unable to grasp the concept of
> exactly what power is contained in a racist slur. Do not presume to
> tell me about American Blacks, which is my primary concern. Because
> RACISM breeds hatred, hatred breeds violence, and violence breeds
> murder.
Surely to hamper the free exchange of views is more damaging in the
long-run?
> One can blame an ingrained racism as responsible for that,
> through the ghettoizing and disenfranchising of the Black American.
> Diminishing him and even how he feels about himself. Racist slurs
> contribute to that. I have to concern myself with my responsibilities
> to the elimination of this atmosphere in my society, since those murders
> are committed on members of my society, not yours.
I think you will find black people are killed by whites in Europe and
across the world. Of course the massacres in Rwanda and East-Timor
were ethnically motivated, but then this was not rascism cos it wasn`t
whites wot done it, eh?
> I would be
> morally derelict in my personal opinion, were I to not speak out at
> least sometimes, when I see racist slurs
If it`s a white person saying it. Otherwise yr not bothered, eh?
> >> of those slurs. And use them to DIMINISH the power those slurs
> >> presume to hold over them. Whites do not have such an ability.
> >
> >Eh? Wots a honky? Is it only whites (in yr opinion) who have "no such
> >ability"? That sounds a bit, er.... racist.
> >
> Ah... yes... those racist roots are beginning to show. The word "honky"
> was developed for just what I am trying to explain to you. The Black
> hoping to take away the POWER contained in a racist slur. "honky"
> did not exist before those others, directed against Blacks, that we well
> know of.... that number in the dozens... and EXPRESSLY function to
> diminish the Black American.
Look the US has it`s own look-out. To pretend that "white people"
(whover they are?!) invented racism is ridiculous.
> >> When Whites use those slurs, they are MEANT to GAIN power over
> >> the ones they have directed those slurs at.
> >
> >Could you please step out of the 1980s! PC is passe in Europe: is this
> >not so in US?
> >
> What does that mean? That racism is now ACCEPTABLE in Europe,
Duplicity is less acceptable.
> and the U.S. should not have anyone who speaks out against it? Although it
> is easily identified as existing in the U.S.? Thanks... but no thanks.
>
> >> For a good examination of
> >> Blacks using those terms, couched in more of a down-to-earth approach,
> >> rather than a supposed _elitist_ examination -- see --
> >> http://www.fox.com/bostonpublic/chat/chat_n.htm
> >> It is rather strange to me that you would DEFEND the use of racist
> >> slurs, for whatever reason.
> >
> >I wouldn`t ban them! Perhaps Europe is more libral than US, but the ol
> >Voltaire thing is still a fine motto here: I may not agree with what
> >you say....
> >
> No one is suggesting they be _banned_, or made illegal. I am suggesting
> that a reasonably moral person should have the good sense to recognize
> they are aggressive weapons, which have a destructive force on our
> species. I do not believe in censorship. Nor do I believe you can
> presume to censor ME, for speaking out against those racist slurs.
I have no desire to censor you. Of course I do not want anyone to be
censored.
> I see that as clearly your intention in arguing _free speech_.
> It seems you are only concerned with the _free speech_ of a racist.
Not "only"!!
> And
> defending desi's racist slurs, presuming I should have offered no
> objection to them. If you do not have the common sense, and the
> inner morality to recognize how dangerous and destructive those
> slurs are, of course you have a _right_ to say them.
Thanx.
> You have a
> _right_ to be a fucking KKK member, if that is your desire. What
> is not prohibited, is PERMITTED. White Power groups are all
> over the U.S., and operate within the law. But do not presume that I
> cannot bring ANYONE'S actions and words to the attention of others
> for THEM to see if they see what I see. Regardless of your idiotic
> claim that doing so is PC.
The "PC" thing is a reference to the `only-white-people-can-be-racist`
shtick.
> This is what my purpose is, in remarking
> on desi's posts, and calling him a racist... because he IS... IMHO.
If he was black he could make any number of `racial` comments without
being a racist?
> Of course, he has a _right_ to use those racist slurs, and even BE a
> racist. But do not presume that I HAVE NO RIGHT to tell the
> world what I see with his words. PC be damned.
>
> >> While at the same moment, being sure to
> >> INCLUDE one yourself. We should ALWAYS look to possible
> >> MOTIVE. What is yours??? Since you did not even _bother_ to
> >> put that slur in quotes of any kind.
> >
> >I don`t feel the need to apologise for using a word! I use lots of
> >words and I don`t feel the need to blush about any of them. Perhaps
> >you would like "nigger" banned?! Wot next: "paki"? "yid"? "yank"?
> >"scouser"!?
> >
> Once again.. you lose the thread. I've never suggested _banning_
> the words.
No you want words on yr `bad list` to be shown only in quotes, so
no-one really says them. Slightly ironic when you think about!
> In point of fact, our argument is revolving about you
> believing you can _ban_ my condemning this racist slurs.
In an equal point of "fact", our argument is revolving about you
believing only "white people" can be racist.
> >> > "Race" as a
> >> >notoriously difficult thing to define and stick to (in the UK for
> >> >example to call someone a Paki is deemed (in some quarters) as racist,
> >> >even though "paki" is a term to denote nationality (even Indians use
> >> >it!), yet you would be hard-pushed to find someone who considers the
> >> >term "paddy" racist, even when used by a "paki".).
> >>
> >> What nonsense...
> >
> >Which part exactly?
> >
> The part where you do not realize what you are saying.
You`ll have to select a particular phrase/sentence that you consider
to be nonsense. Else refute it line by line.
> >> I am more concerned about racism in the U.S.
> >
> >That`s yr perogative.
> >
>
> Quite right. Why are you just now admitting it?
I never denied it. Quote me.
> >> You
> >> should concern yourself about how you view racism in your country.
> >
> >Thanx for telling me wot I should concern mysen with!
>
> Well you should certainly not concern yourself with my condemnation of
> what I see as racist slurs... since it leaves the impression that you oppose
> ANYONE condemning racist slurs.
How do you know I`m not treating you as a special case? :-)
> >> Most
> >> of the racial slurs that desi provides are directed SPECIFICALLY at Black
> >> Americans. I don't find any special permission exists for those in other
> >> societies to express racist slurs toward those in other societies. We are
> >> responsible for OURSELVES.
> >
> >Is free-speech a concept you have yet to master?
> >
> Pardon me?? Who here is presuming to stifle MY free speech?
No-one.
> >> ROTFLMAO... All racism is OPINION!!!
> >
> >No shit Sherlock! Do you have a problem with people expressing
> >opinions? Or just the ones you disagree with? btw this does not alter
> >the truth of "surely this is opinion...." etc..
> >
> Apparently YOU are the one who has a problem with people expressing
> opinions. Especially if those opinions find racist slurs offensive.
I have a problem with people who do not ackowledge `opinions` as such.
> It would
> seem that you are offended by MY use of _free speech_. I cannot
> STOP anyone from using a racist slur. But do not presume that YOU
> can tell me I cannot express how offended I am by their use, and how
> offensive and dangerous I find them to be.
>
> >> Do you think the KKK
> >> finds any reason to be offended by those racist slurs? If you were to say
> >> "Desi is pro-American," you would be laughed off the stage as an idiot.
> >
> >So far you have only provided anti-US Desi statements at best!
> >
> Ummm... sport... that was what I intended to do. Glad to see you
> agree.
Pity you called him "anti-American", eh?
> >> No one would believe that for a moment. Some might argue that _their
> >> opinion_ leads them to believe that desi's comments do not PROVE he
> >> is anti-American, but the very idea of stating he is "pro-American," is
> >> laughable.
> >
> >In yr opinion...
> >
> I've never claimed anything else. As I said Racism is an opinion. Both
> for and against it. But as far as anti-American... I am not the only one
> who has voiced such an "opinion" here, in respect to desi being
> anti-American, in those specific words.
>
> >> Although you may certainly HOLD that opinion. Since there
> >> is no _natural force_ of the Universe that would PREVENT you from
> >> holding such an opinion.
> >
> >I am open to reason: find me a quote were he attacks a couple of other
> >American countries.
> >
> Hardly. He has been called anti-American. You do not make the
> 'rules' here. America, spoken alone, clearly means "The United States
> of America," and it is the most pitiful argument I can imagine to presume
> you can defend his words by claiming anti-US, is not anti-American.
"Anti-US" does not equal "anti-American". Are Brazilians not
Americans?
> >> Just as there is none that would prevent you
> >> from hating all American Blacks, if you did.
> >
> >Which I don`t.
> >
> I didn't say you did. But I will say that racist slurs seem to come
> easy to you. I certainly can have an opinion as to what that means
> to me. You do see the words "if you did," didn't you?
I felt I should put my cards on the table. Wot if I just hated all
"American Blacks" in Georgia? Would that be racist or not?
> >Only totalitarian states (and those on their way) seek to control
> >language.
> >
> Apparently you are presuming you can _control_ mine. I've
> never said desi CAN'T say what he says. While it seems you
> are presuming I CAN'T say what I say. desi can be the biggest
> racist in the world (he's right up there, IMHO). I certainly
> cannot say .. "desi... you CAN'T be a racist." Since certainly
> he CAN be, if he wants to be. But you cannot presume to
> control my language in remarking on what I see as racism in
> his comments. By offering MY OPINION that... "desi...
> you LOOK like a racist TO ME."
He `looks` like a racist?
> >> We are provided _free
> >> will_. What is important is how we USE that _free will_.
> >
> >Oh no! Yr not one of the
> >"free-speech-as-long-as-you-don`t-say-owt-we-disagree-with" gang are
> >you?
> >
> Apparently you have confused me with YOU. Since this particular
> dialog began when you presumed to control MY comments regarding
> what I see in desi's.
I only question yr assualt upon Desi. You call Desi a racist cos he is
white in effect.
> >> Are you presuming that if a Brit detects an American providing an anti-British
> >> view, that his opinion has NO MEANING? Because HE'S British
> >> Mr. D. and John Rennie are two of the most reasonable ABOLITIONISTS
> >> in this group. Both non-Americans. Having no particular ax to grind with desi...and
> >> certainly agreeing with the basic principle of abolition, which forms the heart of
> >> this group. But THEY have certainly found it necessary to express their distaste for
> >> some of desi's anti-American views.
> >
> >That`s their perogative, eh? Is dissent not allowed in this group?
> >
> How the hell do you parse my comment into the reply you've provided?
If a group of you disagree with Desi that makes the group
automatically right?
I hope no-one else disagrees with you!
> This group is ABOUT dissent. Probably as much as any other group in
> Usenet. Since the subject is totally polarized, with a sharp demarcation
> line between _execute some_ or _execute none_, regardless of the
> shades which exist within those two polarizations. There is a dividing
> line that, regardless of how sensible we see ourselves to be... separates
> our views.
>
<cuts>
> >Opinion, eh?
> >
> It would appear so... do you really have an English comprehension problem?
> Since the very first two words I posted in my comment were "I think..." which
> is impossible to parse any other way than to presume it is my opinion.
>
> >> Further, I am not sure how much you really know about desi.
> >
> >I would say I know nothing about Desi really, excepting the "evidence"
> >you have furnished me with.
> >
> Gee... a man who admits he _knows nothing_. How refreshing in a group
> where everyone knows everything. :-)
>
> You know a little research might help you. Google has much of his older posts,
> although he hides his current postings from that archive, having been burnt so
> badly in the past with conflicting comments called back to him.
>
> >> He is certainly
> >> bigoted against members of the U.K., as well as Americans. His dialogs with
> >> St. George, in the past, proved that over and over. St. George, perhaps the most
> >> patriotic Brit here, has referred to desi as a "hypocritical bigot," in terms of
> >
> >Of course I have heard "Brit" damned as a racist remark akin to using
> >"Paki".
> >
> Oh, come on... That's no different from Mercin, or something like that. I know
> I have not even spelled it correctly, but that shows how little it affects me. Brit
> is simply short for British subject. No more offensive than calling James -- Jim.
How does "paki" as a term differ from "brit", in yr opinion, assuming
you think they differ at all? Or "yid" for that matter!
How does "frog" differ from "nigger"?
> I've never heard anyone here complain about the use of Brit... but if you find it
> offensive I will not use it anymore. Just let me know. However, this seems very
> pathetic and strange to me... since I see it as more of an affectionate term.
>
> I know there are other words... that ARE offensive toward the British, and
> I would not use them here, of course.
>
> >> desi's hate for the British, as well as Americans. You may be _backing the wrong
> >> horse_.
> >
> >Do I need to agree with everything he says to question his
> >vilification?
> >
> Why presume that you need to _control_ what I say?
I make no such presumption.
> Why not go to
> the source? If even I... a White American... am offended by his constant
> use of those racist slurs...
On whose behalf? And why?
> why not call on HIM to not provide what offends
> ME? Since you are so into _control_? Clearly I have said above, that if
> that word offends YOU, I would not use it.
No term based on nationality/race would offend me.
<cuts>
> >Would not our lives be boring without eccentrics? I think Desi should
> >be cherished as such! You are a lucky group to have such a `character`
> >and his input.
> >
> I find desi's presence here to be the most debilitating influence imaginable
> to the interchange of ideas in respect to the DP. Of course, IMHO.
> Nor am I the only one who has expressed such an opinion. The strange
> thing is that many of those opinions have come from those who are
> recognized as holding the same agenda regarding the DP as desi does.
> Clearly, I don't wish him to EVER leave
Did you read that Desi?
> ... since I feel he is one of the better
> weapons for the side of the argument that I support. desi is to abolition
> what Chernobyl was to _safe nuclear power_. What the Titanic was to
> _safe ocean travel_. What bin Laden is to _peaceful Islam_. What
> Sharon and Arafat are to _peace in the Middle East_. What Mt.
> Vesuvius was to Pompeii. What Waterloo was to Napoleon. All
> total disasters... all what desi is to abolition.
> >> -------------------------------------------------
> >> Huh??? Your point is? You presume that I CANNOT call it anti-Americanism,
> >> because he used the words "US," or "United States"??
> >
> >My point is it is quite possible to be Anti-US while holding
> >pro-American (as a whole) views. Very similar to being Anti-UK but
> >pro-Europe for example.
> >
> No... it's not. Not in any of the context which desi provides. Nor in your
> rather pathetic refusal to understand that when desi speaks of either the
> U.S. or America, he is speaking of the United States of America.
It is possible to be both Anti-US and Pro-American at one and the same
time. You only need to be taken literally.
> Which
> is my concern. And when others criticize him, they are also speaking of
> anti-U.S. as being synonymous with anti-American.
>
> >> >> >The US is not America. Never has been. Never will be.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Quite wrong... The OED itself recognizes that The United States of America
> >> >> is referred to as America.
> >> >
> >> >I`m glad you like the OED and not the Webster!
> >> >
> >> >"America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
> >> >consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
> >> >the Isthmus of Panama"
> >> >
> >> >Thus the US is not, factually; historically, or geographically
> >> >speaking "America": it is a part of America (and not even the main
> >> >part of "North America" geographically speaking)
> >> >
> >> Rubbish... See the following on-line dictionary resources
> >
> ><cuts>
> >
> >I thought we had settled on the OED! You yoursen consider it "the
> >DEFINITIVE
> >arbiter of the English Language". I mysen am rather partial to it. And
> >you say Desi likes it: wot more could we ask?
> >
> Actually, you dismissed the OED, and claimed you preferred something
> else.
Not so! Quote please.
Is "America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
the Isthmus of Panama"
not taken from the OED via yr link?
> I am simply providing a VARIETY of respected resources providing
> definitions in the English language, which ALL state that "America"
> means "The United States of America."
>
> >I wasn`t being sarcastic. I quoted directly from yr link.
> >
> >> You are confusing "America," with "Americas"
> >
> >I`m not.
> >
> Of course you are.. and don't be so hardheaded about this.
OED sez "America".
> It is
> the same as calling England -- the British Isles.
England is not the British Isles. Anyone that thinks it is is insane.
> Just because
> "America" is also PART of the terms "North America," and "South
> America," that are CONTINENTS on our planet, does not
> preclude the use of "America" by itself. For example --
> Australia is BOTH a continent and a country.
> Just as
> contrarily South Africa is a COUNTRY in Africa.
>
> >> The Americas
> >> are comprised of North, Central and South America. But one
> >> should specify WHICH America one is speaking of... since the
> >> word America, by itself, can mean, BY DEFINITION the United
> >> States of America.
> >
> >It may mean that to you. It does not mean that to me. The OED, of
> >course, does not consider yr usage to be correct, although it is
> >acknowledged as being frequently (and incorrectly) used thus.
> >
> If it is IN the OED, and it does not state that it is a corruption,
> it is recognized as a valid usage.
Alas we shall never agree!
> >> The U.S. does NOT, of course, comprise ALL
> >> of NORTH AMERICA. But that does NOT mean that "America"
> >> is NOT the United States. In fact, desi is engaged in certainly one
> >> of the greatest geographical deceptions of all time here, presuming
> >> to redesign the face of geographic continents,
> >
> >Pot meet Kettle, etc..
> >
> Hardly... I can justify my usage through a variety of sources. I'd like
> to see the source that desi uses to presume there are six continents.
"In Europe, many students are taught about six continents, where North
and South America is combined to form a single America. Thus, these
six continents are Africa, America, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, and
Europe."
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcontinents.htm
Why not go to the site? I don`t know how valid it is, but it`s very
interesting.
> >> by claiming that _the
> >> Balkans are not in Europe_. Nor are Latvia, Estonia, Bosnia,
> >> Russia, or Turkey, as claimed in various posts offered by desi.
> >
> >Of course Russia and Turkey straddle continents, and are only *partly*
> >in Europe, geographically speaking.
> >
> Please... when someone says NOT IN... they are speaking in an
> inclusive manner. Why are you so intent on making EXCUSES
> for these fundamental gaps in intellect??
>
> >> Nor
> >> does he even know how many continents there ARE. Once stating
> >> there were SIX continents. Little wonder he is confused as to the
> >> U.S. and America. Now what's YOUR excuse?
> >
> >According to the OED I don`t need one.
> >
> Since the OED states that it is USED... that means it is ACCEPTED
> as used.
Not correctly used. It seems obvious to me. I suppose we shall have to
agree to disagree.
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> Everyone knows it. And it is only anti-Americanism
> >> >> that would presume the U.S. cannot CALL itself America in every definition. See -
> >> >
> >> >The US can call itsen whatever it wants, but you can not blame the
> >> >rest of the world to piss itsen laughing.
> >> >
> >> Someone 'pissing themselves laughing,' about a proven definition, is
> >> only _pissing themselves_. FULL STOP.
> >
> >Perhaps they looked it up in the OED? I don`t know why you are getting
> >all puffed-up about this!
> >
> I'm not at all... you are the one becoming so obsessed about disproving
> what is proven in so many resources... including the OED.
Hardly. I just looked at yr link.
It is not a corruption.
<cuts>
> >> LOL... "They may hide from what they refuse to see. But they must
> >> carry their denials with them." PV © copyright 2003.
> >
> >Don`t berate yoursen!
> >
> >If it`s any consolation the OED sez it`s a common error.
> >
> Actually, it doesn't. And you know that... but are rather hard-headed.
> A common trait in Usenet. Since first you rather accepted the OED,
> and offered your alternate reference.
I quoted the OED from yr link. Go check if you don`t believe me! I
offered no alternative.
> >P.s. what`s desi done to you anyway?
>
> More like... what's he done to our species???
Come on!
> desi can't "do" anything to me... because he is a functional illiterate.
No need for petty name-calling!
yrs Neville
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<radj6v0fam7t737c2...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >> >> >Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the concept
>> >> >> >of free-speech?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> If one were a racist... that would be his presumption, of course.
>> >> >
>> >> >I`m not sure wot you are getting at.
>> >> >
>> >> My point, exactly!!
>> >
>> >My point was you should be more lucid and employ logic: woz that yr
>> >point too?
>> >
>> You've never been able to grasp my point.
>
>Oo-er Missus! :-)
>
>> And it is not my responsibility
>> to bring you to an understanding.
>>
>> >> >There is a certain duplicity regards racism today: is a black person a
>> >> >racist if they call another black person a nigger?
>> >>
>> >> That's simply racist propaganda, using racist slurs as well, in perhaps
>> >> some devious manner to _get away with it_.
>> >
>> >Eh? Are you calling afore-mentioned black person a racist or not?
>> >
>> No, I am saying that racist slurs are a weapon.
>
>S/he`s not! Then you agree there`s is a certain duplicity regards
>racism today.
>
No... I'm saying "racist slurs are a weapon." And one always feels more
comfortable when in possession of such a weapon since it works to
neutralize or diminish the power that weapon holds.
>> And one always feels
>> more comfortable when that weapon is in their possession. Blacks use
>> them to suck the power from them, hoping to make them impotent.
>> If they can call each other those slurs, they find it easier to make them
>> lose their power when used in other ways. Whites use them for quite a
>> different purpose.
>
>Can only "white people" be racist, in yr considered opinion?
>
Of course not... but racism in America that creates the violence which
leads to murder that we speak of here, is essentially created by racism
on Blacks. There is little question that Blacks are ghettoized and
disenfranchised in the U.S. That should be of great concern to all
Americans... it is to me. And racial slurs do NOTHING but exacerbate
that intent to diminish the perception that Blacks have of themselves --
to lower their self-esteem -- to gain some form of superiority. Being
USED as weapons by Whites to gain this feeling of superiority
over Blacks. I feel you know little of racism in the U.S., and are
trying to extrapolate your views within your society into a totally different
environment. Essentially... you don't know what you're talking about,
about sums it up. And your argument seems to be leading toward a claim
that _two wrongs_ can make a right, because Black racism toward
Whites exists. It seems you are trying to JUSTIFY racism... and racist
slurs. When obviously none are acceptable, unless they have a purpose
which DIMINISHES their power, such as when Blacks use them
between themselves to take away some of the force of that power.
But those type exchanges always occur when Blacks are rather close...
forming this connection to diminish the power of those slurs. I can
guarantee that directing a racist slur from a Black to a perfect stranger
Black, is met with the same feeling as when it comes from a White.
You need to understand that those words can be a bonding method
among Black friends. Rather like inoculating them against the power
of those words, because of that bonding connection. Essentially trying
to convince themselves that the words cannot hurt as much, if they use
them between themselves.
And let me make something else clear... racism, and racist slurs DO
operate to diminish a Blacks OWN perception of himself and other
Blacks. That is clearly evidenced by the fact that 94% of all Black
murders are committed by Blacks. Racism has reduced them to
not even valuing their own existence. Racism is the most destructive
force on the face of our planet. And it is endemic in the U.S..... STILL.
Although strides have been made from the 40s and 50s... the road still
to be traveled is LONG. And it will be even longer before Blacks
actually BELIEVE they are equal.... even if Whites finally TREAT them
as equals...because Whites have convinced them for so long, that they
are not. And racist slurs... only insure that road is longer still. Of
course, I do not blame ALL of the inequalities existing among Blacks
in America on "racist slurs." That would be absurd. But equally absurd
would be to state they have NO power in sustaining that inequality.
Because they do.
>> >> American Blacks do so, and have a _right_ to do so, since they recognize the > destructive nature
>> >
>> >Only "American Blacks"? Of course they have a right to say wot the
>> >fuck the want to. It is part of a concept called free-speech (and they
>> >don`t need yr approval either you patronising so-and-so!).
>> >
>> I can see that this dialog is beginning to show some racist roots from
>> YOU, my friend.
>
>I would defend the free-speech of any person, not just "american
>blacks".
>
You seem to be concerned with my _free-speech_ in condemning
racist slurs... which are obviously protected by _free-speech_ but
which nonetheless, makes them no less offensive, or no less destructive.
>> Since you are unable to grasp the concept of
>> exactly what power is contained in a racist slur. Do not presume to
>> tell me about American Blacks, which is my primary concern. Because
>> RACISM breeds hatred, hatred breeds violence, and violence breeds
>> murder.
>
>Surely to hamper the free exchange of views is more damaging in the
>long-run?
>
Rubbish... racist slurs offered here are not some academic examination
of the force behind those slurs. They are MEANT to insult. Plain and
simple. This is not Racial Slurs 101 -- a university course being taught
in an academic atmosphere to examine the power contained in those
words. The words are used here in an entirely different context,
and cannot be defended as _not damaging_, because they are damaging.
Clearly, I suspect that your use of that very offensive 'n' word, was simply
to show you had the POWER to use it... which is exactly what I mean.
You have USED it as an instrument of power.
>> One can blame an ingrained racism as responsible for that,
>> through the ghettoizing and disenfranchising of the Black American.
>> Diminishing him and even how he feels about himself. Racist slurs
>> contribute to that. I have to concern myself with my responsibilities
>> to the elimination of this atmosphere in my society, since those murders
>> are committed on members of my society, not yours.
>
>I think you will find black people are killed by whites in Europe and
>across the world. Of course the massacres in Rwanda and East-Timor
>were ethnically motivated, but then this was not rascism cos it wasn`t
>whites wot done it, eh?
>
I am not among those "Imperialist" Americans you speak of, who
believes that Americans can solve all the problems in the world. I believe
we should exert whatever efforts we can in those instances... but "charity
certainly begins at home." And I must concern myself more with what I
can PERSONALLY do to solve the problem of racism IN MY SOCIETY.
Regardless of how little I can do as one person. Right here and now,
represents part of that effort... educating YOU on racism in the U.S.
>> I would be
>> morally derelict in my personal opinion, were I to not speak out at
>> least sometimes, when I see racist slurs
>
>If it`s a white person saying it. Otherwise yr not bothered, eh?
>
Don't be stupid. Once again, you are presuming that two wrongs can
make a right... and I am concerned with what creates MORE violence
in the U.S., which is White racism on Black Americans, more than the
other way around.
>> >> of those slurs. And use them to DIMINISH the power those slurs
>> >> presume to hold over them. Whites do not have such an ability.
>> >
>> >Eh? Wots a honky? Is it only whites (in yr opinion) who have "no such
>> >ability"? That sounds a bit, er.... racist.
>> >
>> Ah... yes... those racist roots are beginning to show. The word "honky"
>> was developed for just what I am trying to explain to you. The Black
>> hoping to take away the POWER contained in a racist slur. "honky"
>> did not exist before those others, directed against Blacks, that we well
>> know of.... that number in the dozens... and EXPRESSLY function to
>> diminish the Black American.
>
>Look the US has it`s own look-out. To pretend that "white people"
>(whover they are?!) invented racism is ridiculous.
>
What??? Sorry, sport... "White" people DID invent racism. And I'm White,
and well aware of that. Only someone who operates from a White Power
background could possibly make such a silly claim. When was the last
time that Black Africans came to Europe looking for White Slaves?
>> >> When Whites use those slurs, they are MEANT to GAIN power over
>> >> the ones they have directed those slurs at.
>> >
>> >Could you please step out of the 1980s! PC is passe in Europe: is this
>> >not so in US?
>> >
>> What does that mean? That racism is now ACCEPTABLE in Europe,
>
>Duplicity is less acceptable.
>
Rubbish. I can well accept duplicity... Shit... I see it here every day...more
easily then I could EVER accept racism. You may feel otherwise... but that's
simply repeating ground we've already been over... that racism is OPINION.
I spent 26 years in Europe, and you will not convince me, IMHO, that
duplicity is NOT alive and well on the Continent.
>> and the U.S. should not have anyone who speaks out against it? Although it
>> is easily identified as existing in the U.S.? Thanks... but no thanks.
>>
>> >> For a good examination of
>> >> Blacks using those terms, couched in more of a down-to-earth approach,
>> >> rather than a supposed _elitist_ examination -- see --
>> >> http://www.fox.com/bostonpublic/chat/chat_n.htm
>> >> It is rather strange to me that you would DEFEND the use of racist
>> >> slurs, for whatever reason.
>> >
>> >I wouldn`t ban them! Perhaps Europe is more libral than US, but the ol
>> >Voltaire thing is still a fine motto here: I may not agree with what
>> >you say....
>> >
>> No one is suggesting they be _banned_, or made illegal. I am suggesting
>> that a reasonably moral person should have the good sense to recognize
>> they are aggressive weapons, which have a destructive force on our
>> species. I do not believe in censorship. Nor do I believe you can
>> presume to censor ME, for speaking out against those racist slurs.
>
>I have no desire to censor you. Of course I do not want anyone to be
>censored.
>
Then you must admit that I can call a _racist slur_ a destructive force
in respect to our species. It certainly serves NO PROGRESSIVE
force.
>> I see that as clearly your intention in arguing _free speech_.
>> It seems you are only concerned with the _free speech_ of a racist.
>
>Not "only"!!
>
As long as you don't contend that I don't have the same _free
speech_ as someone shouting out racist slurs, which was the
original argument. I see desi doing so... you presumed I could
not claim I saw him doing so. I had the impression that you
DEFENDED him doing so.. and OPPOSED my commenting
on him doing so. I found that as intending to limit MY
_free speech_.
>> And
>> defending desi's racist slurs, presuming I should have offered no
>> objection to them. If you do not have the common sense, and the
>> inner morality to recognize how dangerous and destructive those
>> slurs are, of course you have a _right_ to say them.
>
>Thanx.
>
Don't thank me... thank _free speech_, because I will use that same
_free speech_ to remark how dangerous and destructive those slurs
are, each time anyone provides them. I personally would find myself
morally derelict were I not to do so. Understand I speak of MY
morality, and not some _absolute_ _objective_ _morality_ which
I've always argued doesn't actually exist.
>> You have a
>> _right_ to be a fucking KKK member, if that is your desire. What
>> is not prohibited, is PERMITTED. White Power groups are all
>> over the U.S., and operate within the law. But do not presume that I
>> cannot bring ANYONE'S actions and words to the attention of others
>> for THEM to see if they see what I see. Regardless of your idiotic
>> claim that doing so is PC.
>
>The "PC" thing is a reference to the `only-white-people-can-be-racist`
>shtick.
>
But I've never said that. Racism is of course... DEFINED quite differently
than any belief it is only White on Black. But I concern myself with the
realization that two wrongs do not make a right, and that White racism
on Blacks, is a much more devastating phenomenon in the U.S. than any
Black racism on Whites. It is rather strange to believe one should
CONCENTRATE on Black racism on Whites, when such is MINUSCULE
compared to White racism on Blacks. The ghetto and the workplace and
the prisons demonstrate that very vividly in the U.S.
>> This is what my purpose is, in remarking
>> on desi's posts, and calling him a racist... because he IS... IMHO.
>
>If he was black he could make any number of `racial` comments without
>being a racist?
>
Of course not...not in THIS forum. He could do so among his other
Black friends. For the very reasons I've elaborated upon. I would not
accept a racist comment here from a Black without responding negatively
to that comment, as I respond negatively to desi's racist comments.
>> Of course, he has a _right_ to use those racist slurs, and even BE a
>> racist. But do not presume that I HAVE NO RIGHT to tell the
>> world what I see with his words. PC be damned.
>>
>> >> While at the same moment, being sure to
>> >> INCLUDE one yourself. We should ALWAYS look to possible
>> >> MOTIVE. What is yours??? Since you did not even _bother_ to
>> >> put that slur in quotes of any kind.
>> >
>> >I don`t feel the need to apologise for using a word! I use lots of
>> >words and I don`t feel the need to blush about any of them. Perhaps
>> >you would like "nigger" banned?! Wot next: "paki"? "yid"? "yank"?
>> >"scouser"!?
>> >
>> Once again.. you lose the thread. I've never suggested _banning_
>> the words.
>
>No you want words on yr `bad list` to be shown only in quotes, so
>no-one really says them. Slightly ironic when you think about!
>
Actually, that's totally false... since desi often DOES put his racist
slurs in "quotes" to HIDE the fact that they come from him. And
my list of his 30 racist slurs contain many that include such racist
slurs he would try to DISGUISE by putting them in "quotes."
They are no less offensive. Only when someone quotes a TRUE
quote, to DEMONSTRATE the racism of another, can it be
presumed as not having COME from the poster. And that is
obviously permissible, if used SPECIFICALLY to point out
the racist intent... since if THAT was prohibited there would be
NO POSSIBLE WAY to even comment on the racism seen
from that original poster. But one cannot _manipulate_ words,
to imply racist comments came from another that did not. Thus,
there is a certain precision that must be observed when pointing
out racism. That's why I always refer BACK to desi's original
comment, by providing the URL reference.
I'm sorry... but the very beginning of your entrance into this thread, seemed
to imply that I could not comment on the racism I see in desi providing such
racist slurs. If I have a _right_ to comment, what is the purpose of your
dialog, which I took as presuming I have no such right? Now if you presume
I DO have such a right... then this dialog is essentially at an end... since
that's been my only objective. To argue that I DO have such a _right_.
>> >> ROTFLMAO... All racism is OPINION!!!
>> >
>> >No shit Sherlock! Do you have a problem with people expressing
>> >opinions? Or just the ones you disagree with? btw this does not alter
>> >the truth of "surely this is opinion...." etc..
>> >
>> Apparently YOU are the one who has a problem with people expressing
>> opinions. Especially if those opinions find racist slurs offensive.
>
>I have a problem with people who do not ackowledge `opinions` as such.
>
My words have ALWAYS related to my opinion. I see racism in desi's
obsessive display of racist slurs. By _seeing_, that obviously implies
_an opinion_, a _belief_... and I relate that opinion... that belief... here.
You seemed to have a problem with that.
>> It would
>> seem that you are offended by MY use of _free speech_. I cannot
>> STOP anyone from using a racist slur. But do not presume that YOU
>> can tell me I cannot express how offended I am by their use, and how
>> offensive and dangerous I find them to be.
>>
>> >> Do you think the KKK
>> >> finds any reason to be offended by those racist slurs? If you were to say
>> >> "Desi is pro-American," you would be laughed off the stage as an idiot.
>> >
>> >So far you have only provided anti-US Desi statements at best!
>> >
>> Ummm... sport... that was what I intended to do. Glad to see you
>> agree.
>
>Pity you called him "anti-American", eh?
>
I wasn't the only one. If you wish to _play on words_, which would
deny the substance... be my guest... it flows right off my back. desi IS
anti-American... anti-US... anti-United States... anti-United States of
America... all in my opinion. And in the opinion of some others here.
And I've provided SUBSTANCE in his OWN WORDS to bolster
that opinion. While you've played silly games with "America" and "The
United States of America." But certainly have provided no SUBSTANCE
which would deny such anti-all of the above.
>> >> No one would believe that for a moment. Some might argue that _their
>> >> opinion_ leads them to believe that desi's comments do not PROVE he
>> >> is anti-American, but the very idea of stating he is "pro-American," is
>> >> laughable.
>> >
>> >In yr opinion...
>> >
>> I've never claimed anything else. As I said Racism is an opinion. Both
>> for and against it. But as far as anti-American... I am not the only one
>> who has voiced such an "opinion" here, in respect to desi being
>> anti-American, in those specific words.
>>
>> >> Although you may certainly HOLD that opinion. Since there
>> >> is no _natural force_ of the Universe that would PREVENT you from
>> >> holding such an opinion.
>> >
>> >I am open to reason: find me a quote were he attacks a couple of other
>> >American countries.
>> >
>> Hardly. He has been called anti-American. You do not make the
>> 'rules' here. America, spoken alone, clearly means "The United States
>> of America," and it is the most pitiful argument I can imagine to presume
>> you can defend his words by claiming anti-US, is not anti-American.
>
>"Anti-US" does not equal "anti-American". Are Brazilians not
>Americans?
>
Brazilians are more properly South Americans. No one, other than
some jerk who has some anti-U.S. feelings at the core, would claim
that a Brazilian is an "American."
>> >> Just as there is none that would prevent you
>> >> from hating all American Blacks, if you did.
>> >
>> >Which I don`t.
>> >
>> I didn't say you did. But I will say that racist slurs seem to come
>> easy to you. I certainly can have an opinion as to what that means
>> to me. You do see the words "if you did," didn't you?
>
>I felt I should put my cards on the table. Wot if I just hated all
>"American Blacks" in Georgia? Would that be racist or not?
>
If you hated even ONE Black... BECAUSE he WAS Black... and
not for some other personal reason unconnected to his BEING Black...
you would be a racist. I'm astonished that I even have to explain
such a very basic concept to you.
>> >Only totalitarian states (and those on their way) seek to control
>> >language.
>> >
>> Apparently you are presuming you can _control_ mine. I've
>> never said desi CAN'T say what he says. While it seems you
>> are presuming I CAN'T say what I say. desi can be the biggest
>> racist in the world (he's right up there, IMHO). I certainly
>> cannot say .. "desi... you CAN'T be a racist." Since certainly
>> he CAN be, if he wants to be. But you cannot presume to
>> control my language in remarking on what I see as racism in
>> his comments. By offering MY OPINION that... "desi...
>> you LOOK like a racist TO ME."
>
>He `looks` like a racist?
To me... HIS WORDS. Which is all I can SEE of desi. In Usenet
HE IS HIS WORDS. And his WORDS make him "look" like
a racist to me. This is definitely turning into some silly game you
are trying to play... and it's sickening... because racism is NO
GAME.
>
>> >> We are provided _free
>> >> will_. What is important is how we USE that _free will_.
>> >
>> >Oh no! Yr not one of the
>> >"free-speech-as-long-as-you-don`t-say-owt-we-disagree-with" gang are
>> >you?
>> >
>> Apparently you have confused me with YOU. Since this particular
>> dialog began when you presumed to control MY comments regarding
>> what I see in desi's.
>
>I only question yr assualt upon Desi. You call Desi a racist cos he is
>white in effect.
>
Jesus... now you're proving yourself to be rather ill-informed of the
past in this newsgroup. We have another poster here... dirtbag... who
claims he is part-Black. To what extent I do not know. But I have
called HIM a racist. I certainly do not call desi a racist, simply because
desi is White. I call him a racist ---- because of his WORDS...
which are all I see of him. His WORDS are racist to me. And if he
were Black I would STILL call him a racist, even if every comment
he provided was a racist slur AGAINST his own race. Because
his INTENTION is to gain power through those slurs. By trying to
put down his own race.
>> >> Are you presuming that if a Brit detects an American providing an anti-British
>> >> view, that his opinion has NO MEANING? Because HE'S British
>> >> Mr. D. and John Rennie are two of the most reasonable ABOLITIONISTS
>> >> in this group. Both non-Americans. Having no particular ax to grind with desi...and
>> >> certainly agreeing with the basic principle of abolition, which forms the heart of
>> >> this group. But THEY have certainly found it necessary to express their distaste for
>> >> some of desi's anti-American views.
>> >
>> >That`s their perogative, eh? Is dissent not allowed in this group?
>> >
>> How the hell do you parse my comment into the reply you've provided?
>
>If a group of you disagree with Desi that makes the group
>automatically right?
>I hope no-one else disagrees with you!
>
I don't care WHO agrees with me. That isn't my reason for being here.
I am not here to gain friends who agree with me. I don't follow my
moral code depending on what OTHERS feel. I have my own moral
code. As we all should have. Does your moral code shift simply because
you wish to belong to the majority? Don't you have your own principles,
independent of the minority or majority? I oppose racism because
I oppose the CONCEPT embodied in racism. As such I find my
argument must be directed against those I see SUPPORT the
CONCEPT, irrespective of how many do what to whom. When I
state my argument, I stick to MY views on that concept, and accept
no connection to any other person. I am not LOOKING for
agreement. I am looking to maintain MY OWN MORAL CODE.
Should a majority here, disagree with me, and contend desi's comments
are not intended as racist... that would not affect ME one fucking bit.
Because I see things through MY EYES... and ALL is opinion.
I have no idea... since I would never use those terms. You seem to find
pleasure in it. If that term for the British _offends_ you (which I do not
believe for one instant), I will not use it here. I would NEVER repeat a
word that someone claims has offended them in a racial context. Now...
the word STUPID... that word I throw about with abandon.
>How does "frog" differ from "nigger"?
>
You really LIKE using that slur don't you? Gives you a _rush_?? See what I
mean about POWER. As to the word 'frog,' I have said my wife is French.. See
url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/eupassport.jpg
Since some here feel my anonymous posting might imply I lie. Her and her
relatives laugh about that word... there is even a French Club in the U.S.
that refers to itself on Le Page de Frog. See
url:http://www.uga.edu/frog/
And for some interesting information as to the source of that word...
which have various versions - see -
url:http://allaboutfrogs.org/weird/general/frenchfrogs.html
I would not use that term with a TOTAL French stranger. But in
a context here, in this faceless environment, and with even the
most casual of French friends, I have NEVER found even one
to be offended. As I said... I certainly wouldn't call the person
handing out Metro tickets, a "frog." I can see how they might
take it not as a racial insult... but as an insult, nonetheless.
But it has an entirely less ominous meaning than the "n" word.
Which holds great power. So, do not even presume to compare
those two... since the second is a word of POWER... while the
first is a word of jest.
>> I've never heard anyone here complain about the use of Brit... but if you find it
>> offensive I will not use it anymore. Just let me know. However, this seems very
>> pathetic and strange to me... since I see it as more of an affectionate term.
>>
>> I know there are other words... that ARE offensive toward the British, and
>> I would not use them here, of course.
>>
>> >> desi's hate for the British, as well as Americans. You may be _backing the wrong
>> >> horse_.
>> >
>> >Do I need to agree with everything he says to question his
>> >vilification?
>> >
>> Why presume that you need to _control_ what I say?
>
>I make no such presumption.
>
It seems to have been the very core of the beginning of our dialog.
What I felt was your presumption that I COULD NOT call desi a
racist, through the examples of his words I provided. Now, if you
say that in YOUR OPINION, he is not a racist... that is an entirely
different approach than the one I perceived you were taking when
you first commented. Which I felt was more on the order of stating
that _I_ could not find desi a racist.
>> Why not go to
>> the source? If even I... a White American... am offended by his constant
>> use of those racist slurs...
>
>On whose behalf? And why?
>
Pardon me??? ON MY OWN behalf. I don't need more than that,
if you presume that I have _free speech_.
>> why not call on HIM to not provide what offends
>> ME? Since you are so into _control_? Clearly I have said above, that if
>> that word offends YOU, I would not use it.
>
>No term based on nationality/race would offend me.
>
Then why did you presume it would? Let me understand this.
You CALL it a racist slur... but you are not OFFENDED by
racist slurs directed at you. If this is true, then it has nothing to
do with the dialog, since we are speaking of words that most
certainly DO offend many within the race in question. The fact
that YOU are not offended, does not make the word benign.
You cannot SPEAK for everyone. Which has been the entire
dialog here. You can only speak for YOUR OPINION. As
I can speak only for MY OPINION. And I find in my opinion
that racist slurs are meant to OFFEND. The fact that YOU
claim not to be offended... does NOT make the word suddenly
BECOME inoffensive.
><cuts>
>> >Would not our lives be boring without eccentrics? I think Desi should
>> >be cherished as such! You are a lucky group to have such a `character`
>> >and his input.
>> >
>> I find desi's presence here to be the most debilitating influence imaginable
>> to the interchange of ideas in respect to the DP. Of course, IMHO.
>> Nor am I the only one who has expressed such an opinion. The strange
>> thing is that many of those opinions have come from those who are
>> recognized as holding the same agenda regarding the DP as desi does.
>> Clearly, I don't wish him to EVER leave
>
>Did you read that Desi?
>
Oh... he's heard me say it before... desi is the "Freddy Kruger of abolition."
And him leaving would be a tremendous blow to retention in AADP.
I'd consider sending him a check each month JUST for him to stay here.
I need the sport for one thing.
>> ... since I feel he is one of the better
>> weapons for the side of the argument that I support. desi is to abolition
>> what Chernobyl was to _safe nuclear power_. What the Titanic was to
>> _safe ocean travel_. What bin Laden is to _peaceful Islam_. What
>> Sharon and Arafat are to _peace in the Middle East_. What Mt.
>> Vesuvius was to Pompeii. What Waterloo was to Napoleon. All
>> total disasters... all what desi is to abolition.
>
>> >> -------------------------------------------------
>
>> >> Huh??? Your point is? You presume that I CANNOT call it anti-Americanism,
>> >> because he used the words "US," or "United States"??
>> >
>> >My point is it is quite possible to be Anti-US while holding
>> >pro-American (as a whole) views. Very similar to being Anti-UK but
>> >pro-Europe for example.
>> >
>> No... it's not. Not in any of the context which desi provides. Nor in your
>> rather pathetic refusal to understand that when desi speaks of either the
>> U.S. or America, he is speaking of the United States of America.
>
>It is possible to be both Anti-US and Pro-American at one and the same
>time. You only need to be taken literally.
>
No... you only need to presume you can _play with words_ to make
a silly argument. And in your gut... you know that's what you're trying to do.
>> Which
>> is my concern. And when others criticize him, they are also speaking of
>> anti-U.S. as being synonymous with anti-American.
>>
>> >> >> >The US is not America. Never has been. Never will be.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Quite wrong... The OED itself recognizes that The United States of America
>> >> >> is referred to as America.
>> >> >
>> >> >I`m glad you like the OED and not the Webster!
>> >> >
>> >> >"America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
>> >> >consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
>> >> >the Isthmus of Panama"
>> >> >
>> >> >Thus the US is not, factually; historically, or geographically
>> >> >speaking "America": it is a part of America (and not even the main
>> >> >part of "North America" geographically speaking)
>> >> >
>> >> Rubbish... See the following on-line dictionary resources
>> >
>> ><cuts>
>> >
>> >I thought we had settled on the OED! You yoursen consider it "the
>> >DEFINITIVE
>> >arbiter of the English Language". I mysen am rather partial to it. And
>> >you say Desi likes it: wot more could we ask?
>> >
>> Actually, you dismissed the OED, and claimed you preferred something
>> else.
>
>Not so! Quote please.
>
That would be when you first encountered my use -- and you did NOT
dispute it at first, but claimed preference in another -- your words --
"I'm glad you like the OED and not the Webster!"
And you then went on to "quote" Webster. Apparently trying to
dismiss the OED.
But it seems that MY Webster's would more agree with me. Plus
a great variety of other respected definition resources I provided.
>Is "America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
>consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
>the Isthmus of Panama"
>not taken from the OED via yr link?
>
Yes... and "America" is ALSO the name of "The United States of America."
Words do not only have a singular meaning in most cases.
>> I am simply providing a VARIETY of respected resources providing
>> definitions in the English language, which ALL state that "America"
>> means "The United States of America."
>>
>> >I wasn`t being sarcastic. I quoted directly from yr link.
>> >
>> >> You are confusing "America," with "Americas"
>> >
>> >I`m not.
>> >
>> Of course you are.. and don't be so hardheaded about this.
>
>OED sez "America".
>
>> It is
>> the same as calling England -- the British Isles.
>
>England is not the British Isles. Anyone that thinks it is is insane.
>
Anyone who thinks that America CANNOT mean the United States of
America, is equally insane.
In America, many students are taught creationism. Neither your
European method or that in the United States has any validity.
There are EXACTLY SEVEN Continents on this planet. That is
by every reasonable definition. I have already provided resources
from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Encarta... and there is
agreement here... even from desi that there are SEVEN. North
America IS a Continent... South America IS a Continent. You
might as well claim that Adam first appeared six thousand years
ago, as argue that "America" is a continent.
In fact your own resource above, disputes what you now say---
This was your source above -- "consisting of the two continents of North
and South America."
>Why not go to the site? I don`t know how valid it is, but it`s very
>interesting.
>
I'm not interested in non-educational references. :-))
Quite true... thus it is accepted.
><cuts>
>> >> LOL... "They may hide from what they refuse to see. But they must
>> >> carry their denials with them." PV © copyright 2003.
>> >
>> >Don`t berate yoursen!
>> >
>> >If it`s any consolation the OED sez it`s a common error.
>> >
>> Actually, it doesn't. And you know that... but are rather hard-headed.
>> A common trait in Usenet. Since first you rather accepted the OED,
>> and offered your alternate reference.
>
>I quoted the OED from yr link. Go check if you don`t believe me! I
>offered no alternative.
>
>
>> >P.s. what`s desi done to you anyway?
>>
>> More like... what's he done to our species???
>
>Come on!
>
Please... let me just provide one comment from him --
"I would rather see the extinction of the human race, than allow one innocent to
be put to death by the state."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=87wvtkfeg2.fsf%40lievre.coughlan.fr
I think we're more advanced than the lemming.
>> desi can't "do" anything to me... because he is a functional illiterate.
>
>No need for petty name-calling!
>
ROTFLMAO. You are obviously unaware of the _petty name-calling_ provided
by desi to a great majority of the posters here. And as far as toward me...
calling HIM a _functional illiterate_ is PRAISE for him... compared to the
insults he has heaped on me. For example, I provided a TRIBUTE to Martin
Luther King Jr., on the day that the U.S. commemorates his birth - Jan 20,
of this year. I was the only one here who provided such a tribute..Here was the text
--------------------------------------------------------------
What would MLK say today? The 'dream'?? Realized 34 years after his
assassination? Does anyone think it has become reality? This is a day of
'RECOGNITION.' Not in platitudes to ourselves of 'how far we have
come.' But in the awareness of 'how far we have to go.'
This is a day to personally reflect on your individual contributions to
EQUALITY, or the lack thereof. Because only TRUE EQUALITY can
fulfill that dream. This is a day for inward contemplation. To paraphrase
Lincoln... and I hope not tritely.. "That from (this) honored
dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which (he) gave
the last full measure of devotion.."
This is a day to honor the dead... to Honor Martin Luther King, Jr.
The man, his principles, his dreams... and yes -- his memory as well.
But let's not forget he is MORE than a 'memory.' He embodies the
very principles which should guide our lives. Where will we be 34
years from today? Will the glass of prejudice and hate still be half-full,
or will we have finally emptied it? I certainly don't know, but I do know that
the answer lies in the future behavior of each and every one of us.
PV
-------------------------------------------------------------
desi responded to this post by offering these insults to me --
-------------------------------------------------------------
"You're recognised as the most inefficient, most inept, least
educated, most unsophisticated, most violent, least honest, most sexually
depraved poster that is currently posting to this newsgroup."
"In short, you're a disgusting, laughable prick."
"Martin Luther King Day is not for your kind, Scum. If it were not for you,
there would be no Martin Luther King Day, for the man himself would not
have been killed. _You_ bear his blood on your hands."
"His blood is on your hands, and on the hands of every white racist prick like
you." Preach to your own stunted kind as much as you wish,"
"you revolting, racist, murderer lover piece of shit."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now... where do you believe the _insult "functional illiterate" fits in with
those particular insults he directed toward me? And for me offering
NOTHING but a tribute to an AMERICAN civil rights leader. Not
even thinking of desi, as I posted it... but only thinking of racism in the
U.S.
PV
>
>yrs Neville
Honest Nev
> >Surely to hamper the free exchange of views is more damaging in the
> >long-run?
> >
> Rubbish... racist slurs offered here are not some academic examination
> of the force behind those slurs. They are MEANT to insult. Plain and
> simple. This is not Racial Slurs 101 -- a university course being taught
> in an academic atmosphere to examine the power contained in those
> words. The words are used here in an entirely different context,
> and cannot be defended as _not damaging_, because they are damaging.
> Clearly, I suspect that your use of that very offensive 'n' word, was simply
> to show you had the POWER to use it... which is exactly what I mean.
> You have USED it as an instrument of power.
I would not throw the word "nigger" at anybody lightly, if at all. I
would need to be severely provoked. I do reserve the right to use it
if I feel it appropriate. I am concerned with *freedom* not power.
> >I think you will find black people are killed by whites in Europe and
> >across the world. Of course the massacres in Rwanda and East-Timor
> >were ethnically motivated, but then this was not rascism cos it wasn`t
> >whites wot done it, eh?
> >
> I am not among those "Imperialist" Americans you speak of, who
> believes that Americans can solve all the problems in the world. I believe
> we should exert whatever efforts we can in those instances... but "charity
> certainly begins at home." And I must concern myself more with what I
> can PERSONALLY do to solve the problem of racism IN MY SOCIETY.
> Regardless of how little I can do as one person. Right here and now,
> represents part of that effort... educating YOU on racism in the U.S.
I feel I should point out that we are in an *international* debating
forum.
> >> I would be
> >> morally derelict in my personal opinion, were I to not speak out at
> >> least sometimes, when I see racist slurs
> >
> >If it`s a white person saying it. Otherwise yr not bothered, eh?
> >
> Don't be stupid. Once again, you are presuming that two wrongs can
> make a right... and I am concerned with what creates MORE violence
> in the U.S., which is White racism on Black Americans, more than the
> other way around.
Q When is a racist not a racist?
A When s/he is black.
This is yr logic, no?
> >> >> of those slurs. And use them to DIMINISH the power those slurs
> >> >> presume to hold over them. Whites do not have such an ability.
> >> >
> >> >Eh? Wots a honky? Is it only whites (in yr opinion) who have "no such
> >> >ability"? That sounds a bit, er.... racist.
> >> >
> >> Ah... yes... those racist roots are beginning to show. The word "honky"
> >> was developed for just what I am trying to explain to you. The Black
> >> hoping to take away the POWER contained in a racist slur. "honky"
> >> did not exist before those others, directed against Blacks, that we well
> >> know of.... that number in the dozens... and EXPRESSLY function to
> >> diminish the Black American.
> >
> >Look the US has it`s own look-out. To pretend that "white people"
> >(whover they are?!) invented racism is ridiculous.
> >
> What??? Sorry, sport... "White" people DID invent racism.
You are mistaken.
> And I'm White,
> and well aware of that. Only someone who operates from a White Power
> background could possibly make such a silly claim.
I am not from a "White Power background" and yet I make such a claim.
Incredible, no?
> When was the last
> time that Black Africans came to Europe looking for White Slaves?
The ancient Egyptians (black/african) had European (white) slaves, do
they count?
Of course the Romans had mainly white slaves, despite many
north-Africans serving in the legions, but perhaps that was before
"white people" invented racism?
Always remember "slavery existed in Africa even back into far ancient
times"
http://www.qx.net/jeff/afrolex/afrolaw.htm
> >> What does that mean? That racism is now ACCEPTABLE in Europe,
> >
> >Duplicity is less acceptable.
> >
> Rubbish. I can well accept duplicity...
This explains a lot.
> Shit... I see it here every day...more
> easily then I could EVER accept racism. You may feel otherwise... but that's
> simply repeating ground we've already been over... that racism is OPINION.
> I spent 26 years in Europe, and you will not convince me, IMHO, that
> duplicity is NOT alive and well on the Continent.
I never suggested it wasn`t.
> >> I see that as clearly your intention in arguing _free speech_.
> >> It seems you are only concerned with the _free speech_ of a racist.
> >
> >Not "only"!!
> >
> As long as you don't contend that I don't have the same _free
> speech_ as someone shouting out racist slurs, which was the
> original argument.
"Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the
concept of free-speech?" was my opening gambit, I believe.
> I see desi doing so... you presumed I could
> not claim I saw him doing so.
This presumption is not present in my argument as quoted above, as I
hope you understand.
> I had the impression that you
> DEFENDED him doing so.. and OPPOSED my commenting
> on him doing so. I found that as intending to limit MY
> _free speech_.
In that case I fear you were jumping at shadows.
> >> You have a
> >> _right_ to be a fucking KKK member, if that is your desire. What
> >> is not prohibited, is PERMITTED. White Power groups are all
> >> over the U.S., and operate within the law. But do not presume that I
> >> cannot bring ANYONE'S actions and words to the attention of others
> >> for THEM to see if they see what I see. Regardless of your idiotic
> >> claim that doing so is PC.
> >
> >The "PC" thing is a reference to the `only-white-people-can-be-racist`
> >shtick.
> >
> But I've never said that. Racism is of course... DEFINED quite differently
> than any belief it is only White on Black. But I concern myself with the
> realization that two wrongs do not make a right, and that White racism
> on Blacks, is a much more devastating phenomenon in the U.S. than any
> Black racism on Whites. It is rather strange to believe one should
> CONCENTRATE on Black racism on Whites, when such is MINUSCULE
> compared to White racism on Blacks. The ghetto and the workplace and
> the prisons demonstrate that very vividly in the U.S.
Racism is not confined to black/white relations. I should not have to
point this out to you.
Have you thought about joining the thought-police?
> >> >Is free-speech a concept you have yet to master?
> >> >
> >> Pardon me?? Who here is presuming to stifle MY free speech?
> >
> >No-one.
> >
> I'm sorry... but the very beginning of your entrance into this thread, seemed
> to imply that I could not comment on the racism I see in desi providing such
> racist slurs.
Wot?
"Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the
concept of free-speech?"
How to you divine such an implication?
> If I have a _right_ to comment, what is the purpose of your
> dialog, which I took as presuming I have no such right? Now if you presume
> I DO have such a right... then this dialog is essentially at an end... since
> that's been my only objective. To argue that I DO have such a _right_.
...Do you recognise a certain duplicity regards racism nowadays? was
my second question.
> >Pity you called him "anti-American", eh?
> >
> I wasn't the only one. If you wish to _play on words_, which would
> deny the substance... be my guest... it flows right off my back. desi IS
> anti-American... anti-US... anti-United States... anti-United States of
> America... all in my opinion. And in the opinion of some others here.
> And I've provided SUBSTANCE in his OWN WORDS to bolster
> that opinion. While you've played silly games with "America" and "The
> United States of America." But certainly have provided no SUBSTANCE
> which would deny such anti-all of the above.
Can Desi be anti-US without being anti-American? Answer: yes.
> >"Anti-US" does not equal "anti-American". Are Brazilians not
> >Americans?
> >
> Brazilians are more properly South Americans.
Using such logic Yankees are more properly "North Americans". They are
both Americans. I suggest you get over it.
> No one, other than
> some jerk who has some anti-U.S. feelings at the core, would claim
> that a Brazilian is an "American."
Are you taking the piss?
> >I felt I should put my cards on the table. Wot if I just hated all
> >"American Blacks" in Georgia? Would that be racist or not?
> >
> If you hated even ONE Black... BECAUSE he WAS Black... and
> not for some other personal reason unconnected to his BEING Black...
> you would be a racist. I'm astonished that I even have to explain
> such a very basic concept to you.
If a black bloke calls one other black a "nigger" (or a "wog" or
whatever) cos he is black, would he be a racist?
> >He `looks` like a racist?
>
> To me... HIS WORDS. Which is all I can SEE of desi. In Usenet
> HE IS HIS WORDS. And his WORDS make him "look" like
> a racist to me. This is definitely turning into some silly game you
> are trying to play... and it's sickening... because racism is NO
> GAME.
You realise some might find yr attitude insulting?
> >I only question yr assualt upon Desi. You call Desi a racist cos he is
> >white in effect.
> >
> Jesus... now you're proving yourself to be rather ill-informed of the
> past in this newsgroup. We have another poster here... dirtbag... who
> claims he is part-Black. To what extent I do not know. But I have
> called HIM a racist.
Presumably he is part-white?
> I certainly do not call desi a racist, simply because
> desi is White. I call him a racist ---- because of his WORDS...
> which are all I see of him. His WORDS are racist to me. And if he
> were Black I would STILL call him a racist, even if every comment
> he provided was a racist slur AGAINST his own race. Because
> his INTENTION is to gain power through those slurs. By trying to
> put down his own race.
I thought a black person would use such terms to `reduce their power`?
Brit
> >> is simply short for British subject. No more offensive than calling James -- Jim.
And yet "paki" is deemed offensive by some in the UK! I`m glad you do
not think it is offensive.
btw Isn`t "negro" Spanish for "black"?
Isn`t "niger" Latin for "black"?
Is "negro" offensive?
> >How does "paki" as a term differ from "brit", in yr opinion, assuming
> >you think they differ at all? Or "yid" for that matter!
> >
> I have no idea... since I would never use those terms. You seem to find
> pleasure in it.
Wot?
> If that term for the British _offends_ you (which I do not
> believe for one instant), I will not use it here. I would NEVER repeat a
> word that someone claims has offended them in a racial context. Now...
> the word STUPID... that word I throw about with abandon.
>
> >How does "frog" differ from "nigger"?
> >
> You really LIKE using that slur don't you? Gives you a _rush_?? See what I
> mean about POWER.
No? Are you drunk?
> As to the word 'frog,' I have said my wife is French.. See
> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/eupassport.jpg
> Since some here feel my anonymous posting might imply I lie. Her and her
> relatives laugh about that word... there is even a French Club in the U.S.
> that refers to itself on Le Page de Frog.
Well if they are not offended no-one else should be, eh?
<cuts>
> Which holds great power. So, do not even presume to compare
> those two... since the second is a word of POWER... while the
> first is a word of jest.
Maybe you should devote yr life to convincing them it *is* offensive!
> >> Why presume that you need to _control_ what I say?
> >
> >I make no such presumption.
> >
> It seems to have been the very core of the beginning of our dialog.
> What I felt was your presumption that I COULD NOT call desi a
> racist, through the examples of his words I provided.
I felt you should be reminded that he is entitled to say what he so
chooses. If he is factually incorrect by all means bring attention to
the fact.
> Now, if you
> say that in YOUR OPINION, he is not a racist... that is an entirely
> different approach than the one I perceived you were taking when
> you first commented. Which I felt was more on the order of stating
> that _I_ could not find desi a racist.
I think you will find such feelings were unfounded. Do you not think
Desi "deserves" free-speech? I have heard such silly notions regarding
free-speech put about before!
> >> Why not go to
> >> the source? If even I... a White American... am offended by his constant
> >> use of those racist slurs...
> >
> >On whose behalf? And why?
> >
> Pardon me??? ON MY OWN behalf. I don't need more than that,
> if you presume that I have _free speech_.
What "power" do they hold over you?
> >No term based on nationality/race would offend me.
> >
> Then why did you presume it would? Let me understand this.
> You CALL it a racist slur...
Did I? It was you who first used such terminology.
> but you are not OFFENDED by racist slurs directed at you.
No. As long as am able to use similar terms in retaliation. To be
denied the option of such terms would offend me to the very core.
> If this is true, then it has nothing to
> do with the dialog, since we are speaking of words that most
> certainly DO offend many within the race in question. The fact
> that YOU are not offended, does not make the word benign.
Equally the fact that some are offended does not make it malevolent.
<cuts>
> >It is possible to be both Anti-US and Pro-American at one and the same
> >time. You only need to be taken literally.
> >
> No... you only need to presume you can _play with words_ to make
> a silly argument. And in your gut... you know that's what you're trying to do.
I observe the very real distinction between the USA and America.
> >> Actually, you dismissed the OED, and claimed you preferred something
> >> else.
> >
> >Not so! Quote please.
> >
> That would be when you first encountered my use -- and you did NOT
> dispute it at first, but claimed preference in another -- your words --
>
> "I'm glad you like the OED and not the Webster!"
I am glad you like the OED. I find the Webster to be shit. Wot is the
problem?
> And you then went on to "quote" Webster. Apparently trying to
> dismiss the OED.
I dint Jim! (it it Jim? or Jake?). I quoted the OED entry from yr
link!! Go back and have a look if you don`t believe me!
> But it seems that MY Webster's would more agree with me. Plus
> a great variety of other respected definition resources I provided.
I`m sticking with the OED. As you have said: you and Desi prefer it
too.
> >Is "America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
> >consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
> >the Isthmus of Panama"
> >not taken from the OED via yr link?
> >
> Yes... and "America" is ALSO the name of "The United States of America."
> Words do not only have a singular meaning in most cases.
Which definition is cited first in the OED entry?
> >> It is
> >> the same as calling England -- the British Isles.
> >
> >England is not the British Isles. Anyone that thinks it is is insane.
> >
> Anyone who thinks that America CANNOT mean the United States of
> America, is equally insane.
Anyone who sez Brazilians are not Americans is off his fucking nut.
> >> Hardly... I can justify my usage through a variety of sources. I'd like
> >> to see the source that desi uses to presume there are six continents.
> >
> >"In Europe, many students are taught about six continents, where North
> >and South America is combined to form a single America. Thus, these
> >six continents are Africa, America, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, and
> >Europe."
> >http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcontinents.htm
> >
>
> In America, many students are taught creationism. Neither your
> European method or that in the United States has any validity.
Evolution has no validity?
> There are EXACTLY SEVEN Continents on this planet.
"There is no standard definition for the number of continents"
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcontinents.htm
> That is
> by every reasonable definition.
"Many geographers and scientists now refer to six continents, where
Europe and Asia are combined (since they're one solid landmass). Thus,
these six continents are Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Eurasia, North
America, and South America."
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcontinents.htm
> I have already provided resources
> from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Encarta... and there is
> agreement here... even from desi that there are SEVEN. North
> America IS a Continent... South America IS a Continent. You
> might as well claim that Adam first appeared six thousand years
> ago, as argue that "America" is a continent.
Explain how "America" is not a continent.
> In fact your own resource above, disputes what you now say---
> This was your source above -- "consisting of the two continents of North
> and South America."
I think you`ll find the source is quite candid: "There is no standard
definition for the number of continents".
You said: "I'd like to see the source that desi uses to presume there
are six continents". I was only showing you. I must say I do nat think
the site is inaccurate.
> >Why not go to the site? I don`t know how valid it is, but it`s very
> >interesting.
> >
> I'm not interested in non-educational references. :-))
You can take a horse to water.... ;-)
> >> I have seldom seen such slithering. If it is frequently used it is
> >> accepted when used as such. Or else it would be termed a corruption.
> >
> >It is not a corruption.
> >
> Quite true... thus it is accepted.
It is tolerated. It is not correct usage. Explain why no such
condition is placed before the first definition (or any other
*correct* definitions for that matter!)
Alas yr `only-white-people-are-racist` shtick is causing problems:
look up the Oldham or Bradford riots of a couple of years ago to see
what such notions have caused.
To say only white people are racist is in itsen a racist comment: why
not slap yr own wrist?
> Preach to your own stunted kind as much as you wish,"
> "you revolting, racist, murderer lover piece of shit."
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now... where do you believe the _insult "functional illiterate" fits in with
> those particular insults he directed toward me? And for me offering
> NOTHING but a tribute to an AMERICAN civil rights leader. Not
> even thinking of desi, as I posted it... but only thinking of racism in the
> U.S.
yrs Neville
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<1etl6v46oc0u7kpor...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >Surely to hamper the free exchange of views is more damaging in the
>> >long-run?
>> >
>> Rubbish... racist slurs offered here are not some academic examination
>> of the force behind those slurs. They are MEANT to insult. Plain and
>> simple. This is not Racial Slurs 101 -- a university course being taught
>> in an academic atmosphere to examine the power contained in those
>> words. The words are used here in an entirely different context,
>> and cannot be defended as _not damaging_, because they are damaging.
>> Clearly, I suspect that your use of that very offensive 'n' word, was simply
>> to show you had the POWER to use it... which is exactly what I mean.
>> You have USED it as an instrument of power.
>
>I would not throw the word "nigger" at anybody lightly, if at all. I
>would need to be severely provoked. I do reserve the right to use it
>if I feel it appropriate. I am concerned with *freedom* not power.
>
Don't be absurd... if you think that I believe your very dialog here does not
intend to express that "word" as an extension of YOUR POWER, to hold
control over another race, you are mistaken. This is my last post to your
comments, since it is obvious that you wish to use this thread as a FORUM
to express those racist slurs. You are plainly trying to see how many
times you can _get away_ with using that slur... And I'll have none of it.
Perhaps you can find some kindred spirits here or in other groups, who so
easily insult other races. You've used that racist slur over and over here,
ONLY to exhibit exactly what I've been speaking of. A demonstration
of your power over another race, through easily repeating that racist slur.
I could overlook it once, believing you simply wished to "name" a particular
epithet... but I now recognize that you are obsessed with the use of it...
and the power you feel when you use it. You have tried to connect such
racist slurs, with other much more benign words, which are seen as not
connected with POWER or hate toward another race even if looked at in
the extreme, so you can feel more _confident_ in expressing racist slurs. For
example, your mention of "Brit," which certainly has no POWER, since the
British have not been subjected to the racism other races have been
subjected to, and specifically what the Black race has been subjected to
in at least the last 500 years in historical terms.. That word can at MOST
be seen as an insult having nothing to do with race. Even if one is easily
offended; and not even that, if one recognizes it for what it actually is. It
has no POWER in respect to racism. At most, one would be more
_offended_, in being called an _imbecile_, and EVERYONE here has
been called that at one time or another. But the word you've just used...
is quite different. That you believe you can toss around that word so
easily, demonstrates that you either do not understand its power, or
DO understand its power and intend to demonstrate for everyone how
you would try to USE the power of that word, only to provide a racist
insult. I'm beginning to believe that the latter is true. I'll not be a party to
your pitiful attempts to _pretend_ that word has no racist power, just so
you might express that power here in this thread. It's part of the
_closet racism_, that I speak of. Save it for your White drinking buddies
in the pub. Since your very words have _made my case_.
You may have the *freedom* to use that word... but let me make it clear that
_I_ have the *freedom* to claim that using that word so easily is a symptom
of a racist. I cannot abide effete Machiavellians, fatuously arguing in defense of
racist epithets under the pretext of _freedom of speech_, while presuming that
no one can comment on such racist insults...regarding the harm contained in
those words. I see it most often as a disguise intended to express a presumed
superiority over other Men. I frequently see it in desi's comments. Which is
why I am NOT _cutting him some slack_.
>> >I think you will find black people are killed by whites in Europe and
>> >across the world. Of course the massacres in Rwanda and East-Timor
>> >were ethnically motivated, but then this was not rascism cos it wasn`t
>> >whites wot done it, eh?
>> >
>> I am not among those "Imperialist" Americans you speak of, who
>> believes that Americans can solve all the problems in the world. I believe
>> we should exert whatever efforts we can in those instances... but "charity
>> certainly begins at home." And I must concern myself more with what I
>> can PERSONALLY do to solve the problem of racism IN MY SOCIETY.
>> Regardless of how little I can do as one person. Right here and now,
>> represents part of that effort... educating YOU on racism in the U.S.
>
>I feel I should point out that we are in an *international* debating
>forum.
>
No... YOU believe it is such. I am speaking in respect to racism in America.
You would hope to IGNORE that racism, by comparing the words you've
used with 'brit.' There is no comparison. I am not in any *international*
debate with you. If that's what you wish, discuss it with someone else.
In any case, my dialog with you is at an end with my post here. Since I
detect a more sinister motive for the word you've posted. I am concerned
with racism in respect to Black Americans, since that leads to violence, which
leads to murder, which leads to the DP, which lead to the subject of this
newsgroup. I am concerned with the disgrace that insidiously damages the
moral fiber of my nation. I am concerned with the insults many Americans
(and desi, and now you), would direct toward my fellow Americans.
I am concerned with the ghettoization, and disenfranchisement of a race, which
I wish to see ENDED in America. And that *word* is part and parcel of
the attempt to ghettoize and disenfranchised Black Americans. As are a
great many other racist slurs directed against that race. Because if all that
were ended, the cycle of violence in America would end as well, even as
we became a more moral nation. If I am concerned with the involvement
of Europeans in racism in America, it is a concern that they, and you, are
FUCKING NAIVE, in presuming one can use those words, and not expect
them to have POWER. Or contrarily, as I believe desi does, they well
understand that power, and use those slurs to EXPRESS their presumed
power OVER Black Americans. After all, desi has claimed this is _his
newsgroup_, so it would seem natural that his use of those slurs, is a call
for other members to do likewise, and you seem to be agreeing with that.
This is my main concern in desi's racist comments that I have remarked
upon.
Now there have been some he has directed towards Arabs, as well. But
my concern with that is mainly that he tries to attribute those slurs to me,
while he is only lying when he does so. I respect all races. There are
only some PEOPLE who disgust me. Unlike desi... I do not call on
any group to treat another group as the domestic cat treats the sparrow.
>> >> I would be
>> >> morally derelict in my personal opinion, were I to not speak out at
>> >> least sometimes, when I see racist slurs
>> >
>> >If it`s a white person saying it. Otherwise yr not bothered, eh?
>> >
>> Don't be stupid. Once again, you are presuming that two wrongs can
>> make a right... and I am concerned with what creates MORE violence
>> in the U.S., which is White racism on Black Americans, more than the
>> other way around.
>
>Q When is a racist not a racist?
>A When s/he is black.
>
>This is yr logic, no?
>
No... it's NOT my logic...you certainly have a problem comprehending English.
In any comparative analysis, Black racism on Whites is generally a REACTION
to White racism on Blacks. A feedback cycle which begins with what is
obvious to everyone. Does that make it RIGHT? Of course not. But it is
not the disgraceful stain that White racism on Blacks represents in America.
Nor is it anywhere near as responsible for the cycle of violence.
My entire dialog here, which has led to a few different threads, began with
a Jan 20 tribute I offered to Martin Luther King, Jr. On an AMERICAN holiday
which commemorates his birth. His meaning and purpose are what I spoke of...
the PASSIVE methods of Gandhi and others to end that cycle. Because many
ACTIVE methods can go out of control. Violence leading to more violence.
That is not to say that some active methods cannot achieve results, it is just that
they often can more easily create even greater dangerous reactions. The cycle
continuing. Racial slurs by their very existence, do nothing to end that cycle.
And certainly contribute to the perpetuation of it.
My tribute did not speak of or to Europeans in any way... it was to my fellow
countrymen about my country. Expressing future introspection by my countrymen.
But look who stuck his racist nose in it... and presumed to call ME a racist, for
expressing a comment direct toward AMERICANS which was ANTI-RACIST
in content. A EUROPEAN... desi. Someone I have recognized, for over
two and a half-years here, who is a_closet racist_ of the worst kind... that
same effete pseudo-intellectual _closet racist_ I spoke of.
>> >> >> of those slurs. And use them to DIMINISH the power those slurs
>> >> >> presume to hold over them. Whites do not have such an ability.
>> >> >
>> >> >Eh? Wots a honky? Is it only whites (in yr opinion) who have "no such
>> >> >ability"? That sounds a bit, er.... racist.
>> >> >
>> >> Ah... yes... those racist roots are beginning to show. The word "honky"
>> >> was developed for just what I am trying to explain to you. The Black
>> >> hoping to take away the POWER contained in a racist slur. "honky"
>> >> did not exist before those others, directed against Blacks, that we well
>> >> know of.... that number in the dozens... and EXPRESSLY function to
>> >> diminish the Black American.
>> >
>> >Look the US has it`s own look-out. To pretend that "white people"
>> >(whover they are?!) invented racism is ridiculous.
>> >
>> What??? Sorry, sport... "White" people DID invent racism.
>
>You are mistaken.
>
LOL. Yeah.. it was those _Venusian invaders_ who did it.
>> And I'm White,
>> and well aware of that. Only someone who operates from a White Power
>> background could possibly make such a silly claim.
>
>I am not from a "White Power background" and yet I make such a claim.
>Incredible, no?
>
Naive....yes. Pompous... yes. Arrogant... yes. Unbelievable... yes.
>> When was the last
>> time that Black Africans came to Europe looking for White Slaves?
>
>The ancient Egyptians (black/african) had European (white) slaves, do
>they count?
>
No... actually they don't count. Slavery was around when man first
emerged from the caves. Are you intent on asserting that racism wasn't
evidenced when Blacks were exported from Africa as slaves, in a most
methodical and mechanical operation? And we are certainly speaking
of the racism that exists TODAY.
>Of course the Romans had mainly white slaves, despite many
>north-Africans serving in the legions, but perhaps that was before
>"white people" invented racism?
>
I can see your intention is to _justify_ both racism and slavery. I'll have
no further part of it.
>Always remember "slavery existed in Africa even back into far ancient
>times"
>http://www.qx.net/jeff/afrolex/afrolaw.htm
And you seem to be trying to _bring it back_.
>
>> >> What does that mean? That racism is now ACCEPTABLE in Europe,
>> >
>> >Duplicity is less acceptable.
>> >
>> Rubbish. I can well accept duplicity...
>
>This explains a lot.
>
Yes... it does.. since you seem to prefer accepting racism.
>> Shit... I see it here every day...more
>> easily then I could EVER accept racism. You may feel otherwise... but that's
>> simply repeating ground we've already been over... that racism is OPINION.
>> I spent 26 years in Europe, and you will not convince me, IMHO, that
>> duplicity is NOT alive and well on the Continent.
>
>I never suggested it wasn`t.
>
I never said you suggest it wasn't. I was speaking of what _I_ see, and what
_I_ accept.
>> >> I see that as clearly your intention in arguing _free speech_.
>> >> It seems you are only concerned with the _free speech_ of a racist.
>> >
>> >Not "only"!!
>> >
>> As long as you don't contend that I don't have the same _free
>> speech_ as someone shouting out racist slurs, which was the
>> original argument.
>
>"Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the
>concept of free-speech?" was my opening gambit, I believe.
>
And I've never denied that a _freedom to make an ass of yourself_ is
not enshrined in that concept as well. Nor can MY FREEDOM to
comment on anyone doing so be infringed upon. Which I believe
you were trying to do, in respect to YOU saying "I think you should
cut desi some slack." Isn't that presuming that I don't have the
similar freedom that you presume to be speaking of? Why
SHOULD I....cut him some slack.. if I have that same freedom??
Why didn't you ask desi to "cut US some slack" in respect to providing
those racist comments? Oh yeah... it's his _freedom of speech_ to
be a racist, while I must cut that racist some slack.
>> I see desi doing so... you presumed I could
>> not claim I saw him doing so.
>
>This presumption is not present in my argument as quoted above, as I
>hope you understand.
>
Of course it was... at the VERY BEGINNING of this dialog. Your
stated purpose was to _cut desi some slack_, by presuming I should
shut up about what I see as his racist comments.
>> I had the impression that you
>> DEFENDED him doing so.. and OPPOSED my commenting
>> on him doing so. I found that as intending to limit MY
>> _free speech_.
>
>In that case I fear you were jumping at shadows.
>
LOL... Why are you POSTING to me? What started it? Well... what
started it, was you believed desi should have the _freedom_ to make
comments that I see as racist... and I should cut that ol' racist some
slack... and restrict MY FREEDOM to make such an observation.
>> >> You have a
>> >> _right_ to be a fucking KKK member, if that is your desire. What
>> >> is not prohibited, is PERMITTED. White Power groups are all
>> >> over the U.S., and operate within the law. But do not presume that I
>> >> cannot bring ANYONE'S actions and words to the attention of others
>> >> for THEM to see if they see what I see. Regardless of your idiotic
>> >> claim that doing so is PC.
>> >
>> >The "PC" thing is a reference to the `only-white-people-can-be-racist`
>> >shtick.
>> >
>> But I've never said that. Racism is of course... DEFINED quite differently
>> than any belief it is only White on Black. But I concern myself with the
>> realization that two wrongs do not make a right, and that White racism
>> on Blacks, is a much more devastating phenomenon in the U.S. than any
>> Black racism on Whites. It is rather strange to believe one should
>> CONCENTRATE on Black racism on Whites, when such is MINUSCULE
>> compared to White racism on Blacks. The ghetto and the workplace and
>> the prisons demonstrate that very vividly in the U.S.
>
>Racism is not confined to black/white relations. I should not have to
>point this out to you.
>
Jesus... can you possible READ MY WORDS??? I do not say it is
CONFINED to one aspect... I say that in the two sides... there is
the one aspect which is much more devastating in America, than the other.
You are not pointing out anything to me that I have not already recognized.
But if I see a penny on the ground, and a dollar... you can bet that I
will reach for the dollar first. After I spend that, I may go back and
look for that penny.
LOL... another one suffering from eisoptrophobia (look it up,
sport). Actually... EVERY post of desi's that I provide contained
WORDS, which SYMBOLIZE THOUGHTS that we express here.
And his WORDS, symbolize racist thoughts in my view. Or do you
believe _my view_ is not an expression of the _free speech_ you speak
of? Perhaps you believe that _free speech_ ONLY applies to the racist...
and not to the one who might detect racism in another.
>> >> >Is free-speech a concept you have yet to master?
>> >> >
>> >> Pardon me?? Who here is presuming to stifle MY free speech?
>> >
>> >No-one.
>> >
>> I'm sorry... but the very beginning of your entrance into this thread, seemed
>> to imply that I could not comment on the racism I see in desi providing such
>> racist slurs.
>
>Wot?
>
You read me.
>"Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the
>concept of free-speech?"
>
There is nothing enshrined that says I should "cut desi some slack,"
by limiting MY FREE SPEECH.
>How to you divine such an implication?
>
Umm... that would be your words "I think you should cut desi some slack."
It would seem that you view _free speech_ as only applicable to racists.
>> If I have a _right_ to comment, what is the purpose of your
>> dialog, which I took as presuming I have no such right? Now if you presume
>> I DO have such a right... then this dialog is essentially at an end... since
>> that's been my only objective. To argue that I DO have such a _right_.
>
>...Do you recognise a certain duplicity regards racism nowadays? was
>my second question.
>
I recognize duplicity in your posting style here. Are you admitting to something?
>> >Pity you called him "anti-American", eh?
>> >
>> I wasn't the only one. If you wish to _play on words_, which would
>> deny the substance... be my guest... it flows right off my back. desi IS
>> anti-American... anti-US... anti-United States... anti-United States of
>> America... all in my opinion. And in the opinion of some others here.
>> And I've provided SUBSTANCE in his OWN WORDS to bolster
>> that opinion. While you've played silly games with "America" and "The
>> United States of America." But certainly have provided no SUBSTANCE
>> which would deny such anti-all of the above.
>
>Can Desi be anti-US without being anti-American? Answer: yes.
>
Actually... NO. He could be called anti-American, if he was anti_Canadian,
even using your convoluted argument that the U.S. is not America. But
a Canadian is NOT "American." Canada is another country in North America.
While an "American" is more correctly identified as a citizen of the U.S,
and a "Canadian" is more correctly identified as a citizen of Canada.
>> >"Anti-US" does not equal "anti-American". Are Brazilians not
>> >Americans?
>> >
>> Brazilians are more properly South Americans.
>
>Using such logic Yankees are more properly "North Americans". They are
>both Americans. I suggest you get over it.
>
I've been over it... you seem to be the one obsessed by it. Since so many
posters here recognize what they MEAN when they say anti-American, and
you seem to be dictating to THEM. One has only to do a search in google
on the term anti-American, and find how often it is used in respected journals,
and publications as referring to comments which reflect a negative feeling
toward the U.S. Simply looking at the Guardian, finds that use in the very
first search -- see
url:http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,769100,00.html
I believe YOU are the one who is "unable to get over it."
>> No one, other than
>> some jerk who has some anti-U.S. feelings at the core, would claim
>> that a Brazilian is an "American."
>
>Are you taking the piss?
>
It's always been a _play on words_ with you. A Brazilian IS of course
a member of a nation on one of the Americas. Namely South America.
>> >I felt I should put my cards on the table. Wot if I just hated all
>> >"American Blacks" in Georgia? Would that be racist or not?
>> >
>> If you hated even ONE Black... BECAUSE he WAS Black... and
>> not for some other personal reason unconnected to his BEING Black...
>> you would be a racist. I'm astonished that I even have to explain
>> such a very basic concept to you.
>
>If a black bloke calls one other black a "nigger" (or a "wog" or
>whatever) cos he is black, would he be a racist?
>
See how easily you try to express YOUR POWER?? I believe that I
now see a more diabolical reason that you have engaged me in arguing that
_even racists have free speech_. In any case, HOW he uses it determines
the power it holds. He would only have expressed it as a racist, if he
meant to USE IT for power. Between Black friends it is said to try and
NEUTRALIZE the power in that word. To inoculate against the power.
But a Black CAN certainly USE it in another manner against a Black in a
totally racist meaning, even though he is also Black.
>> >He `looks` like a racist?
>>
>> To me... HIS WORDS. Which is all I can SEE of desi. In Usenet
>> HE IS HIS WORDS. And his WORDS make him "look" like
>> a racist to me. This is definitely turning into some silly game you
>> are trying to play... and it's sickening... because racism is NO
>> GAME.
>
>You realise some might find yr attitude insulting?
>
Do you realize I don't care? When I see racism, I would be morally
irresponsible not to comment that I see it. What's your excuse???
Since your argument seems to me to be that I should ==>cut racists
some slack when I see them.
>> >I only question yr assualt upon Desi. You call Desi a racist cos he is
>> >white in effect.
>> >
>> Jesus... now you're proving yourself to be rather ill-informed of the
>> past in this newsgroup. We have another poster here... dirtbag... who
>> claims he is part-Black. To what extent I do not know. But I have
>> called HIM a racist.
>
>Presumably he is part-white?
>
Well, going back far enough we are all of one race... the human race.
Unfortunately, there are many who do not see it in those terms.
>> I certainly do not call desi a racist, simply because
>> desi is White. I call him a racist ---- because of his WORDS...
>> which are all I see of him. His WORDS are racist to me. And if he
>> were Black I would STILL call him a racist, even if every comment
>> he provided was a racist slur AGAINST his own race. Because
>> his INTENTION is to gain power through those slurs. By trying to
>> put down his own race.
>
>I thought a black person would use such terms to `reduce their power`?
>
No... it's in the USE that it contains its power. Blacks can certainly use
those slurs, to gain power over fellow Blacks, and even over Whites, by
presuming that others HAVE expressed those racial slurs. Such as
Black Power movement tirades. But Blacks can do something that
Whites cannot do, except in truly academic studies OF THE POWER in
those slurs -- Blacks among Black friends can try to dilute the power in
those slurs, by using them against each other to make them seem more
trivial in content, fully realizing they are not. Trying to immunize themselves
against when they are used with the intent from others to exert that power.
That certainly does not imply they cannot be used by Blacks in other
contexts to assert power through their use.
>
> Brit
>> >> is simply short for British subject. No more offensive than calling James -- Jim.
>
>And yet "paki" is deemed offensive by some in the UK! I`m glad you do
>not think it is offensive.
>
I didn't say that.
>btw Isn`t "negro" Spanish for "black"?
>Isn`t "niger" Latin for "black"?
>
>Is "negro" offensive?
>
Oh, yes... it certainly is, when used in respect to a Black, since it harkens back
to slavery. It's about as offensive as it comes. It was not always seen that
way to Whites... but the REASON that it passed from usage was that it
was offensive to Blacks. American Blacks are STILL _searching_ for a word
that would identify their race. Some might even find my usage of "Black" to
be offensive. But as long as I keep it contextually as "White" and "Black,"
I would hope that it is understood as not offensive in any way. But I do
not deny American Blacks sensitivity over what name is applied to reference
them, simply BECAUSE so many names having offensive characteristics
have been applied toward them in the past. I feel the term BLACK POWER
has some very positive and powerful connotations that I support. As with every
philosophy it also holds the danger of being over zealously applied in less than
passive usage. Any _violent_ meaning to the word should be totally rejected
by both Whites and Blacks. But the attainment of Black Power within the
U.S. social structure is something I fully support.
>> >How does "paki" as a term differ from "brit", in yr opinion, assuming
>> >you think they differ at all? Or "yid" for that matter!
>> >
>> I have no idea... since I would never use those terms. You seem to find
>> pleasure in it.
>
>Wot?
>
Try examining your words. You certainly are not posting in euphemisms.
I believe you derive a bit of pleasure in posting them... repeatedly. That's
an expression of power, IMHO.
>> If that term for the British _offends_ you (which I do not
>> believe for one instant), I will not use it here. I would NEVER repeat a
>> word that someone claims has offended them in a racial context. Now...
>> the word STUPID... that word I throw about with abandon.
>>
>> >How does "frog" differ from "nigger"?
>> >
>> You really LIKE using that slur don't you? Gives you a _rush_?? See what I
>> mean about POWER.
>
>No? Are you drunk?
>
Oh, gee... I'm shattered... an insult... how typical. Just think.. in all my years
posting to Usenet... FINALLY... my first insult.
>> As to the word 'frog,' I have said my wife is French.. See
>> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/eupassport.jpg
>> Since some here feel my anonymous posting might imply I lie. Her and her
>> relatives laugh about that word... there is even a French Club in the U.S.
>> that refers to itself on Le Page de Frog.
>
>Well if they are not offended no-one else should be, eh?
>
I didn't say that. I find the word does not intend to convey a sense
of POWER. Someone French might see it as an insult, if they were
a total stranger to the person calling them a "frog," but that certainly
doesn't convey that sense of presuming power over the other. At
worst... it could perhaps be seen as calling the other, "stupid." If they
presumed to TAKE IT as an insult. Which is certainly an insult, but
has no racial significance in the sense of POWER.
><cuts>
>
>> Which holds great power. So, do not even presume to compare
>> those two... since the second is a word of POWER... while the
>> first is a word of jest.
>
>Maybe you should devote yr life to convincing them it *is* offensive!
>
Maybe you should learn the power that is contained in racist slurs.
It's certainly something that seems to be missing from your intellect.
>> >> Why presume that you need to _control_ what I say?
>> >
>> >I make no such presumption.
>> >
>> It seems to have been the very core of the beginning of our dialog.
>> What I felt was your presumption that I COULD NOT call desi a
>> racist, through the examples of his words I provided.
>
>I felt you should be reminded that he is entitled to say what he so
>chooses. If he is factually incorrect by all means bring attention to
>the fact.
>
While totally ignoring the fact that I enjoy those same privileges.
This has little to do with FACT... although desi is certainly a liar,
and has used many of those racist slurs to presume they come from
others, when they do not. This has more to do with our own moral
character... and our _right_ to speak out against what we see as
racism. You seem to be supporting the fact that a racist can
enjoy _freedom of speech_, but you find it troubling when someone
uses that same _freedom of speech_ to denounce the racism he
sees. Let me be clear about this... my comments in this thread,
reflect generally on White on Black racism in America. Because
it speaks to the issue of this group. It leads to violence, as demonstrated
by our crime statistics, it leads to murder, as demonstrated by
our murder statistics, and it leads to the DP because of those
greater number of murders. And the DP is what this group is
supposedly about. But in a larger framework --- Racism... makes
a human less than he can be. Not only the one that is the target of
this racism.. but the one who draws the bow and shoots the arrow
as well. And racist slurs, certainly form a part of racism itself.
>> Now, if you
>> say that in YOUR OPINION, he is not a racist... that is an entirely
>> different approach than the one I perceived you were taking when
>> you first commented. Which I felt was more on the order of stating
>> that _I_ could not find desi a racist.
>
>I think you will find such feelings were unfounded. Do you not think
>Desi "deserves" free-speech? I have heard such silly notions regarding
>free-speech put about before!
>
WHERE have I ever said that desi does not deserve free speech? This
has been an absurd dialog with you. Since all you seem to be doing is
pronouncing that desi has such free speech, but I must "cut desi some
slack." Thank you kindly, but I have such free speech myself. I find
desi to be offensive... but I'd never say he can't BE offensive. Jesus...
where would we be here, if we didn't have _offensive desi_ to spank,
and bitch-slap over and over in this newsgroup? I deplore racist slurs,
and would prefer that he stopped providing them... but his _freedom_
to provide them is unquestioned. desi has never been concerned with
such aspects as humility, or embarrassment, or decency, or apology,
or shame, or remorse, or guilt. Thus, it's essentially my job, using MY
free speech, to express those emotions FOR HIM. To the members
of this group.
>> >> Why not go to
>> >> the source? If even I... a White American... am offended by his constant
>> >> use of those racist slurs...
>> >
>> >On whose behalf? And why?
>> >
>> Pardon me??? ON MY OWN behalf. I don't need more than that,
>> if you presume that I have _free speech_.
>
>What "power" do they hold over you?
>
They hold power over some members of MY SPECIES. Which should concern
YOU... but apparently does not.
>> >No term based on nationality/race would offend me.
>> >
>> Then why did you presume it would? Let me understand this.
>> You CALL it a racist slur...
>
>Did I? It was you who first used such terminology.
>
So you DON'T find those words to be racist slurs. I've learned more
about you, in those few words... then I really care to know.
>> but you are not OFFENDED by racist slurs directed at you.
>
>No. As long as am able to use similar terms in retaliation. To be
>denied the option of such terms would offend me to the very core.
>
Where has anyone HERE used a racist slur against YOU? While
YOU'VE used a bunch of them. Who essentially are you
_retaliating_ against?
>> If this is true, then it has nothing to
>> do with the dialog, since we are speaking of words that most
>> certainly DO offend many within the race in question. The fact
>> that YOU are not offended, does not make the word benign.
>
>Equally the fact that some are offended does not make it malevolent.
>
Oh my word... cue huge sigh of pity from PV toward ignorance.
Your comment is analogous to saying that because you only offended
the one you murdered, it cannot be considered malevolent.
><cuts>
>> >It is possible to be both Anti-US and Pro-American at one and the same
>> >time. You only need to be taken literally.
>> >
>> No... you only need to presume you can _play with words_ to make
>> a silly argument. And in your gut... you know that's what you're trying to do.
>
>I observe the very real distinction between the USA and America.
>
No, all you've done is introduced some banal, exiguous comment which almost appears
to me you have some Freudian penis envy problem with the fact that the USA is
referred to as America.
>> >> Actually, you dismissed the OED, and claimed you preferred something
>> >> else.
>> >
>> >Not so! Quote please.
>> >
>> That would be when you first encountered my use -- and you did NOT
>> dispute it at first, but claimed preference in another -- your words --
>>
>> "I'm glad you like the OED and not the Webster!"
>
>I am glad you like the OED. I find the Webster to be shit. Wot is the
>problem?
>
I've never had _a problem_. The U.S. and America are words that are
synonymous to me, and to the recognized and respected sources I've
provided. It seems as if it's your problem.
>> And you then went on to "quote" Webster. Apparently trying to
>> dismiss the OED.
>
>I dint Jim! (it it Jim? or Jake?). I quoted the OED entry from yr
>link!! Go back and have a look if you don`t believe me!
>
Then you agreed that it wasn't a corruption... which means it is an
accepted usage.
>> But it seems that MY Webster's would more agree with me. Plus
>> a great variety of other respected definition resources I provided.
>
>I`m sticking with the OED. As you have said: you and Desi prefer it
>too.
>
So, we're in agreement... the United States of America and America
are synonymous.
>> >Is "America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
>> >consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
>> >the Isthmus of Panama"
>> >not taken from the OED via yr link?
>> >
>> Yes... and "America" is ALSO the name of "The United States of America."
>> Words do not only have a singular meaning in most cases.
>
>Which definition is cited first in the OED entry?
>
Repeating -- Words do not only have a singular meaning in most cases.
>> >> It is
>> >> the same as calling England -- the British Isles.
>> >
>> >England is not the British Isles. Anyone that thinks it is is insane.
>> >
>> Anyone who thinks that America CANNOT mean the United States of
>> America, is equally insane.
>
>Anyone who sez Brazilians are not Americans is off his fucking nut.
>
Brazilians are citizens of a nation in the Americas. As such they can
be _called_ Americans. If one wishes to look stupid... anything is
possible. Calling a Brazilian an "American" will either elicit a roar
of laughter from him, or a punch in the jaw from him, depending upon
how he feels about "Americans."
>> >> Hardly... I can justify my usage through a variety of sources. I'd like
>> >> to see the source that desi uses to presume there are six continents.
>> >
>> >"In Europe, many students are taught about six continents, where North
>> >and South America is combined to form a single America. Thus, these
>> >six continents are Africa, America, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, and
>> >Europe."
>> >http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcontinents.htm
>> >
>>
>> In America, many students are taught creationism. Neither your
>> European method or that in the United States has any validity.
>
>Evolution has no validity?
>
Ummm... read my words. Creationism has no validity. Many students
in the U.S. are _taught_ it, but it has no validity. Evolution is a FACT,
regardless of how some would argue that it's the "Evolutionary
Theory."
>> There are EXACTLY SEVEN Continents on this planet.
>
>"There is no standard definition for the number of continents"
>http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcontinents.htm
>
ROTFLMAO --
http://www.bartleby.com/65/as/Asia.html
"World's largest Continent"
http://www.bartleby.com/65/af/Africa.html
"Second Largest Continent"
url:http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/NAmer.html
"Third largest Continent"
url:http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/SthAmer.html
"Fourth largest Continent"
http://www.bartleby.com/65/an/Antarctica.html
"The fifth largest Continent"
http://www.bartleby.com/65/eu/Europe.html
"6th largest Continent"
http://www.bartleby.com/65/au/Australi.html
"smallest Continent"
>> That is
>> by every reasonable definition.
>
>"Many geographers and scientists now refer to six continents, where
>Europe and Asia are combined (since they're one solid landmass). Thus,
>these six continents are Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Eurasia, North
>America, and South America."
>http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcontinents.htm
>
ROTFLMAO... Tell desi that France is in Eurasia.
>> I have already provided resources
>> from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Encarta... and there is
>> agreement here... even from desi that there are SEVEN. North
>> America IS a Continent... South America IS a Continent. You
>> might as well claim that Adam first appeared six thousand years
>> ago, as argue that "America" is a continent.
>
>Explain how "America" is not a continent.
>
Umm... that is because there is BOTH North America, and South
America. Each being Continents.
>> In fact your own resource above, disputes what you now say---
>> This was your source above -- "consisting of the two continents of North
>> and South America."
>
>I think you`ll find the source is quite candid: "There is no standard
>definition for the number of continents".
>
But there is... the rest is all rubbish. Every RESPECTED resource presumes
that the geographical designations I've provided above are what are recognized
as the Continents. I think you'll find that "Matt Rosenberg" is not quite as
respected as Bartleby, or Britannica, or Encarta, or The National Geographic.
>You said: "I'd like to see the source that desi uses to presume there
>are six continents". I was only showing you. I must say I do nat think
>the site is inaccurate.
>
Inasmuch as it doesn't know what it is talking about, it could hardly
be termed anything else. There is no confusion as to the number of
Continents.
>> >Why not go to the site? I don`t know how valid it is, but it`s very
>> >interesting.
>> >
>> I'm not interested in non-educational references. :-))
>
>You can take a horse to water.... ;-)
>
But he will not drink from a poisoned well.
>> >> I have seldom seen such slithering. If it is frequently used it is
>> >> accepted when used as such. Or else it would be termed a corruption.
>> >
>> >It is not a corruption.
>> >
>> Quite true... thus it is accepted.
>
>It is tolerated. It is not correct usage. Explain why no such
>condition is placed before the first definition (or any other
>*correct* definitions for that matter!)
>
LOL... It's "tolerated," but not correct. Can you hear yourself?
You're becoming a bore... and like others attempting to put words into my
posts that I did not say. I did not say "only-white-people-are racist."
But that kind of trying to put those words in my mouth would seem to
imply that you're saying _white-people-are-not-racist_. Need I remind
you of who makes claims such as that?
>To say only white people are racist is in itsen a racist comment: why
>not slap yr own wrist?
>
But I didn't say that... thus you should slap your own wrist. And in
the end... I believe I detect some racism in respect to White on Black
racism from you..
>> Preach to your own stunted kind as much as you wish,"
>> "you revolting, racist, murderer lover piece of shit."
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Now... where do you believe the _insult "functional illiterate" fits in with
>> those particular insults he directed toward me? And for me offering
>> NOTHING but a tribute to an AMERICAN civil rights leader. Not
>> even thinking of desi, as I posted it... but only thinking of racism in the
>> U.S.
>
PV
>yrs Neville
Cerberus
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
: On 9 Mar 2003 15:20:16 -0800, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
wrote:
:
: >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:<1etl6v46oc0u7kpor...@4ax.com>...
{44 kbs snipped. Is that a record PV?}
To PV:
Have to agree with what you had to say PV, although surely there has to be a
shorter way to the point.
To Honest Nev:
Get fucked you racist cunt. Begone Oh evil one.
--
WooF w00f WooF
Exador
Cerberus <Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:3e6d8...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:eeup6vsae76j866vh...@4ax.com...
> : On 9 Mar 2003 15:20:16 -0800, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
> wrote:
> :
> : >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:<1etl6v46oc0u7kpor...@4ax.com>...
>
> {44 kbs snipped. Is that a record PV?}
Shit no. This is a mere fireside chat compared to some of the
bandwidth-busting spittle spraying he's regaled us with in the past.
> To PV:
>
> Have to agree with what you had to say PV, although surely there has to be
a
> shorter way to the point.
PV's problem is that all that spiitle makes it hard to see the keyboard, so
most of HIS POST will be GARBLE!!!!!! Of course, that makes it hard to
distinguish from the rest of his post, which will be garble.
> To Honest Nev:
>
> Get fucked you racist cunt. Begone Oh evil one.
Don't talk to Nev, he can't read it anyway; his monitor only displays white.
Cheers,
Craig
> --
> WooF w00f WooF
>
>
Cerberus
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PFfba.184$TZ.1...@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
:
: Cerberus <Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
: news:3e6d8...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
: >
: > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
: > news:eeup6vsae76j866vh...@4ax.com...
: > : On 9 Mar 2003 15:20:16 -0800, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
: > wrote:
: > :
: > : >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
: > news:<1etl6v46oc0u7kpor...@4ax.com>...
: >
: > {44 kbs snipped. Is that a record PV?}
:
: Shit no. This is a mere fireside chat compared to some of the
: bandwidth-busting spittle spraying he's regaled us with in the past.
:
: > To PV:
: >
: > Have to agree with what you had to say PV, although surely there has to
be
: a
: > shorter way to the point.
:
: PV's problem is that all that spiitle makes it hard to see the keyboard,
so
: most of HIS POST will be GARBLE!!!!!! Of course, that makes it hard to
: distinguish from the rest of his post, which will be garble.
O.K the old GARBLE and garble trick. I should have known.
:
: > To Honest Nev:
: >
: > Get fucked you racist cunt. Begone Oh evil one.
:
: Don't talk to Nev, he can't read it anyway; his monitor only displays
white.
Actually I was hoping that I could get his attention. My IT people have
managed to isolate the trojan that dirtdog sent me last week. I was going to
pass it on to him. I guess even Nev is not dumb enough to converse with me
now. Or is he?
--
WooF w00f WooF
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:eeup6vsae76j866vh...@4ax.com...
>: On 9 Mar 2003 15:20:16 -0800, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
>wrote:
>:
>: >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:<1etl6v46oc0u7kpor...@4ax.com>...
>
>{44 kbs snipped. Is that a record PV?}
>
Ulpppp. .. nope... I believe I once posted 55 K to a peter post. :-)
PV
Just passing by
> For
> example, your mention of "Brit," which certainly has no POWER, since the
> British have not been subjected to the racism other races have been
> subjected to, and specifically what the Black race has been subjected to
> in at least the last 500 years in historical terms.. That word can at MOST
> be seen as an insult having nothing to do with race.
It isn't any kind of insult. The word "Brit" is not in the slightest
bit offensive to anyone. I defy anybody to find anyone from Britain
who would be offended by that word. Even words like "limey" and "pom"
whilst possibly offensive to some over-sensitive individuals, are, in
my opinion, quite harmless and even amusing.
Just passing by
> Further, I am not sure how much you really know about desi. He is certainly
> bigoted against members of the U.K., as well as Americans.
No he isn't. He holds strong views against the British class system
and on Britain's history in Ireland. He is occasionally inaccurate,
such as when suggesting that only England (rather than all of Britain)
has a soccer hooligan problem (Cardiff City's notoriously violent fans
spring to mind here), but I have never seen him express any bigotry
towards ordinary British people.
JIGSAW1695
>Message-id: <qoa1k-0...@zeouane.org>
>
<<Snipped>>
>I am incapable of feeling, or expressing bigotry towards anyone,
>irrespective of their nationality. You have quite correctly sensed this.
>
-
>Des The Deathie Spanker
===============================
ROTFLMAO!!!
Dezi you are more of a bigot that anyone on this NG.
Honest Nev
> >I would not throw the word "nigger" at anybody lightly, if at all. I
> >would need to be severely provoked. I do reserve the right to use it
> >if I feel it appropriate. I am concerned with *freedom* not power.
> >
> Don't be absurd... if you think that I believe your very dialog here does not
> intend to express that "word" as an extension of YOUR POWER, to hold
> control over another race, you are mistaken.
You may "believe" what you want, lad, and stick to it regardless. You
are v. v. bigoted afterall.
> This is my last post to your
> comments, since it is obvious that you wish to use this thread as a FORUM
> to express those racist slurs. You are plainly trying to see how many
> times you can _get away_ with using that slur... And I'll have none of it.
If I wanted to express "racist slurs" I would do so without yr
permission. If you examine my other posts you will find I have not
used the word "nigger" mysen in any other thread but this.
I do not use the word unless I have to*. I find no fun in doing so. It
is just another word. I do not revere it like you do.
*I will not refer to "it". It is clear from yr arguments that
"clarity" as a notion means nothing to you.
> Perhaps you can find some kindred spirits here or in other groups, who so
> easily insult other races. You've used that racist slur over and over here,
> ONLY to exhibit exactly what I've been speaking of. A demonstration
> of your power over another race, through easily repeating that racist slur.
> I could overlook it once, believing you simply wished to "name" a particular
> epithet... but I now recognize that you are obsessed with the use of it...
Indeed! I have tried to broaden this discussion to include other words
and other countries but you are *fixated* by "it" (oh my God! He`s got
me doing it now!).
> and the power you feel when you use it. You have tried to connect such
> racist slurs, with other much more benign words, which are seen as not
> connected with POWER or hate toward another race even if looked at in
> the extreme, so you can feel more _confident_ in expressing racist slurs. For
> example, your mention of "Brit," which certainly has no POWER, since the
> British have not been subjected to the racism other races have been
> subjected to, and specifically what the Black race has been subjected to
> in at least the last 500 years in historical terms.. That word can at MOST
> be seen as an insult having nothing to do with race. Even if one is easily
> offended; and not even that, if one recognizes it for what it actually is. It
> has no POWER in respect to racism. At most, one would be more
> _offended_, in being called an _imbecile_, and EVERYONE here has
> been called that at one time or another. But the word you've just used...
> is quite different. That you believe you can toss around that word so
> easily, demonstrates that you either do not understand its power, or
> DO understand its power and intend to demonstrate for everyone how
> you would try to USE the power of that word, only to provide a racist
> insult. I'm beginning to believe that the latter is true. I'll not be a party to
> your pitiful attempts to _pretend_ that word has no racist power, just so
> you might express that power here in this thread. It's part of the
> _closet racism_, that I speak of. Save it for your White drinking buddies
> in the pub. Since your very words have _made my case_.
Jesus! Wot woz all that about! Firstly you mentioned "Brit" I merely
noted that it is not unlike the abbreviation "Paki" which *is*
considered `racist` by some in the UK! Secondly this line of debate
did not interest you as it did not revolve around yr favourite word!
> You may have the *freedom* to use that word... but let me make it clear that
> _I_ have the *freedom* to claim that using that word so easily is a symptom
> of a racist. I cannot abide effete Machiavellians, fatuously arguing in defense of
> racist epithets under the pretext of _freedom of speech_, while presuming that
> no one can comment on such racist insults..
Where did I make such a presumption!
1. My argument is neither "machiavellian" nor "fatuous".
2. What have you against `effeminate` men?
> .regarding the harm contained in
> those words. I see it most often as a disguise intended to express a presumed
> superiority over other Men. I frequently see it in desi's comments. Which is
> why I am NOT _cutting him some slack_.
>
---
> >I feel I should point out that we are in an *international* debating
> >forum.
> >
> No... YOU believe it is such.
It *is* an international debating forum.
> I am speaking in respect to racism in America.
> You would hope to IGNORE that racism, by comparing the words you've
> used with 'brit.' There is no comparison.
Explain how "Paki" cannot be compared to "Brit"...
> I am not in any *international*
> debate with you. If that's what you wish, discuss it with someone else.
> In any case, my dialog with you is at an end with my post here.
Wot after making such wild allegations! I wonder why?
> Since I
> detect a more sinister motive for the word you've posted.
How`s the application to the thought-police going?
> I am concerned
> with racism in respect to Black Americans, since that leads to violence, which
> leads to murder, which leads to the DP, which lead to the subject of this
> newsgroup.
Black residents of the USA are the only recipients of the
death-penalty?
> I am concerned with the disgrace that insidiously damages the
> moral fiber of my nation. I am concerned with the insults many Americans
> (and desi, and now you), would direct toward my fellow Americans.
Grow the fuck up, Jim.
> I am concerned with the ghettoization, and disenfranchisement of a race, which
> I wish to see ENDED in America. And that *word* is part and parcel of
> the attempt to ghettoize and disenfranchised Black Americans. As are a
> great many other racist slurs directed against that race. Because if all that
> were ended, the cycle of violence in America would end as well, even as
> we became a more moral nation.
I fink you is wrong. Tell me how many violent crimes are race-related
in the US. Then tell me how many are not.
I fink money and sex are the cheif culprits: why not try and ban
them!?
> If I am concerned with the involvement
> of Europeans in racism in America, it is a concern that they, and you, are
> FUCKING NAIVE,
I cannot believe Jim is calling me naive after he just said if no-one
used "racist slurs" there would be no violence in the US (I fink he
actually said "America" but I`ll let it pass this time, it is a freq.
misuse afterall!)!
<cuts>
> >Q When is a racist not a racist?
> >A When s/he is black.
> >
> >This is yr logic, no?
> >
> No... it's NOT my logic... <cuts>
You hold a black person saying "nigger" in a `friendly way` to be
non-racist.
Do you hold a white person using `the word` in a `friendly way`
racist?
> My entire dialog here, which has led to a few different threads, began with
> a Jan 20 tribute I offered to Martin Luther King, Jr. On an AMERICAN holiday
> which commemorates his birth. His meaning and purpose are what I spoke of...
> the PASSIVE methods of Gandhi and others to end that cycle.
Gandhi was concerned with India self-rule not racism against black
people in the US.
> My tribute did not speak of or to Europeans in any way... it was to my fellow
> countrymen about my country. Expressing future introspection by my countrymen.
> But look who stuck his racist nose in it... and presumed to call ME a racist, for
Why shouldn`t he call you a racist? You have certainly made racist
statements against white people.
> expressing a comment direct toward AMERICANS which was ANTI-RACIST
> in content. A EUROPEAN... desi. Someone I have recognized, for over
> two and a half-years here, who is a_closet racist_ of the worst kind... that
> same effete pseudo-intellectual _closet racist_ I spoke of.
Again down on the effiminate males... is this yr way of saying you
dislike homosexuals, Jim. You do enjoy resorting to stereotypes (see
above where I use "racial slurs" with my "white drinking buddies in
the pub" (despite not mentioning my ethnicity or drinking-nabits nor
my friends or their ethnicity): no doubt he also sees me as going out
paki-bashing of a night (after a dozen pints of lager and a curry!).
> >> >Look the US has it`s own look-out. To pretend that "white people"
> >> >(whover they are?!) invented racism is ridiculous.
> >> >
> >> What??? Sorry, sport... "White" people DID invent racism.
> >
> >You are mistaken.
> >
> LOL. Yeah.. it was those _Venusian invaders_ who did it.
Explain how "white people" invented racism, Jim-bob.
> >> And I'm White,
> >> and well aware of that. Only someone who operates from a White Power
> >> background could possibly make such a silly claim.
> >
> >I am not from a "White Power background" and yet I make such a claim.
> >Incredible, no?
> >
> Naive....yes. Pompous... yes. Arrogant... yes.
Alas the irony escapes him!
> Unbelievable... yes.
Show me how I come from a "white power background" then jimmy!
Obviously this does sit with yr bigoted world-view.
> >> When was the last
> >> time that Black Africans came to Europe looking for White Slaves?
> >
> >The ancient Egyptians (black/african) had European (white) slaves, do
> >they count?
> >
> No... actually they don't count. Slavery was around when man first
> emerged from the caves.
The Ancient Egyptians had just "emerged from the caves"!? Yr history
is as ropey as yr agenda.
> Are you intent on asserting that racism wasn't
> evidenced when Blacks were exported from Africa as slaves, in a most
> methodical and mechanical operation? And we are certainly speaking
> of the racism that exists TODAY.
I never asserted any such thing, Jim! Why do you feel the need to make
things up?
> >Of course the Romans had mainly white slaves, despite many
> >north-Africans serving in the legions, but perhaps that was before
> >"white people" invented racism?
> >
> I can see your intention is to _justify_ both racism and slavery. I'll have
> no further part of it.
I do not intend to justify racism or slavery. Why ascribe false
opinions to me, Jim: do you fear you are being exposed as a bigot and
a racist?
Racist comments are a facet of free-speech, Jim-bob, slavery is not.
> >Always remember "slavery existed in Africa even back into far ancient
> >times"
> >http://www.qx.net/jeff/afrolex/afrolaw.htm
>
> And you seem to be trying to _bring it back_.
Totally without foundation, Jim-bob. If you don`t like the truth,
ignore it. This is yr favourite `tactic`, eh?
> >
> >> >> What does that mean? That racism is now ACCEPTABLE in Europe,
> >> >
> >> >Duplicity is less acceptable.
> >> >
> >> Rubbish. I can well accept duplicity...
> >
> >This explains a lot.
> >
> Yes... it does.. since you seem to prefer accepting racism.
It is easier to deal with people who do not lie.
> >> Shit... I see it here every day...more
> >> easily then I could EVER accept racism. You may feel otherwise... but that's
> >> simply repeating ground we've already been over... that racism is OPINION.
> >> I spent 26 years in Europe, and you will not convince me, IMHO, that
> >> duplicity is NOT alive and well on the Continent.
> >
> >I never suggested it wasn`t.
> >
> I never said you suggest it wasn't. I was speaking of what _I_ see, and what
> _I_ accept.
You said I tried to "convince" you "that duplicity is NOT alive and
well on the Continent". I`m not `playing games`, Jim-bob: it is wot
you said.
> >> >> I see that as clearly your intention in arguing _free speech_.
> >> >> It seems you are only concerned with the _free speech_ of a racist.
> >> >
> >> >Not "only"!!
> >> >
> >> As long as you don't contend that I don't have the same _free
> >> speech_ as someone shouting out racist slurs, which was the
> >> original argument.
> >
> >"Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the
> >concept of free-speech?" was my opening gambit, I believe.
> >
> And I've never denied that a _freedom to make an ass of yourself_ is
> not enshrined in that concept as well. Nor can MY FREEDOM to
> comment on anyone doing so be infringed upon. Which I believe
> you were trying to do, in respect to YOU saying "I think you should
> cut desi some slack."
That woz when you misconstrued his anti-US stance as anti-American,
Jim.
> Isn't that presuming that I don't have the
> similar freedom that you presume to be speaking of?
No.
> Why SHOULD I....cut him some slack.. if I have that same freedom??
> Why didn't you ask desi to "cut US some slack" in respect to providing
> those racist comments? Oh yeah... it's his _freedom of speech_ to
> be a racist, while I must cut that racist some slack.
You were factually wrong when you suggested that America woz the US
and only the US.
> >> I see desi doing so... you presumed I could
> >> not claim I saw him doing so.
> >
> >This presumption is not present in my argument as quoted above, as I
> >hope you understand.
> >
> Of course it was... at the VERY BEGINNING of this dialog. Your
> stated purpose was to _cut desi some slack_, by presuming I should
> shut up about what I see as his racist comments.
"Desi appears uncomfortable with using "America" to refer to the US.
On
the last two comments you cite he even goes so far as to use "the
United States". It is very easy to fall into the terminology of the
person you are speaking to: I think you should cut Desi some slack.
From the brief excerpts you have provided I would be inclined to say
he is refering to the US only. Would you disagree?"
Wot has this to do with racism, Jimmy?
> >> I had the impression that you
> >> DEFENDED him doing so.. and OPPOSED my commenting
> >> on him doing so. I found that as intending to limit MY
> >> _free speech_.
> >
> >In that case I fear you were jumping at shadows.
> >
> LOL... Why are you POSTING to me? What started it? Well... what
> started it, was you believed desi should have the _freedom_ to make
> comments that I see as racist... and I should cut that ol' racist some
> slack... and restrict MY FREEDOM to make such an observation.
How so?
Equality is a wonderful ideal Jim. Perhaps you should practice wot you
preach instead of encouraging duplicity?
> > > Actually, that's totally false... since desi often DOES put his racist
> > > slurs in "quotes" to HIDE the fact that they come from him. And
> > > my list of his 30 racist slurs contain many that include such racist
> > > slurs he would try to DISGUISE by putting them in "quotes.
> > > They are no less offensive. Only when someone quotes a TRUE
> > > quote, to DEMONSTRATE the racism of another, can it be
> > > presumed as not having COME from the poster. And that is
> > > obviously permissible, if used SPECIFICALLY to point out
> > > the racist intent... since if THAT was prohibited there would be
> > > NO POSSIBLE WAY to even comment on the racism seen
> > > from that original poster. But one cannot _manipulate_ words,
> > > to imply racist comments came from another that did not. Thus,
> > > there is a certain precision that must be observed when pointing
> > >out racism. That's why I always refer BACK to desi's original
> > > comment, by providing the URL reference.
>
> >Have you thought about joining the thought-police?
> >
> LOL... another one suffering from eisoptrophobia (look it up,
> sport).
Although yr opinions/notions are frightening, Jim, I do not fear that
they in any way mirror my own.
> Actually... EVERY post of desi's that I provide contained
> WORDS, which SYMBOLIZE THOUGHTS that we express here.
> And his WORDS, symbolize racist thoughts in my view. Or do you
> believe _my view_ is not an expression of the _free speech_ you speak
> of? Perhaps you believe that _free speech_ ONLY applies to the racist...
> and not to the one who might detect racism in another.
I think my reminder woz quite timely, eh?
> >> I'm sorry... but the very beginning of your entrance into this thread, seemed
> >> to imply that I could not comment on the racism I see in desi providing such
> >> racist slurs.
> >
> >Wot?
> >
> You read me.
Prove it with a quote, jimmy.
> >"Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the
> >concept of free-speech?"
> >
> There is nothing enshrined that says I should "cut desi some slack,"
> by limiting MY FREE SPEECH.
Are you still claiming you can`t be both anti-US and pro-American? Yr
position is untenable.
> >How to you divine such an implication?
> >
> Umm... that would be your words "I think you should cut desi some slack."
> It would seem that you view _free speech_ as only applicable to racists.
I have quoted above said passage where I suggested Desi should be cut
some slack. It does not refer to free-speech or racism, nor does it
imply any wish to censor you.
> >> If I have a _right_ to comment, what is the purpose of your
> >> dialog, which I took as presuming I have no such right? Now if you presume
> >> I DO have such a right... then this dialog is essentially at an end... since
> >> that's been my only objective. To argue that I DO have such a _right_.
> >
> >...Do you recognise a certain duplicity regards racism nowadays? was
> >my second question.
> >
> I recognize duplicity in your posting style here. Are you admitting to something?
Answer the question.
> >> >Pity you called him "anti-American", eh?
> >> >
> >> I wasn't the only one. If you wish to _play on words_, which would
> >> deny the substance... be my guest... it flows right off my back. desi IS
> >> anti-American... anti-US... anti-United States... anti-United States of
> >> America... all in my opinion. And in the opinion of some others here.
> >> And I've provided SUBSTANCE in his OWN WORDS to bolster
> >> that opinion. While you've played silly games with "America" and "The
> >> United States of America." But certainly have provided no SUBSTANCE
> >> which would deny such anti-all of the above.
> >
> >Can Desi be anti-US without being anti-American? Answer: yes.
> >
> Actually... NO. He could be called anti-American, if he was anti_Canadian,
> even using your convoluted argument that the U.S. is not America. But
> a Canadian is NOT "American." Canada is another country in North America.
> While an "American" is more correctly identified as a citizen of the U.S,
> and a "Canadian" is more correctly identified as a citizen of Canada.
How do you refer to the residents of America?: the Americans.
Canadians, Brazilians, Argentinians et el *are* Americans. That the US
could not think up a better name for itsen is neither here nor there.
They have only themsens to blame frankly.
> >> >"Anti-US" does not equal "anti-American". Are Brazilians not
> >> >Americans?
> >> >
> >> Brazilians are more properly South Americans.
> >
> >Using such logic Yankees are more properly "North Americans". They are
> >both Americans. I suggest you get over it.
> >
> I've been over it... you seem to be the one obsessed by it. Since so many
> posters here recognize what they MEAN when they say anti-American, and
> you seem to be dictating to THEM.
Is Desi wrong to claim himsen Pro-American (if he so chose)? No. You
are the one dictating, Jim-bob!
> One has only to do a search in google
> on the term anti-American, and find how often it is used in respected journals,
> and publications as referring to comments which reflect a negative feeling
> toward the U.S. Simply looking at the Guardian, finds that use in the very
> first search -- see
> url:http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,769100,00.html
> I believe YOU are the one who is "unable to get over it."
You *do* have a problem with dissent, don`t you?
> >> No one, other than
> >> some jerk who has some anti-U.S. feelings at the core, would claim
> >> that a Brazilian is an "American."
> >
> >Are you taking the piss?
> >
> It's always been a _play on words_ with you. A Brazilian IS of course
> a member of a nation on one of the Americas. Namely South America.
A Brazilian is an American by definition.
A Brazilian is an American by definition.
A Brazilian is an American by definition.
A Brazilian is an American by definition.
A Brazilian is an American by definition.
Yr nearly there Jim!
> >> >I felt I should put my cards on the table. Wot if I just hated all
> >> >"American Blacks" in Georgia? Would that be racist or not?
> >> >
> >> If you hated even ONE Black... BECAUSE he WAS Black... and
> >> not for some other personal reason unconnected to his BEING Black...
> >> you would be a racist. I'm astonished that I even have to explain
> >> such a very basic concept to you.
> >
> >If a black bloke calls one other black a "nigger" (or a "wog" or
> >whatever) cos he is black, would he be a racist?
> >
> See how easily you try to express YOUR POWER?? I believe that I
> now see a more diabolical reason that you have engaged me in arguing that
> _even racists have free speech_.
Is that privately or in yr capacitry as a member of the Though-Police?
> In any case, HOW he uses it determines
> the power it holds. He would only have expressed it as a racist, if he
> meant to USE IT for power. Between Black friends it is said to try and
> NEUTRALIZE the power in that word. To inoculate against the power.
> But a Black CAN certainly USE it in another manner against a Black in a
> totally racist meaning, even though he is also Black.
Would he be a racist? Yes or No?
> >> >He `looks` like a racist?
> >>
> >> To me... HIS WORDS. Which is all I can SEE of desi. In Usenet
> >> HE IS HIS WORDS. And his WORDS make him "look" like
> >> a racist to me. This is definitely turning into some silly game you
> >> are trying to play... and it's sickening... because racism is NO
> >> GAME.
> >
> >You realise some might find yr attitude insulting?
> >
> Do you realize I don't care? When I see racism, I would be morally
> irresponsible not to comment that I see it. What's your excuse???
> Since your argument seems to me to be that I should ==>cut racists
> some slack when I see them.
Are you only interested in mis-information?
> >> >I only question yr assualt upon Desi. You call Desi a racist cos he is
> >> >white in effect.
> >> >
> >> Jesus... now you're proving yourself to be rather ill-informed of the
> >> past in this newsgroup. We have another poster here... dirtbag... who
> >> claims he is part-Black. To what extent I do not know. But I have
> >> called HIM a racist.
> >
> >Presumably he is part-white?
> >
> Well, going back far enough we are all of one race... the human race.
> Unfortunately, there are many who do not see it in those terms.
Are you saying my diagnosis was correct?
> >And yet "paki" is deemed offensive by some in the UK! I`m glad you do
> >not think it is offensive.
> >
> I didn't say that.
I know you do not care for anybody outside of the US, Jim, but how is
"paki" (for Pakistani) different to "Brit" (for Britisher)? You are
from the School of Esoteric Racism, no?
> >btw Isn`t "negro" Spanish for "black"?
> >Isn`t "niger" Latin for "black"?
> >
> >Is "negro" offensive?
> >
> Oh, yes... it certainly is, when used in respect to a Black, since it harkens back
> to slavery. It's about as offensive as it comes.
Are we talking about the Spanish word for "Black"!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
> It was not always seen that
> way to Whites... but the REASON that it passed from usage was that it
> was offensive to Blacks. American Blacks are STILL _searching_ for a word
> that would identify their race.
Are "American Blacks" a race? And the British are not?
> Some might even find my usage of "Black" to
> be offensive.
Wot? the Spanish? LOL!
That wasn`t an insult, Jim-bob. Are you drunk?
> >> As to the word 'frog,' I have said my wife is French.. See
> >> url:http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/eupassport.jpg
> >> Since some here feel my anonymous posting might imply I lie. Her and her
> >> relatives laugh about that word... there is even a French Club in the U.S.
> >> that refers to itself on Le Page de Frog.
> >
> >Well if they are not offended no-one else should be, eh?
> >
> I didn't say that. I find the word does not intend to convey a sense
> of POWER. Someone French might see it as an insult, if they were
> a total stranger to the person calling them a "frog," but that certainly
> doesn't convey that sense of presuming power over the other. At
> worst... it could perhaps be seen as calling the other, "stupid."
Now you are suggesting that Frenchies are "stupid"? Is this some kinda
backhanded dig at Desi?
A "frog" is a "french-person".
"Stupid" is mutually intelligable in English/French.
I dint say you had, dimwit! I asked a question. And you call Desi a
"functional illiterate"!!!
> This
> has been an absurd dialog with you.
I wunt disgree!!
> Since all you seem to be doing is
> pronouncing that desi has such free speech, but I must "cut desi some
> slack." Thank you kindly, but I have such free speech myself. I find
> desi to be offensive... but I'd never say he can't BE offensive. Jesus...
> where would we be here, if we didn't have _offensive desi_ to spank,
> and bitch-slap over and over in this newsgroup? I deplore racist slurs,
> and would prefer that he stopped providing them... but his _freedom_
> to provide them is unquestioned. desi has never been concerned with
> such aspects as humility, or embarrassment, or decency, or apology,
> or shame, or remorse, or guilt. Thus, it's essentially my job, using MY
> free speech, to express those emotions FOR HIM. To the members
> of this group.
Yr "job"? Ain`t there no witches to burn round yr way?
> >> >> Why not go to
> >> >> the source? If even I... a White American... am offended by his constant
> >> >> use of those racist slurs...
> >> >
> >> >On whose behalf? And why?
> >> >
> >> Pardon me??? ON MY OWN behalf. I don't need more than that,
> >> if you presume that I have _free speech_.
> >
> >What "power" do they hold over you?
> >
> They hold power over some members of MY SPECIES. Which should concern
> YOU... but apparently does not.
What "power" do they hold over *you*?
> >> >No term based on nationality/race would offend me.
> >> >
> >> Then why did you presume it would? Let me understand this.
> >> You CALL it a racist slur...
> >
> >Did I? It was you who first used such terminology.
> >
> So you DON'T find those words to be racist slurs. I've learned more
> about you, in those few words... then I really care to know.
Do you actually *read* owt before you reply?
> >> but you are not OFFENDED by racist slurs directed at you.
> >
> >No. As long as am able to use similar terms in retaliation. To be
> >denied the option of such terms would offend me to the very core.
> >
> Where has anyone HERE used a racist slur against YOU? While
> YOU'VE used a bunch of them.
Against whom?
> Who essentially are you
> _retaliating_ against?
Here? No-one. Are you now admitting you are denying me the option?
> >> If this is true, then it has nothing to
> >> do with the dialog, since we are speaking of words that most
> >> certainly DO offend many within the race in question. The fact
> >> that YOU are not offended, does not make the word benign.
> >
> >Equally the fact that some are offended does not make it malevolent.
> >
> Oh my word... cue huge sigh of pity from PV toward ignorance.
> Your comment is analogous to saying that because you only offended
> the one you murdered, it cannot be considered malevolent.
No it is not. Are you now saying that if a word is considered
"malevolent" by some that word is in *fact* malevolent? You are
confusing *opinion* with *fact* again Jim?
> ><cuts>
> >> >It is possible to be both Anti-US and Pro-American at one and the same
> >> >time. You only need to be taken literally.
> >> >
> >> No... you only need to presume you can _play with words_ to make
> >> a silly argument. And in your gut... you know that's what you're trying to do.
> >
> >I observe the very real distinction between the USA and America.
> >
> No, all you've done is introduced some banal, exiguous comment which almost appears
> to me you have some Freudian penis envy problem with the fact that the USA is
> referred to as America.
Re-read the OED entry to see how I came to such a position. You are
one sicko to deny the existance of a continental `identity`!
> >> >> Actually, you dismissed the OED, and claimed you preferred something
> >> >> else.
> >> >
> >> >Not so! Quote please.
> >> >
> >> That would be when you first encountered my use -- and you did NOT
> >> dispute it at first, but claimed preference in another -- your words --
> >>
> >> "I'm glad you like the OED and not the Webster!"
> >
> >I am glad you like the OED. I find the Webster to be shit. Wot is the
> >problem?
> >
> I've never had _a problem_. The U.S. and America are words that are
> synonymous to me,
But not Desi, or me, or most non-yankees!
> and to the recognized and respected sources I've
> provided. It seems as if it's your problem.
>
> >> And you then went on to "quote" Webster. Apparently trying to
> >> dismiss the OED.
> >
> >I dint Jim! (it it Jim? or Jake?). I quoted the OED entry from yr
> >link!! Go back and have a look if you don`t believe me!
> >
> Then you agreed that it wasn't a corruption... which means it is an
> accepted usage.
I can`t belive this! You are one dirty klerehoer not to admit *both*
mistakes:
1. America is primarily used to refer to the continent (or continents
of S. America/N. America as per the OED definition).
2. You said I quoted a source other than the OED (from yr link!!).
This woz a big fat lie: admit it.
> >> But it seems that MY Webster's would more agree with me. Plus
> >> a great variety of other respected definition resources I provided.
> >
> >I`m sticking with the OED. As you have said: you and Desi prefer it
> >too.
> >
> So, we're in agreement... the United States of America and America
> are synonymous.
We agree they are (freq. used) as such. Dont make it correct: Desi
would be quite right to claim himsen both pro-American (continent) and
anti-USA (country).
> >> >Is "America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
> >> >consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
> >> >the Isthmus of Panama"
> >> >not taken from the OED via yr link?
> >> >
> >> Yes... and "America" is ALSO the name of "The United States of America."
> >> Words do not only have a singular meaning in most cases.
> >
> >Which definition is cited first in the OED entry?
> >
> Repeating -- Words do not only have a singular meaning in most cases.
So Desi woz right then.
> >> >> It is
> >> >> the same as calling England -- the British Isles.
> >> >
> >> >England is not the British Isles. Anyone that thinks it is is insane.
> >> >
> >> Anyone who thinks that America CANNOT mean the United States of
> >> America, is equally insane.
> >
> >Anyone who sez Brazilians are not Americans is off his fucking nut.
> >
> Brazilians are citizens of a nation in the Americas. As such they can
> be _called_ Americans. If one wishes to look stupid... anything is
> possible. Calling a Brazilian an "American" will either elicit a roar
> of laughter from him, or a punch in the jaw from him, depending upon
> how he feels about "Americans."
He obviously dislikes the yankees appropriating *his* continent for
themsen. I would tend to agree with him: he woz there first.
> >> >> Hardly... I can justify my usage through a variety of sources. I'd like
> >> >> to see the source that desi uses to presume there are six continents.
> >> >
> >> >"In Europe, many students are taught about six continents, where North
> >> >and South America is combined to form a single America. Thus, these
> >> >six continents are Africa, America, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, and
> >> >Europe."
> >> >http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcontinents.htm
> >> >
> >>
> >> In America, many students are taught creationism. Neither your
> >> European method or that in the United States has any validity.
> >
> >Evolution has no validity?
> >
> Ummm... read my words. Creationism has no validity. Many students
> in the U.S. are _taught_ it, but it has no validity. Evolution is a FACT,
> regardless of how some would argue that it's the "Evolutionary
> Theory."
The European "method" taught in schools *is* evolution...
You obviously have no concept of the history of "continent"
identification.
> >> I have already provided resources
> >> from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Encarta... and there is
> >> agreement here... even from desi that there are SEVEN. North
> >> America IS a Continent... South America IS a Continent. You
> >> might as well claim that Adam first appeared six thousand years
> >> ago, as argue that "America" is a continent.
> >
> >Explain how "America" is not a continent.
> >
> Umm... that is because there is BOTH North America, and South
> America. Each being Continents.
They are not seperate land-masses: why the distinction?
> >> In fact your own resource above, disputes what you now say---
> >> This was your source above -- "consisting of the two continents of North
> >> and South America."
> >
> >I think you`ll find the source is quite candid: "There is no standard
> >definition for the number of continents".
> >
> But there is... the rest is all rubbish.
People who know about such things disagree with you.
> Every RESPECTED resource presumes
> that the geographical designations I've provided above are what are recognized
> as the Continents. I think you'll find that "Matt Rosenberg" is not quite as
> respected as Bartleby, or Britannica, or Encarta, or The National Geographic.
Alas what constitutes a "continent" is *opinion* not *fact*.
> >You said: "I'd like to see the source that desi uses to presume there
> >are six continents". I was only showing you. I must say I do nat think
> >the site is inaccurate.
> >
> Inasmuch as it doesn't know what it is talking about, it could hardly
> be termed anything else. There is no confusion as to the number of
> Continents.
Wot is a "continent"? There is no standard definition.
> >> >Why not go to the site? I don`t know how valid it is, but it`s very
> >> >interesting.
> >> >
> >> I'm not interested in non-educational references. :-))
> >
> >You can take a horse to water.... ;-)
> >
> But he will not drink from a poisoned well.
Will it kill you to change yr mind, bigot?
> >> >> I have seldom seen such slithering. If it is frequently used it is
> >> >> accepted when used as such. Or else it would be termed a corruption.
> >> >
> >> >It is not a corruption.
> >> >
> >> Quite true... thus it is accepted.
> >
> >It is tolerated. It is not correct usage. Explain why no such
> >condition is placed before the first definition (or any other
> >*correct* definitions for that matter!)
> >
> LOL... It's "tolerated," but not correct. Can you hear yourself?
Like abortion: it is not usually "right", but wot can you do, eh?
+ where is the explanation?
Etymology not yr best subject, eh?
<cuts where you quote Desi calling you a "white racist prick" etc.>
yrs nev.
John Rennie
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21b1da28.03031...@posting.google.com...
'Brit' is used, gratefully, by me. I don't know another
word that can be used so easily to cover the Scots, English, Welsh
and Northern Irish. It is rather sad to see JPB trying to grasp
at these straws.
dirtdog
<Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Actually I was hoping that I could get his attention. My IT people have
>managed to isolate the trojan that dirtdog sent me last week.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
You soft twat, 'Cerby'. 'My IT people'!!! LOL!!
Did they consult with your 'secretary' in order to book a suitable
time to tend to your machine? Perhaps they waited until you were on
your 'third bottle of Dom'!
LMAO!!!
<remainder of tall story snipped>
w00f
PS- Boo!
"Do you add "to me" when saying things like "That coat is red" which may well be
false for someone who is color-blind?" - kwag...@aol.com
LMAO!!
Richard J
Dirt, did you send him a virus or worm? Naughty, naughty!
Teflon
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: French joke
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:08:42 +0000
>
>le 11 Mar 2003 06:58:37 -0800, dans l'article
><21b1da28.0303...@posting.google.com>, Just passing by
><unimpre...@yahoo.com> a dit ...
>
>>> Further, I am not sure how much you really know about desi. He is
>certainly
>>> bigoted against members of the U.K., as well as Americans.
>
>> No he isn't. He holds strong views against the British class system
>> and on Britain's history in Ireland. He is occasionally inaccurate,
>> such as when suggesting that only England (rather than all of Britain)
>> has a soccer hooligan problem (Cardiff City's notoriously violent fans
>> spring to mind here), but I have never seen him express any bigotry
>> towards ordinary British people.
>
>I am incapable of feeling, or expressing bigotry towards anyone,
>irrespective of their nationality. You have quite correctly sensed this.
>
>--
>Des The Deathie Spanker
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: French joke
>Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:08:42 +0000
>Lines: 25
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <qoa1k-0...@zeouane.org>
>References: <ht256vsfmrbvr6piq...@4ax.com>
><bn366v0ckcepndr0o...@4ax.com> <r2qbj-9...@zeouane.org>
><c7h86v80t5bukofg0...@4ax.com> <9grej-l...@zeouane.org>
><sffb6vof2a2gfbfu7...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03030...@posting.google.com>
><pg3e6v0rb762gtklh...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03030...@posting.google.com>
><se1i6v8bla3gf129b...@4ax.com>
><21b1da28.0303...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1047395591 68139619 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Dirt, did you send him a virus or worm? Naughty, naughty!
I don't believe it would have been intentional. Although he's likely to
kill me for it, I can vouch for doggie's good character. He's a cunt
but not _that_ much of a cunt.
Of course, it appears that he'll be using the incident (such as it may
have been) to tease Cerberus. That's about the size of things on this
newsgroup - it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
Tee hee!
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"They've got to be protected/All their rights respected ((o))
Until someone we like can be elected." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Cerberus
"dirtdog" <dirtdogU...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
news:dv0t6vkl4182jd873...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:09:52 +0800, "Cerberus"
: <Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
:
: <snip>
: :
: Did they consult with your 'secretary' in order to book a suitable
: time to tend to your machine? Perhaps they waited until you were on
: your 'third bottle of Dom'!
All the above and more my sooty-pawed friend.
Don't like it? Well I guess all you can do is watch as the good things in
life continue to pass you by.
My advice to you is to work hard, and be nice to your mum. If you do then
maybe somebody like me will one day let you sit up in the pointy end
sipping Dom. Instead of back in cattle class slurping 'chateau awful',
because they give it to you free to ease the pain of the DVT that comes with
the Chicken and Vegies.
You can live in hope I guess. Strawberries to Pigs and all that. Heh
--
WooF w00f WooF
Cerberus
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E6E91ED...@hotmail.com...
: dirtdog wrote:
: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:09:52 +0800, "Cerberus"
: > <Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
{'dirtdogs' embarrassment at being caught out sending e-bugs, snipped}
:
: Dirt, did you send him a virus or worm? Naughty, naughty!
Yes he bloody well did.
Now given the character reference that has been afforded him in another
posting by someone who is either deluded or drunk, I am starting to think
that 'dirtdog' hasn't got a clue what's going on anyway.
Taking into account the aforesaid character reference, and in the absence of
any other evidence condemning him, I shall forgo having a large man come
round to his place to insert his keyboard into his rectum.
Only just though.
He should probably avail himself of the services of a decent virus checking
program. In the interim, beware.
--
WooF w00f WooF
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le 11 Mar 2003 06:58:37 -0800, dans l'article <21b1da28.0303...@posting.google.com>, Just passing by <unimpre...@yahoo.com> a dit ...
>
>>> Further, I am not sure how much you really know about desi. He is certainly
>>> bigoted against members of the U.K., as well as Americans.
>
>> No he isn't. He holds strong views against the British class system
>> and on Britain's history in Ireland. He is occasionally inaccurate,
>> such as when suggesting that only England (rather than all of Britain)
>> has a soccer hooligan problem (Cardiff City's notoriously violent fans
>> spring to mind here), but I have never seen him express any bigotry
>> towards ordinary British people.
>
>I am incapable of feeling, or expressing bigotry towards anyone,
>irrespective of their nationality. You have quite correctly sensed this.
>
ROTFLMAO....desi's words, speaking about himself --
"'can't help being bigoted, somehow ... :-( "
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8segrn.daf.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
But then desi always admits to an factual misrepresentations.... I'm waiting...
What most here have _sensed_ is that you're as full of shit as a Christmas Goose,
desi.
PV
>--
>Des The Spanked and bitch slapped puppet of PV
desi said --
"I would rather see the extinction of the human race, than allow one innocent to
be put to death by the state." see
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=87wvtkfeg2.fsf%40lievre.coughlan.fr
St. George remarked --
"Desmond, this statement is, quite literally, the most idiotic I have EVER read on
this or indeed any other newsgroup."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7s9fo4%24da2%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
desi has ALWAYS been able to top one idiotic statement with another, if we
only wait a moment.
Cerberus
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
message news:jonathan-776CD0...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
: In article <3E6E91ED...@hotmail.com>, ric...@hotmail.com wrote:
:
: > Dirt, did you send him a virus or worm? Naughty, naughty!
:
: I don't believe it would have been intentional. Although he's likely to
: kill me for it, I can vouch for doggie's good character. He's a cunt
: but not _that_ much of a cunt.
:
: Of course, it appears that he'll be using the incident (such as it may
: have been) to tease Cerberus. That's about the size of things on this
: newsgroup - it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
:
: Tee hee!
O.K
Call me slow on the uptake Mr Q.
Please tick the appropriate box below:-
Doggie is my
[ ] Brother
[ ] Sister
[ ] Lover
[ ] Close Relative of some kind
[ ] Back-packer mate met in a doss house in Sydney during the Mardi-gra
[ ] Student of mine when I taught 'Law' at the International Correspondence
School
[ ] All of the above
[ ] Insert your own excuse
--
WooF w00f WooF
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<eeup6vsae76j866vh...@4ax.com>...
>
<rest clipped>
You've been recognized as a racist.. and I'll not be a party to your expressing
it... other that to say I see you as a racist. I will only make one remark to
demonstrate that racists are usually ignorant as well.
>> You may have the *freedom* to use that word... but let me make it clear that
>> _I_ have the *freedom* to claim that using that word so easily is a symptom
>> of a racist. I cannot abide effete Machiavellians, fatuously arguing in defense of
>> racist epithets under the pretext of _freedom of speech_, while presuming that
>> no one can comment on such racist insults..
>
>Where did I make such a presumption!
>
>1. My argument is neither "machiavellian" nor "fatuous".
>2. What have you against `effeminate` men?
ROTFLMAO.. that demonstration of your ignorance --
EFFETE -- "Of persons in an intellectual sense, of systems, etc.: That has
exhausted its vigour and energy; incapable of efficient action. Also, of persons:
weak, ineffectual; degenerate..."
If you wish to read anything more than that into it... it simply demonstrates
that you are a homophobic racist.
<rest of racist comments clipped>
PV
A Planet Visitor
Quite true... and desi has admitted that he is, in another post --
his words about himself "'can't help being bigoted, somehow ... :-( "
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8segrn.daf.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
But it is his racism that concerns me more.
PV
A Planet Visitor
I never said it was to begin with... Ol' Nev tried to argue it was, and
I simply conceded that someone MIGHT take it as an insult. Hell... I
call you a fruitcake, and you take that as an insult, although I'm just
calling 'em like I see 'em. I argued quite forcefully that NO ONE could
presume it was a RACIAL insult, even if they felt insulted by being called
a Brit. I've NEVER felt, prior to reading Nev, that it was anything but even
a bit affectionate. Rather a _personal_ meaning... such as I explained
of "Jim" and "James." But the point I conceded is that it is THEORETICALLY
POSSIBLE that someone COULD take it as an insult. Being a bit too
stupid to recognize it is not. I believe ol' Nev met that _stupid_ criteria
I speak of.
PV
Just passing by
Straws? What straws? Are you sure you read what I wrote correctly? I
ask that because the sentiments you expressed regarding "Brit" were no
different to mine. So where does grasping at straws come into this?
John Rennie
It's a convoluted thread as so many are when you and PV lock horns.
Please excuse my error.
Richard J
I worry not. That is why I use a hotmail account as a 'reply to'
address as well as run not one, but two anti virus programs on my
computer. I've never had a problem, but have spent plenty of time
solving other people's problems from viruses.
Teflon
Just passing by
That's OK. I can understand, given many of my recent posts to PV, how
automatic preconceptions might have clouded the post's actual content,
but on that occasion, for once, I was not attacking PV at all.
yours_most_truly
> Cerberus wrote:
> > "Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E6E91ED...@hotmail.com...
> > : > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:09:52 +0800, "Cerberus"
> > : > <Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
> >
> > :
> > : Dirt, did you send him a virus or worm? Naughty, naughty!
> >
> > Yes he bloody well did.
> >
> >
> > He should probably avail himself of the services of a decent virus
checking
> > program. In the interim, beware.
> >
> > --
> > WooF w00f WooF
> >
> >
>
> I worry not. That is why I use a hotmail account as a 'reply to'
> address as well as run not one, but two anti virus programs on my
> computer. I've never had a problem, but have spent plenty of time
> solving other people's problems from viruses.
>
> Teflon
>
My one and only damaging encounter with a virus occurred back when I was
running Windows 3.11 on a computer with no inter or intranet connections and
I exchanged data by diskette, but with only those whom I trusted not to pass
viruses along. I bought the Norton "Drive Rocket" utility from a national
retail chain, and after that my diskette drive became inoperative. I
concluded the problem was with the hardware, and requested service pursuant
to warranty. After two-week turnaround, the problem remained. After I
raised holy hell, it went back for servicing again. This time the virus was
discovered and eliminated.
But I still could not settle on the source of that virus. If it was
Symantec (Norton), since the software had been on the market for months by
then it surely would have been recalled before I purchased it. If it was
the retailer, why did the software come in a shrink-wrapped sealed box? A
malicious employee, perhaps? Balancing the improbabilities (for I had no
probabilities to work with), I never shopped at that retailer again.
About a year later, I learned that there were retailers who would put
returned or exchanged software back in its box, shrink-wrap it, and then
resell it as unused as a matter of course. Bastards!
But once bitten, twice shy. I never install anything, even from a CD by a
reputable manufacturer, without running a virus check on it first. No
e-mail, whether it's private, usenet, or whatever, goes in or out without an
antivirus scan. I've never had a problem with a computer virus since. The
lesson here is that when it comes to viruses, there's no such thing as a
completely trustable source. There are only degrees of risk.
The sad thing is that there are even good freeware antivirus programs
available for download, with free subscriptions for automatic updates. It
seems 99% of the virus infections which occur today is due to not having an
anitivirus program, not running it, or not keeping it current. For these
reasons, I have little sympathy for the vast majority of those who complain
about a computer virus.
Just passing by
> On 11 Mar 2003 06:04:01 -0800, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>
> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<eeup6vsae76j866vh...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >
> >> For
> >> example, your mention of "Brit," which certainly has no POWER, since the
> >> British have not been subjected to the racism other races have been
> >> subjected to, and specifically what the Black race has been subjected to
> >> in at least the last 500 years in historical terms.. That word can at MOST
> >> be seen as an insult having nothing to do with race.
> >
> >It isn't any kind of insult. The word "Brit" is not in the slightest
> >bit offensive to anyone. I defy anybody to find anyone from Britain
> >who would be offended by that word. Even words like "limey" and "pom"
> >whilst possibly offensive to some over-sensitive individuals, are, in
> >my opinion, quite harmless and even amusing.
>
> I never said it was to begin with...
I know you didn't. I was, if anything, agreeing with you. You should
therefore treasure that reply, PV, because, as you well know, it is
not often you are so blessed and honoured by receiving such
prestigious approval from such a distinguished source as myself. It
will probably never happen again, so make a note of the date so you
can proudly boast to people of that most memorable day when "Just
passing by" momentarily deigned to look favourably upon you.
Honest Nev
> On 11 Mar 2003 11:24:33 -0800, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote:
>
> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<eeup6vsae76j866vh...@4ax.com>...
> >
> <rest clipped>
<wonder why?>
> You've been recognized as a racist.. and I'll not be a party to your expressing
> it... other that to say I see you as a racist. I will only make one remark to
> demonstrate that racists are usually ignorant as well.
You have been recognised as a "white racist prick" of long-standing.
> >Where did I make such a presumption!
> >
> >1. My argument is neither "machiavellian" nor "fatuous".
> >2. What have you against `effeminate` men?
>
> ROTFLMAO.. that demonstration of your ignorance --
How so?
> EFFETE -- "Of persons in an intellectual sense, of systems, etc.: That has
> exhausted its vigour and energy; incapable of efficient action. Also, of persons:
> weak, ineffectual; degenerate..."
Effete
adjective
DISAPPROVING LITERARY
"weak and powerless, or (of a man) behaving and appearing in a way
that is similar to a woman"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=effete*1+0
*You* certainly do not consider me "weak or powerless":
"Clearly, I suspect that your use of that very offensive 'n' word, was
simply
to show you had the POWER to use it... which is exactly what I mean.
You have USED it as an instrument of power."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1480274994d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1etl6v46oc0u7kport3uo187as78fkn51a%404ax.com
In fact this *power* bollow has been a constant in yr PC drivel.
> If you wish to read anything more than that into it... it simply demonstrates
> that you are a homophobic racist.
Alas Jim-bob it is too late!!! You have already been exposed as a
"white racist prick" and a raving homophobe too!!! You can not wriggle
out of it this time.
I have no time for `fake-liberals` such as yoursen: you do the cause
more harm than good, you dirty `fifth-colunmist` you! Trying to
instigate a totalitarian* state by the back-door under the banner of
`liberty`.
* indeed Jim-bob thought it "rather strange" that I should "DEFEND the
use of racist slurs, for whatever reason" (inc. free-speech!!!!)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2232902848d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=se1i6v8bla3gf129bov6qgf97er5nu3lse%404ax.com
> <rest of racist comments clipped>
<only racists comments i`ve seen on this thread were made by jim-bob>
"racial slurs do NOTHING but exacerbate
that intent to diminish the perception that Blacks have of themselves
--
to lower their self-esteem -- to gain some form of superiority."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1480274994d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1etl6v46oc0u7kport3uo187as78fkn51a%404ax.com
And yet you have defended the use of such "slurs" to be `positive`
when used by blacks amongst themsen! You is one "white racist prick"
Jim-bob!
You used the argument "that 94% of all Black murders are committed by
Blacks", as proof that white people are worse racists than blacks!! o
illogical one!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1480274994d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1etl6v46oc0u7kport3uo187as78fkn51a%404ax.com
""White" people DID invent racism."
classic jim-bob.
-------------------------------
"America, spoken alone, clearly means "The United States of America,"
and it is the most pitiful argument I can imagine to presume you can
defend his words by claiming anti-US, is not anti-American."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2232902848d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=radj6v0fam7t737c2phfjko1j39hj0drc2%404ax.com
This directly contadicts the OED definition you have provided,
Jim-bob!!!
Have you admitted that Desi can be both anti-US and pro-American yet,
Jim-bob?
"Repeating -- Words do not only have a singular meaning in most
cases."
Yep!
-------------------------------
look how rattled Jim-bob (the fake liberal) woz when his
villifaction/witch-hunting of Desi woz exposed:
"I'm sorry... but the very beginning of your entrance into this
thread, seemed to imply that I could not comment on the racism I see
in desi providing such racist slurs. If I have a _right_ to comment,
what is the purpose of your dialog, which I took as presuming I have
no such right? Now if you presume I DO have such a right... then
this dialog is essentially at an end... since that's been my only
objective. To argue that I DO have such a _right_."
I had said:
"Surely the ability to make racist comments is enshrined in the
concept
of free-speech?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2232902848d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=a5ec705.0303051709.14f7ed4c%40posting.google.com
!!
-----------------------------------
Reagrds his claims that Brazialians are not Americans...
"Brazilians are more properly South Americans. No one, other than
some jerk who has some anti-U.S. feelings at the core, would claim
that a Brazilian is an "American.""
"Brazilians are citizens of a nation in the Americas. As such they
can be _called_ Americans. If one wishes to look stupid... anything
is possible. "
See how he accuses anyone who disagrees with him "anti-US"!!
-----------------------------------
Now onto my pet project: his downright lie against me personally (no
"opinion" veto to extricate himsen from this one!!!)
"Actually, you dismissed the OED, and claimed you preferred something
else. "
"Since first you rather accepted the OED, and offered your alternate
[he means "alternative": I think] eference. But when I showed many
other references, you then tried to pick apart what you had already
presumed was a definition."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2232902848d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=radj6v0fam7t737c2phfjko1j39hj0drc2%404ax.com
"you did NOT dispute it at first, but claimed preference in another "
"And you then went on to "quote" Webster. Apparently trying to
dismiss the OED."
"But it seems that MY Webster's would more agree with me. Plus a
great variety of other respected definition resources I provided."
That`s coz I never quoted the Webster Jim-bob!! Cite where I quoted or
used *any* definition other than that contained in yr link (the OED).
Do it Jimmy or you are caught out lying big-time.
-----------------------------
He does not consider the white european slaves of the ancient
Egyptians slaves coz:
"No... actually they don't count. Slavery was around when man first
emerged from the caves. Are you intent on asserting that racism
wasn't evidenced when Blacks were exported from Africa as slaves, in a
most methodical and mechanical operation?"
Regards slavery: Jim-bob has said frequently that I want to "bring it
back":
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1480274994d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=eeup6vsae76j866vhete2mredmespgfc5a%404ax.com
"I can see your intention is to _justify_ both racism and slavery"
Where iz hiz evidence? He will not provide it!!
--------------------------------
A classic Jim-bob `argument:
"I did not say "only-white-people-are racist." But that kind of trying
to put those words in my mouth would seem to imply that you're saying
_white-people-are-not-racist_."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1480274994d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=eeup6vsae76j866vhete2mredmespgfc5a%404ax.com
Can anything Jim-bob sez be trusted?
Let`s not forget he considers "frog" to mean "stupid" and not
"french"!!!!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1480274994d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=eeup6vsae76j866vhete2mredmespgfc5a%404ax.com
He defines the "black Americans" as a race and yet sez:
"Well, going back far enough we are all of one race... the human race.
Unfortunately, there are many who do not see it in those terms."
Is Jim-bob a victim of his own duplicity?
---------------------
Au Revoir, nevvy
"I am not in any *international* debate with you." Jim-bob 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1480274994d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=eeup6vsae76j866vhete2mredmespgfc5a%404ax.com
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
> [X] Insert your own excuse - occasional e-mail correspondent
doggie has in his possession the personal details of more than one
poster on the newsgroup. He would not in a million years reveal them.
That's good enough for me.
There are certain things that people won't do. I have in my possession
the telephone numbers of doggie and Desmond, the latter being saleable
to any number of stalkers for what I imagine would be quite amusing
numbers of greenbacks.
There have been a number of people who knew who I was before I decided
to post without my identity obscured (I did this out of irritation at
another poster's mistaken identification of another employee at my
workplace for me) and I felt that I could trust them implicitly. It
appears that, in all cases, my trust was well founded. One of those
people was doggie. It seems to me that someone with such a mischievous
nature who can be trusted with such information is unlikely to do
anything that could potentially _harm_ one of his antagonists (unless
you call reducing one's interlocutors to very public tears "harm").
It all comes to no more than a gut feeling, I know, but there you have
it.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<se1i6v8bla3gf129b...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>> Further, I am not sure how much you really know about desi. He is certainly
>> bigoted against members of the U.K., as well as Americans.
>
>
>No he isn't.
LOL. You really ARE a newbie, aren't you?
The titanic struggles between St. George and desi are legend here... and desi
was utterly ripped apart by St. George in respect to the U.K. bigotry expressed
by desi. Of course, it never was an actual _contest_ considering the intellectual
capacity of St. George waging war against the ignorant French nationalism of
desi. We could only look on and pity the poor fool. A good example of this is
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn842uli.q2.desmond%40tortue.coughlan.net
where desi becomes desperate enough to call Mark a "bigot," because Mark
had made a most benign comment about an achievement of the U.K., without
presuming that desi's French nationalism would rear its ugly head. But, of
course, it DID, and desi then immediately commence a bigoted rage against the
U.K. That is a post that is absolutely hilarious, when view in the context of desi
claiming he is not a hypocrite. And _good ol' Mark_ recognized that immediately
and responded by posting "I may be a bigot, but you are a hypocritical bigot."
Hitting the nail directly on the head, in respect to desi's comment following calling
Mark a "bigot."
Of course, that is only one small example, and the entire dialog between them is too
extensive to repeat here.
<rest of rubbish clipped>
PV
dirtdog
wrote:
<snip>
>Dirt, did you send him a virus or worm? Naughty, naughty!
No, you baccy chewing halfwit, I did not send 'Cerby' a 'virus or
worm'.
Indeed, I am rather puzzled by this latest outburst from Nerd Boy. At
first, I believed him to be simply 'trolling' in an effort to claim
some form of Gimmick #2 style victory by provoking an outraged denial.
However, it really does seem to be that 'Cerby' has been idiotic
enough to infect his machine with a trojan, and (call me gullible)
does seem to genuinely believe me to be the culprit.
To this I have one thing to say...
LOL!!!!!!
What a fucking anus! If he's so fucking thick that he executes an
unsolicited attachment and then spends a couple of days getting his
'IT People' (read: his even _geekier_ mate) to 'isolate' the said
trojan, I'm only sorry I didn't think of doing the fucker myself!
Perhaps 'Cerby's' evident discomfort comes from his concern that,
ironically, the person who spends so much of his time threatening to
'expose' other posters may be the first to meet such a fate himself!
Like I said, LOL!!!!!
w00f
PS- Hey, 'Cerby', BOO!
dirtdog
<Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
>
>"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
>message news:jonathan-776CD0...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
>: In article <3E6E91ED...@hotmail.com>, ric...@hotmail.com wrote:
>:
>: > Dirt, did you send him a virus or worm? Naughty, naughty!
>:
>: I don't believe it would have been intentional. Although he's likely to
>: kill me for it, I can vouch for doggie's good character. He's a cunt
>: but not _that_ much of a cunt.
>:
>: Of course, it appears that he'll be using the incident (such as it may
>: have been) to tease Cerberus. That's about the size of things on this
>: newsgroup - it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
>:
>: Tee hee!
>
<petulant whining snipped>
'It' was neither intentional nor unintentional (what sort of halfwit
do you take me for?), QZD.
It appears that 'Cerby' has fallen to the addp pox of madness. I shall
pray for him.
w00f
dirtdog
<Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
>
>"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3E6E91ED...@hotmail.com...
>: dirtdog wrote:
>: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:09:52 +0800, "Cerberus"
>: > <Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
>
>{'dirtdogs' embarrassment at being caught out sending e-bugs, snipped}
>:
>: Dirt, did you send him a virus or worm? Naughty, naughty!
>
>Yes he bloody well did.
>
>Now given the character reference that has been afforded him in another
>posting by someone who is either deluded or drunk, I am starting to think
>that 'dirtdog' hasn't got a clue what's going on anyway.
Backpeddling [sic], 'Cerby'?
I'm sure my inbox at dirtdogU...@fruffrant.com will be full of
your reasons and apologies
>Taking into account the aforesaid character reference, and in the absence of
>any other evidence condemning him, I shall forgo having a large man come
>round to his place to insert his keyboard into his rectum.
*wheeze*
My Lord, you're a veritable fountain of idle threats, Nerd Boy!
You may keep your 'large man' at home so he can insert a quite
different tactile 'device' up your own 'rectum'!
[cue gimmick #666]
>
>Only just though.
>
>He should probably avail himself of the services of a decent virus checking
>program. In the interim, beware.
Bwahahahaahaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
My fucking arse, 'Cerby', I'm a quiverin'!
Here I am, shaking in my boots, installing every anti-virus proggy on
the market in fear of the one in a thousand chance that a person so
_thick_ that he executes a trojan-laden attachment and then has to get
his fucking _mate_ around to get rid of it might actually mange to
intentionally send on an infected file without fucking his own machine
in the process!
Come an' get me, Big Boy!
w00f
dirtdog
<Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dirtdogU...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
>news:dv0t6vkl4182jd873...@4ax.com...
>: On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:09:52 +0800, "Cerberus"
>: <Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote:
>:
>: <snip>
>: :
>: Did they consult with your 'secretary' in order to book a suitable
>: time to tend to your machine? Perhaps they waited until you were on
>: your 'third bottle of Dom'!
>:
>
>All the above and more my sooty-pawed friend.
>
>Don't like it? Well I guess all you can do is watch as the good things in
>life continue to pass you by.
How ironic, given my earlier post tonight, especially when compared
with your penchant for imaginary backpacking holidays in Third World
dictatorships!
<'Cerby' trying to impress someone who had his first personal
secretary at the age of _24_ by spouting grandiose and patently
exaggerated claims snipped>
w00f
PS- Boo!
dirtdog
<mister...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<some good, honest thoughtful if not completely correct argument from
Neville, followed by the requisite bible-thumping outrage from FW and
'Cerby' bouncing up and down on the spot shouting 'look at me! I
called someone a racist! Look! Aren't I righteous? Give me a gold
fucking star!' snipped>
>Don't talk to Nev, he can't read it anyway; his monitor only displays white.
The overall cluelessness of this group as to what racism is really is
quite astounding.
Don't get me wrong, I stopped following the original thread the moment
'A Planet Visitor' and '963 lines' appered in my newsreader. Neville
may have let himself down, I don't know, but I could certainly see the
way things were going. The standard procedure. Someone says something
non-PC. FW screams 'RACIST', the person attempts to justify his
position. FW screams 'RACIST RACIST'. The person tries again. 'RACIST
RACIST RACIST' comes the response.
Needless to say, as the bandwidth increases, the content rating takes
a nosedive.
Of course, FW repeating himself time and time again will doubtlessly
draw some fringe posters hoping to become more respected by producing
a few holier-than-thou proclamations. The self-fulfilling prophecy is
complete, and the poster starts saying racist things just to wind up
the fuckwits dancing around him.
Strange, though, isn't it, that all this comes about as a result of
easily spotted yet actually _laughable_ epithets?
Even stranger that no such merry dance has ensued on the few occasions
when _truly_ racist sentiment has been espoused in this newsgroup. I
can remember only four truly racist incidents in my time here. One
involved 'Frank' and so doesn't count. One involved the Holy
Inquisitor himself, another a respected senior poster and the final a
clueless newbie presently being reamed by QZD. I may of course be
missing incidents.
I therefore submit that most of you wouldn't know racism if it bit you
on your white-boy, suburban cocks. You are even less sure _why_ you
don't like it so much.
Some extracts from a previous post...
"Words are words are words. That is all. An expression of
hatred/superiority formed through words may be deemed as offensive to
some. To me, such sentiment is worthy of little attention unless it is
expressed in a way as to cause real practical detriment. On the other
hand, the words which tend to be classed as 'racial slurs' at their
worst are worthy only of derision, and even this should only arise
where used in a context where there is clear offensive intent.
In itself, the 'N' word is something I simply do not get annoyed
over. It is worthy of no greater status than any other derogatory term
based upon personal appearance. Why should this term be regarded as
having any status greater than, say, 'Fat Bastard'* or 'spekky twat'?
In the town where I grew up, as I have previously stated, such racial
'slurs' have taken on a wholly new and more sophisticated meaning.
This town will be the first in England (within 10 years, it is
predicted) to have a non white majority population. In America, this
would undoubtedly lead to great tension. In England, it does not, and
consequently, Leicester should to some extent be regarded as a model
for the US. As a teenager, and in my early twenties, it was
commonplace for 'racial terms' to be used, not in ignorance, but with
full knowledge of the fact that they conveyed wholly incorrect
stereotypical attitudes. Thus, generic terms were applied to a certain
_type_ of individual whose behaviour matched stereotypical attitudes
traditionally associated with his race, and would be used by all races
alike. It was not uncommon to hear from the mouth of a person of asian
extraction that he considered another Asian kid as a 'paki'. This had
little to do with his skin colour or nose shape, but implied that the
individual in question exhibited certain characteristics that
conformed with the common perceptions.
Obviously, the term 'paki' used to describe an Indian is, prima facie,
wholly ignorant, and its old style unthinking use typified this.
However, it is this ability of the British to realise the complete
irrelevance of skin colour, and to reduce the sting of past
indiscretions through the powerful tools of humour and irony that sets
them apart from truly 'racist' societies.
What you have said in a previous post is also true. It is the
responsibility of the American to interpret your words in the context
of your own culture, not yours to tailor them to suit theirs. As such,
it is the general ignorance of idiots such as PV which cause a
combination of ascii characters to become offensive, and it really is
laughable that he has whipped himself into such a sanctimonious frenzy
over this. He has made himself appear a fool.
* It could however be argued that this term is of lesser relevance,
since it rarely relates to an aspect of appearance over which the
labelled has no persona"
I look forward to hearing from any of you as to why you consider
calling someone a 'paki' or 'nigger' to be more offensive than calling
a person a 'spastic'.
w00f
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Honest Nev's a racist Cunt (Was French Joke)
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:24:00 +0000
>
>le Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:18:01 GMT, dans l'article
><jonathan-9875A8...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
><jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> There are certain things that people won't do. I have in my possession
>> the telephone numbers of doggie and Desmond, the latter being saleable
>> to any number of stalkers for what I imagine would be quite amusing
>> numbers of greenbacks.
>
>I think you have the 'old' number, when my mobile was still Orange [1]. My
>new number is with SFR [2]. Check your e-mail.
>
>[1] http://www.orange.fr/
>[2] http://www.sfr.fr/
>--
>Des The Deathie Spanker
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Honest Nev's a racist Cunt (Was French Joke)
>Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:24:00 +0000
>Lines: 24
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <0lo4k-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <se1i6v8bla3gf129b...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03030...@posting.google.com>
><eeup6vsae76j866vh...@4ax.com>
><3e6d8...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com>
><PFfba.184$TZ.1...@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>
><3e6d9a39$1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com>
><dv0t6vkl4182jd873...@4ax.com> <3E6E91ED...@hotmail.com>
><jonathan-776CD0...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><3e6ed...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com>
><jonathan-9875A8...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1047508132 69584412 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
Pride..... goeth before a fall....
Let me be clear about this... Our differences have reached the point
that I NEVER wish you to agree with me in ANYTHING, since you
AGREE with someone who called me a racist, which, regardless of
how you would try to twist it, means you have the same feeling toward
me in respect to racism. I loath your agreements. I certainly don't
need them, since you've proved yourself to be rather untrustworthy,
which casts a gloom over those times you might agree DETRACTING
rather than ADDING to their meaning. People then start to question
MY comment, simply because YOU agreed with it. Just as what
happened with John Rennie right here. I don't want it... I don't need
it... please don't provide it. I would rather have it UNDERSTOOD
that EVERY TIME you post to a comment of mine it is axiomatically
a disagreement. Is that clear enough? I do not need little evil goblins
running around behind me.. cackling their agreement as desi does.
But some questions -- rather than any suggestion of agreement --
Have you decided yet why you supported desi calling me a racist,
if you believe I am not, since I provided a tribute to MLK, rather than
any comment which could possibly imply racism on my part?
Have you decided whether you AGREE with desi's conclusion that
I am a racist? And if not, why did you AGREE with him calling me
a racist? Don't you usually oppose calling people racists, when you
don't see them as racists? Isn't that what you did in respect to the
30 racist comments from desi that I referred to? Why did you
disagree with my providing those 30 racist comments (rather forcefully
I might add) because I had called desi a racist, and then not disagree
with desi when he called me a racist? Unless you AGREE that you
believe I am a racist, which you've tried to deny having said? Do you
pick and choose those you allow to call others racists, when you
don't see them as racists? Or can it all go back to the _Great
White Whale_?
Have you decided what you mean when you said that desi did
not call me a racist FOR offering a tribute to MLK... but in your
learned opinion did so IN SPITE OF my offering a tribute to MLK?
Since it's rather obvious if I had NOT offered a tribute, there would
have been no comment at all from him.. In fact, the entire thread would
not exist. So it's rather obvious he called me a racist BECAUSE I
offered that tribute... FOR offering that tribute. Thus, my question
is ... do you consider yourself a hypocrite for being a hypocrite?
Then, could you answer as to who was the first to attempt to demonize
the other in the MLK day thread after looking at my original comment
which began that thread and desi's various remarks directed to that
tribute?
Then in respect to your words -- ""Prior to that, there were no such rants
from PV about racism - neither that which he is accusing Desmond of nor
general racism in society. PV only decided to don this anti-racism hat
of his after Desmond began accusing him of racism. "
Given that I've provided conclusive evidence that you simply posted a
LIE...Can I expect an admission of you having lied?
And finally, given that I've apologized for putting my TRANSLATION
comments in quotes... when can we expect one from you, regarding
you doing that with words you quote from me that certainly did not
come from me?
The group waits and wonders....does JPB have any credibility left
whatsoever???
PV
John Rennie
>
snipped much I agree with
>
> I look forward to hearing from any of you as to why you consider
> calling someone a 'paki' or 'nigger' to be more offensive than calling
> a person a 'spastic'.
>
> w00f
It isn't.
Some information about Leicester which I'm sure you won't mind me
pointing out: This part of the mid-England had an influx of
Asians both Hindu and Muslim when the obnoxious African
dictators of east African countries decided to shoot themselves
in the foot and get rid of the most productive and progressive
element in their society. Although these new British citizens
came to Leicester and other midlands towns completely
stripped of funds, they possessed energy and education and
quickly restored their fortunes. They should not be equated
with the average Afro-American (they have never been slaves),
and our successful experience in integration with these most
welcome immigrants cannot be a role model for America.
Besides which I believe Asian communities have done equally
well in America
Just passing by
>
> LOL. You really ARE a newbie, aren't you?
Yes, compared to people like Desmond and Don Kool I am, but as I first
posted here as far back as February of 2001, that means that your
first post was less than a year before mine .... although I do concede
that Necro was around long before then.
>
> The titanic struggles between St. George and desi are legend here... and desi
> was utterly ripped apart by St. George in respect to the U.K. bigotry expressed
> by desi. Of course, it never was an actual _contest_ considering the intellectual
> capacity of St. George waging war against the ignorant French nationalism of
> desi. We could only look on and pity the poor fool. A good example of this is
> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn842uli.q2.desmond%40tortue.coughlan.net
I am pleased that you provided that URL. I have just read that post
and found it to be a remarkably good essay on some of the less
attractive aspects of life in the UK. His comments about D-Notices
reflected my own views - I wrote a number of articles about them a few
years ago after the Blair government tried to use them to gag the BBC
and Flight International magazine to stop them from exposing how
inefficient certain bombs that killed innocent Yugoslavian civilians
were in finding their intended military targets.
I am also pleased because, by providing that post of Desmond's as an
example of what you call "a bigoted rage against the U.K." you have
put on record your own definition of bigotry - i.e. perfectly
legitimate criticism of outdated institutions and government
policies/decisions.
There is nothing in that post of Desmond's that is in any way an
attack on the people of the UK as a whole. Indeed it could be argued
that it was, if anything, pro-British, because he was arguing for
changes that he believes would give the British people a higher
quality of life.
All you have revealed in this latest post of your is that you WISH you
could show Desmond to be anti-British, just as you WISH you could show
him to be racist. But as he is neither of those, you have to settle
for providing examples of where he has done nothing more than simply
REFER to Britain and REFER to racism, and hope that people will not
check your claims out. In my case your tricks haven't worked ......
but then they never do, so one wonders why you keep trying them on me.
Just passing by
reply, so I have clipped all the usual stuff about goblins.
> Then in respect to your words -- ""Prior to that, there were no such rants
> from PV about racism - neither that which he is accusing Desmond of nor
> general racism in society. PV only decided to don this anti-racism hat
> of his after Desmond began accusing him of racism. "
>
> Given that I've provided conclusive evidence that you simply posted a
> LIE...Can I expect an admission of you having lied?
Certainly not, because those words of mine you extracted are entirely
accurate. The key word there is "rants". I have found mere references
to racism in your posts going back as far as you have claimed to have
been attacking racism, but a mere reference is not the same as an
attack, and what can, at the very most, be described as mild
criticism, is nothing compared to the intensity of some of your more
recent output on the subject of racism.
The issue is consistency, or, in your case, the lack of it. Just keep
watching the "MLK Day" thread. Not yet, but soon.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote:
> le 12 Mar 2003 09:50:48 -0800, dans l'article
> <d9253152.03031...@posting.google.com>, yours_most_truly
> <asc...@zdnetonebox.com> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> > My one and only damaging encounter with a virus occurred back when I
> > was
> > running Windows 3.11 on a computer with no inter or intranet
> > connections and
>
> { snip }
>
> Whereas my machine here has about four of five viruses physically present
> on its hard drives ... and they're about as malicious as a bumble bee in
> a
> jam jar.
Likewise. Except that I have them on two machines from which they can
_never_ propagate and serve only as interesting case studies into the
methodology of script kiddies.
Honest Nev
<snip waffling of the self-styled `intellectual` PV>
> Pride..... goeth before a fall....
>
> Let me be clear about this... Our differences have reached the point
> that I NEVER wish you to agree with me in ANYTHING, since you
> AGREE with someone who called me a racist, which, regardless of
> how you would try to twist it, means you have the same feeling toward
> me in respect to racism. I loath your agreements. I certainly don't
> need them, since you've proved yourself to be rather untrustworthy,
> which casts a gloom over those times you might agree DETRACTING
> rather than ADDING to their meaning. People then start to question
> MY comment, simply because YOU agreed with it.
People will disagree with you cos yr a priggish twat, jim-bob. You are
a silly billy, really.
> Just as what
> happened with John Rennie right here. I don't want it... I don't need
> it... please don't provide it. I would rather have it UNDERSTOOD
> that EVERY TIME you post to a comment of mine it is axiomatically
> a disagreement. Is that clear enough? I do not need little evil goblins
> running around behind me.. cackling their agreement as desi does.
Christ Almighty! Wot is Jim-bob`s fixation with Desi and his "little
evil goblins"? LOL!
<snip Jim-bob moaning about Desi again! How can one man find the time
to write so much and yet say nothing?>
> Then in respect to your words -- ""Prior to that, there were no such rants
> from PV about racism - neither that which he is accusing Desmond of nor
> general racism in society. PV only decided to don this anti-racism hat
> of his after Desmond began accusing him of racism. "
>
> Given that I've provided conclusive evidence that you simply posted a
> LIE...Can I expect an admission of you having lied?
Oh PV you are a silly twat asking others to admit to `lies` when you
do not.
You have stated repeatedly in this thread that I provided an
alternative definition of "America" to the one you provided (OED):
"Actually, you dismissed the OED, and claimed you preferred something
else. "
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2232902848d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=radj6v0fam7t737c2phfjko1j39hj0drc2%404ax.com
"Since first you rather accepted the OED, and offered your alternate
[he means "alternative": I think] eference. But when I showed many
other references, you then tried to pick apart what you had already
presumed was a definition."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2232902848d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=radj6v0fam7t737c2phfjko1j39hj0drc2%404ax.com
"you did NOT dispute it at first, but claimed preference in another "
"And you then went on to "quote" Webster. Apparently trying to
dismiss the OED."
Where did I quote the Webster or any other dictionary (besides the
OED)regards "America"? Or even "claimed preference in another"?
Yr a liar Jim-bob: admit it or prove me wrong.
------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 1: the text in question where I :
1. State preference for the OED over the Webster
2. Quote the OED directly from jim-bob`s link.
3. Make prefectly valid observation.
"I`m glad you like the OED and not the Webster!
"America, the name of a land mass of the western hemisphere,
consisting of the two continents of North and South America, joined by
the Isthmus of Panama"
Thus the US is not, factually; historically, or geographically
speaking "America": it is a part of America (and not even the main
part of "North America" geographically speaking)"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1452657700d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=a5ec705.0303061442.2ea4b9a8%40posting.google.com
---------------------------------------
yrs nevvie
Dolly Coughlan Jr
>Subject: Re: Honest Nev's a racist Cunt (Was French Joke)
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:35:46 +0000
>
>le 12 Mar 2003 09:50:48 -0800, dans l'article
><d9253152.03031...@posting.google.com>, yours_most_truly
><asc...@zdnetonebox.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> My one and only damaging encounter with a virus occurred back when I was
>> running Windows 3.11 on a computer with no inter or intranet connections
>and
>
>{ snip }
>
>Whereas my machine here has about four of five viruses physically present
>on its hard drives ... and they're about as malicious as a bumble bee in a
>jam jar.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Des The Deathie Spanker
>http://www.zeouane.org/
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Honest Nev's a racist Cunt (Was French Joke)
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:35:46 +0000
>Lines: 25
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <2ko6k-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <se1i6v8bla3gf129b...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03030...@posting.google.com>
><1etl6v46oc0u7kpor...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03030...@posting.google.com>
><eeup6vsae76j866vh...@4ax.com>
><3e6d8...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com>
><PFfba.184$TZ.1...@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>
><3e6d9a39$1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com>
><dv0t6vkl4182jd873...@4ax.com> <3E6E91ED...@hotmail.com>
><d9253152.03031...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1047573826 70401980 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: French joke
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 05:45:57 +0000
>
>le Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:33:23 GMT, dans l'article <9i1v6vcaavk4m9s0uqh8msf=
>ri7v9...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...=20
>
>>>> Further, I am not sure how much you really know about desi. He is ce=
>rtainly
>>>> bigoted against members of the U.K., as well as Americans.
>
>>>No he isn't.=20
>
>> LOL. You really ARE a newbie, aren't you?
>>=20
>> The titanic struggles between St. George and desi are legend here... an=
>d desi
>> was utterly ripped apart by St. George in respect to the U.K. bigotry e=
>xpressed
>> by desi.=20=20
>
>Here we witness the first recorded use of gimmick n=B0 135, involving _tw=
>o_
>Light Dwellers ... url:http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/1=
>35.html
>
>Who says that FW isn't an innovator, eh ?=20
>
>LOL !!
>
>{ snip remainder of cry for help }
>
>> Of course, that is only one small example, and the entire dialog betwee=
>n
>> them is too extensive to repeat here.
>
>Translation: FW makes a claim, is unable to back it up, so just invokes
>gimmick n=B0 151, the 'everyone knows' gimmick ...=20
>
>url:http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/151.html
>
>--=20
>Des The Deathie Spanker=20=20=20=20
>http://www.zeouane.org/=20
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/=20
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _=20
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!uio.no!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212
-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: French joke
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 05:45:57 +0000
>Lines: 47
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <lhi5k-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <ggiaj-0...@zeouane.org> <r2qbj-9...@zeouane.org>
><c7h86v80t5bukofg0...@4ax.com> <9grej-l...@zeouane.org>
><sffb6vof2a2gfbfu7...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03030...@posting.google.com>
><pg3e6v0rb762gtklh...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03030...@posting.google.com>
><se1i6v8bla3gf129b...@4ax.com>
><21b1da28.0303...@posting.google.com>
><9i1v6vcaavk4m9s0u...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1047534829 69920260 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dolly Coughlan Jr
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: French joke
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:05:29 +0000
>
>le 13 Mar 2003 04:39:24 -0800, dans l'article <21b1da28.0303130439.234972=
>a...@posting.google.com>, Just passing by <unimpre...@yahoo.com> a dit =
>...=20
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> The titanic struggles between St. George and desi are legend here... a=
>nd
>>> desi was utterly ripped apart by St. George in respect to the U.K.
>>> bigotry expressed by desi. Of course, it never was an actual _contest=
>_
>>> considering the intellectual capacity of St. George waging war against
>>> the ignorant French nationalism of desi. We could only look on and pi=
>ty
>>> the poor fool. A good example of this is
>>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3Dslrn842uli.q2.desmond%40tor=
>tue.coughlan.net
>
>> I am pleased that you provided that URL. I have just read that post
>> and found it to be a remarkably good essay on some of the less
>> attractive aspects of life in the UK. His comments about D-Notices
>> reflected my own views - I wrote a number of articles about them a few
>> years ago after the Blair government tried to use them to gag the BBC
>> and Flight International magazine to stop them from exposing how
>> inefficient certain bombs that killed innocent Yugoslavian civilians
>> were in finding their intended military targets.
>
>I, too, am pleased that he posted that URL, as I had forgotten how my pos=
>t
>had ripped a hole in Mark's notion that the UK was the 'most free' countr=
>y
>in the world.=20=20
>
>Scrolling down the thread, we see that Mark's response was this one ...=20
>
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=3Dg:thl1716137567d&dq=3D&hl=3Den&lr=
>=3D&ie=3DUTF-8&selm=3D81shfr%24j8p%241%40lure.pipex.net&rnum=3D76
>
>Each paragraph beginning with a 'ROFL!', and ending with a declaration of
>victory. *chuckle* ... no wonder FW quotes it, and invokes gimmick n=B0 =
>135
>at the same time ... url:http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks=
>/135.html
>
>No wonder, either, that FW considers it a 'victory', when the poster clai=
>ms
>that the European Court of Justice is a 'British institution', when he
>believes that protecting the jobs of dishonest politicians is 'in the
>national interest', and where he believes that a politician forcefeeding
>his daughter an infected hamburger on national television, is 'democratic=
>'.
>
>Ha, ha, ha ... FuckWit should choose his friends more carefully. Then
>again, he _is_ somewat limited in choice ... intelligence ... wit ... sha=
>me
>... logic ... education ...=20
>
>{ snip }
>
>--=20
>Des The Deathie Spanker=20=20=20=20
>http://www.zeouane.org/=20
>http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/=20
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>__ __ _ __ ____________ ____ _=20
>\ \ / /_ _ _ __ ___ __ _| |__ __ _ \ \ / /__ / ___| | _ \/ |
> \ V / _` | '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ / _` | \ V / / /| |_ _____| |_) | |
> | | (_| | | | | | | (_| | | | | (_| | | | / /_| _|_____| _ <| |
> |_|\__,_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|\__,_| |_| /____|_| |_| \_\_|
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: French joke
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:05:29 +0000
>Lines: 69
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <p9c6k-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <ggiaj-0...@zeouane.org>
><c7h86v80t5bukofg0...@4ax.com> <9grej-l...@zeouane.org>
><sffb6vof2a2gfbfu7...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03030...@posting.google.com>
><pg3e6v0rb762gtklh...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03030...@posting.google.com>
><se1i6v8bla3gf129b...@4ax.com>
><21b1da28.0303...@posting.google.com>
><9i1v6vcaavk4m9s0u...@4ax.com>
><21b1da28.03031...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1047561230 70161837 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:18:01 GMT, dans l'article <jonathan-9875A8...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Mr Q. Z. Diablo <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> There are certain things that people won't do. I have in my possession
>> the telephone numbers of doggie and Desmond, the latter being saleable
>> to any number of stalkers for what I imagine would be quite amusing
>> numbers of greenbacks.
>
>I think you have the 'old' number, when my mobile was still Orange [1]. My
>new number is with SFR [2]. Check your e-mail.
>
>[1] http://www.orange.fr/
>[2] http://www.sfr.fr/
Spam complaint sent to http://www.zeouane.org
ROTFLMAO... I'm sure the _webmaster_ will take necessary aggressive action
to remove the poster from access to his server. Any chance that you're going to
get a _real job_ anytime soon, desi? Just how long does the French dole system
provide unemployment comp?
___|___
|
^
PV
>--
> Ayatollah desi
The _conspiracy_ lives... desi's words --
"You (and the others who sought to force me off the group) have yet to provide a
single iota of evidence that I have lied to this newsgroup."
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8clfa5.1cl.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le 13 Mar 2003 04:39:24 -0800, dans l'article <21b1da28.03031...@posting.google.com>, Just passing by <unimpre...@yahoo.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> The titanic struggles between St. George and desi are legend here... and
>>> desi was utterly ripped apart by St. George in respect to the U.K.
>>> bigotry expressed by desi. Of course, it never was an actual _contest_
>>> considering the intellectual capacity of St. George waging war against
>>> the ignorant French nationalism of desi. We could only look on and pity
>>> the poor fool. A good example of this is
>>> url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn842uli.q2.desmond%40tortue.coughlan.net
>
>> I am pleased that you provided that URL. I have just read that post
>> and found it to be a remarkably good essay on some of the less
>> attractive aspects of life in the UK. His comments about D-Notices
>> reflected my own views - I wrote a number of articles about them a few
>> years ago after the Blair government tried to use them to gag the BBC
>> and Flight International magazine to stop them from exposing how
>> inefficient certain bombs that killed innocent Yugoslavian civilians
>> were in finding their intended military targets.
>
>I, too, am pleased that he posted that URL, as I had forgotten how my post
>had ripped a hole in Mark's notion that the UK was the 'most free' country
>in the world.
>
>Scrolling down the thread, we see that Mark's response was this one ...
>
>
>Each paragraph beginning with a 'ROFL!', and ending with a declaration of
>victory. *chuckle* ... no wonder FW quotes it, and invokes gimmick n° 135
>at the same time ... url:http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/135.html
>
>No wonder, either, that FW considers it a 'victory', when the poster claims
>that the European Court of Justice is a 'British institution', when he
>believes that protecting the jobs of dishonest politicians is 'in the
>national interest', and where he believes that a politician forcefeeding
>his daughter an infected hamburger on national television, is 'democratic'.
>
>Ha, ha, ha ... FuckWit should choose his friends more carefully. Then
>again, he _is_ somewat limited in choice ... intelligence ... wit ... shame
>... logic ... education ...
>
Ah, yes... the mutual SLURP... SLURP... SLURP society at work Clearly
you calling St. George a "bigot" for saying only "You are quite correct to
acclaim Great Britain's world-leading inventiveness, ingenuity and altruism,"
was a demonstration of Desi Hysteria 101, coupled with a raging Nationalistic
defense of France, that only needed a "Heil DeGaulle." Coupled with the
_defense_ of France, by you declaring "The French don't smell." ROTFLMAO.
Further, unlike you... St. George was never my _friend_. But he most
certainly ripped you a new one, in every instance where you two confronted
each other.
PV
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Des The Spanked "Plaything" of PV
desi's love for our species... expressed in his words --
"I would rather see the extinction of the human race, than allow one innocent to
be put to death by the state."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=87wvtkfeg2.fsf%40lievre.coughlan.fr
A Planet Visitor
>Once again there is only one small part of PV's post that requires a
>reply, so I have clipped all the usual stuff about goblins.
>
>
>> Then in respect to your words -- ""Prior to that, there were no such rants
>> from PV about racism - neither that which he is accusing Desmond of nor
>> general racism in society. PV only decided to don this anti-racism hat
>> of his after Desmond began accusing him of racism. "
>>
>> Given that I've provided conclusive evidence that you simply posted a
>> LIE...Can I expect an admission of you having lied?
>
>
>Certainly not, because those words of mine you extracted are entirely
>accurate. The key word there is "rants". I have found mere references
>to racism in your posts going back as far as you have claimed to have
>been attacking racism, but a mere reference is not the same as an
>attack, and what can, at the very most, be described as mild
>criticism, is nothing compared to the intensity of some of your more
>recent output on the subject of racism.
>
Wow!!! You are even more deceptive than I first imagined. That shtick
you went through about _everyone is corrupt_, should have given me the
first clue, that twisting words is your only method. You'd now try to
_redefine_ what you mean by "rants." Apparently you no longer believe
it is a "rant" to call desi a racist... so you must then agree with my conclusion
formed two and a half years ago, when I specifically called him a racist.
If that's not a "rant" to you... you must agree with it. See --
My post on Aug 14, 2000 --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=wB1m5.2704%24Cc2.119579%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"Desmond Coughlan is a fundamental racist, using every possible
opportunity to exploit and twist the words of others while exhibiting
the qualities that all easily recognize as bigotry and prejudice"
Then again on Aug 20, 2000 --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=rPXn5.4870%24Nz4.243149%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"You see, DESMOND is the racist!!!! His protestations notwithstanding,
Desmond is the most dangerous form of a racist. He avows racial tolerance, but
underneath that facade lies a deep vein of hatred for all things other than those
outside of his tiny world"
Then again on Sept 25, 2000 --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=IeKz5.17225%24Vu5.842450%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"his disgusting anti US, racist, arrogant, self-righteous, and simply stupid
comments."
Now if SPECIFICALLY calling him a "racist," two and a half years ago, is not
seen by you as a "rant," then you must agree with my words. I will now
allow you one exception in agreeing with me... I am happy you agree that
desi is a racist, and my words were not a "rant."
>The issue is consistency, or, in your case, the lack of it. Just keep
>watching the "MLK Day" thread. Not yet, but soon.
LOL... You can be deliciously funny at times. And of course, intensely stupid
at the same time.
BTW -- Who demonized whom FIRST in the thread MLK Day???
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<9i1v6vcaavk4m9s0u...@4ax.com>...
>
>>
>> LOL. You really ARE a newbie, aren't you?
>
>
>Yes, compared to people like Desmond and Don Kool I am, but as I first
>posted here as far back as February of 2001, that means that your
>first post was less than a year before mine .... although I do concede
>that Necro was around long before then.
>
He was also around before I was here. What's your point? Or are you
again going to try and perpetrate one more of your lies?
SLURP... SLURP... SLURP. Do you really believe ANYONE finds ANYTHING
that you say in respect to MY COMMENTS holds any validity? And of course
desi is a racist... and you are his mentally deformed and emotionally stunted
little goblin, cackling along after him, arms flailing and forked tongue slithering
in and out as you offer your agreement with him... simply because you love
racists, and have this obsession with flab... as a confirmed _chubby chaser_.
LOL.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>"dirtdog" <dirtdogU...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
>news:rflv6vc9ndcqhblb4...@4ax.com...
>>
>
>snipped much I agree with
>>
>> I look forward to hearing from any of you as to why you consider
>> calling someone a 'paki' or 'nigger' to be more offensive than calling
>> a person a 'spastic'.
>>
>> w00f
>
>It isn't.
>
In a personal sense... directed at one particular person, they are
equally OFFENSIVE. But there are other considerations as I see it.
I don't know about the first... since I've not heard it used in the
U.S., but I have to say that the second has some grave implications.
Greater than the personal insult contained in that word. It's a word
of POWER, while 'spastic' is a word of insult, and I don't see how
anyone can presume it has an intention other than an insult. But the
word with power, goes far beyond any personal effect. It creates a
cycle, which isn't in evidence in a word which casts an insult as to a
presumed mental affliction of another. It creates a cycle of violence,
which is rather in evidence as existing in racism. Of course, they are
ALL hateful words... I cannot see how anyone would presume they
are benign. Even when Black friends use them with each other, they
do so in an attempt to diminish the power in that word. I don't know
about others... but I certainly DO know how American Blacks feel
about that word, and it certainly helps perpetuate that cycle of
violence in the U.S. I cannot imagine how anyone could believe it
works to reduce such a cycle. The racial slur can create a very
violent reaction, not only from the one being called such a slur, but
the very existence of the word. Of course, IMHO.
I do admit that I USED the word "spastic" here in the past, fully
meaning it to mean "stupid." I have not used it since Aug 20, 2002
and will not use it again, now that I recognize some might be
personally offended by it, and take it in its precise meaning, rather
than in respect to a demonstrated lack of intelligence. Once you
remarked that it offended you I would not use it. Unlike desi, who
presumed to insult you for even suggesting that you were offended,
and simply upped his use of the word. The ugly swine. (is that
okay? Ugly and swine?).
PV
A Planet Visitor
>Once again there is only one small part of PV's post that requires a
>reply, so I have clipped all the usual stuff about goblins.
<drivel clipped>
>
>The issue is consistency, or, in your case, the lack of it. Just keep
>watching the "MLK Day" thread. Not yet, but soon.
TRANSLATION == I haven't honed my lies quite good enough to expect
them to pass any muster here, with anyone but desi. I'll need to keep trying
to improve on those lies, fully realizing it is probably futile to do so, as PV
has nailed me so perfectly to the wall.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<2t507vost30lprv8g...@4ax.com>...
>
><snip waffling of the self-styled `intellectual` PV>
>
>> Pride..... goeth before a fall....
>>
>> Let me be clear about this... Our differences have reached the point
>> that I NEVER wish you to agree with me in ANYTHING, since you
>> AGREE with someone who called me a racist, which, regardless of
>> how you would try to twist it, means you have the same feeling toward
>> me in respect to racism. I loath your agreements. I certainly don't
>> need them, since you've proved yourself to be rather untrustworthy,
>> which casts a gloom over those times you might agree DETRACTING
>> rather than ADDING to their meaning. People then start to question
>> MY comment, simply because YOU agreed with it.
>
>People will disagree with you cos yr a priggish twat, jim-bob. You are
>a silly billy, really.
LOL... Ol' Nev is determined to make a further ass of himself. Tell you
what I'm going to do, Nev... I will argue your views with you, if you insure
that others understand what your position is prior to you making any comment --
So -- if in EVERY post you offer your opinions to me, you begin that post with
an official admission of your overall stance in our argument by you posting the
statement ==> I AM A RACIST... AND THE ARGUMENT I OFFER IS IN
DEFENSE OF RACISM <=== then, I will certainly argue in opposition to your
racism.
But barring that, I simply cannot provide you a forum to spread your racism and
expect to ALSO presume you are not a racist, yourself. Thus, without such an
admission on your part, it certainly cannot be expected that I could argue against
racism, with someone who is also against racist.
Aside from any issues of racism... I simply find you to be a non-person.
<comments clipped>
PV
>
>yrs nevvie
John Rennie
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,912885,00.html
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
[snip debate regarding the use of racist words]
My feelings about this are pretty straighforward. Whether a term is
racist (or indicates that its user is racist) depends on a number of
things, amongst which are
- context
- audience
- intent.
Of these, I feel that the notion of "intent" is the most important. A
word or comment becomes immediately innocuous if it is not _intended_ as
a racist slur, particularly if the word is used in the spirit of irony
or satire.
Context is also important but should be glaringly obvious to one and all.
Audience (to me) is the least important of the factors mentioned but is
a vexed question when posting to Usenet. It is a public forum, for
sure, and far be it from me to suggest that we should moderate our
behaviour to protect the delicate sensibilities of lurkers and Google
browsers (past present and future) but I feel that "racist" language
will be interpreted correctly by any better-than-casual observer.
I honestly don't believe that we've had an overtly racist "regular"
poster to a.a.d-p. since Frankie and that is in the (thankfully) distant
past.
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:33:23 GMT, dans l'article <9i1v6vcaavk4m9s0u...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>>>> Further, I am not sure how much you really know about desi. He is certainly
>>>> bigoted against members of the U.K., as well as Americans.
>
>>>No he isn't.
>
>> LOL. You really ARE a newbie, aren't you?
>>
>> The titanic struggles between St. George and desi are legend here... and desi
>> was utterly ripped apart by St. George in respect to the U.K. bigotry expressed
>> by desi.
>
>Here we witness the first recorded use of gimmick n° 135, involving _two_
>Light Dwellers ... url:http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/135.html
>
>Who says that FW isn't an innovator, eh ?
>
>LOL !!
>
>{ snip remainder of cry for help }
>
>> Of course, that is only one small example, and the entire dialog between
>> them is too extensive to repeat here.
>
>Translation: FW makes a claim, is unable to back it up, so just invokes
>gimmick n° 151, the 'everyone knows' gimmick ...
>
>url:http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/gimmicks/151.html
>
I only provide those references for OTHERS to look at, to see how big a
fool you have made of yourself in the past, desi. All your pathetic denials
aside. But I suppose you could always go back to begging the members
here to _vote_ for you, demanding they do so to "redeem" themselves,
accuse them of lacking "backbone" if they don't, and demand that they
leave the newsgroup unless they _vote_ for you.
You pathetic, whiny, cry-baby piece of crap.
PV
>--
>Ayatollah desi |Superlunary and Most Exalted
> |Spiritual Leader of the Universal
> |Right to Life Church. (umm... get
> |away from me -- you filthy black
> |starving child in Africa) 'My church'
> |isn't for you.
> http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
Am I obsessed with fighting 'evil'? Damn... I'm 'Superman' when it comes to fighting
desi's 'forces of evil.' References to a post which insightfully pronounced of desi
-- "'Cancerous' is almost a compliment when one views most of desi's comments --
other forms spring more easily to mind -- it is a parasitic diarrhea of the brain...
it is crazy chick disease transferred to our thinking process -- it is a swarm of
latrine flies settling on our ability to process information --- it is maggots
feasting on the bodies of numberless victims of murder. It is madness. utter madness.
It is Desmond Coughlan." Every evil, vile thought that has ever swept across this
group from desi's pen, as Genghis Kahn (or Attila the Hun, if you prefer) swept his
broad scythe of rape, death and destruction, in long, broad, excruciating strokes
across the face of humanity, stand as stark images of his perverse character. And we
stand witness to that depravity.
A Planet Visitor
<jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote:
>In article <v1q47vs1h65aatn11...@4ax.com>, A Planet
>Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>[snip debate regarding the use of racist words]
>
>My feelings about this are pretty straighforward. Whether a term is
>racist (or indicates that its user is racist) depends on a number of
>things, amongst which are
>
>- context
>- audience
>- intent.
>
>Of these, I feel that the notion of "intent" is the most important. A
>word or comment becomes immediately innocuous if it is not _intended_ as
>a racist slur, particularly if the word is used in the spirit of irony
>or satire.
>
I disagree. Most especially in this forum. I find irony and satire to only
be an EXCUSE to use those words. My opinion. I simply find
nothing which would excuse the use of those words here, since we
are certainly not examining the power behind them... but USING that
power when we post them, regardless of what we call it when we do.
I saw it clearly in ol' Nev. In fact, when I repeat desi's use of those
slurs, I am also using the POWER of those words... to demonstrate
that desi's use of them has a more diabolical purpose than irony or
satire... he certainly intends them to HARM, and USE that power
contained in those words.
>Context is also important but should be glaringly obvious to one and all.
>
Well... when someone USES those words, and presumes to be quoting
them from another, and lies by offering those quotes here, it is doubly
offensive, IMHO. They are using the power to both insult the race
which is affected by those slurs, and are using the power of those words,
in a deceptive intent to destroy the character of the other. Something that
desi does quite often. I personally, would never attribute such slurs to
another without clear evidence which supports my accusations. desi
does so routinely, in what you have recognized is hyperbole.
Certainly, although his comments did not contain a slur, his remarks to
my tribute to MLK attempted to destroy my character, while the
obvious and clear meaning of my post was certainly ANTI-RACIST.
Someone attempting to destroy the character of someone having
expressed an ANTI-RACIST commentary, must have an agenda
which contains an element of racism, simply because they have attacked
an ANTI-RACIST commentary. Regardless of any pathetic reasoning
they might offer. It strikes me as similar to a KKK burning down the
house of a Black and somehow trying to JUSTIFY having done so.
ANY excuse to denounce an ANTI-RACIST commentary just
doesn't wash with me. Even FRANK... if he offered that tribute
that I had offered, should not have generated the evil response that
desi provided.
>Audience (to me) is the least important of the factors mentioned but is
>a vexed question when posting to Usenet. It is a public forum, for
>sure, and far be it from me to suggest that we should moderate our
>behaviour to protect the delicate sensibilities of lurkers and Google
>browsers (past present and future) but I feel that "racist" language
>will be interpreted correctly by any better-than-casual observer.
>
The methods that desi uses are not that easily discernable to the
better-than-casual observer in my view. One looking at his posts,
in the context as he provides them, would come away with the feeling
that he 'protests' against the use. But in fact, it is quite the contrary,
since he is the ORIGINATOR of those slurs, and simply tries to
have others believe he is not. The casual observer will not usually
devote time to investigating if the reasoning behind his posting those
racist slurs is valid. I have yet to see him offer a valid reasoning
for them. In fact, I cannot even remember when he even concerned
himself with the well-recognized racist who previously posted here.
FRANK. Did he ever mention FRANK'S racism? I can't remember,
and cannot seem to locate a post where he did. Further, I can find
no post from desi that actually tries to examine racism. Nor do I
detect that he cares that much about it, to discuss it in respects
to its damaging nature. All I can find is when he wishes to use it as
a weapon against his sworn enemies. So it would seem to me that
desi only uses those racist slurs as a weapon against HIS ENEMIES,
as he most certainly does against me, rather than against any actual
racists. Which, as I said is doubly disgusting, since I can handle all
his insults, but those racist slurs go beyond simply insulting ME...
they insult OTHERS.
>I honestly don't believe that we've had an overtly racist "regular"
>poster to a.a.d-p. since Frankie and that is in the (thankfully) distant
>past.
desi makes himself look very stupid, by USING racist slurs to attack his
enemies, knowing full well they are not actually racists. This was a large
part of my identification of his racism, plus the fact he had made many
personal references to me, implying that I had posted racist slurs. The
straw that broke the camel's back with me, were his insulting references
to my mention of Mamie Till Mobley's passing, and obviously his
disgusting behavior in the MLK day tribute I provided, where he ended
up apologizing to the group for his language, and then went into a bombastic
rage... insulting every poster here, by claiming they dressed their "sycophancy
in the guise of not wanting to 'get involve'." That they needed to "redeem"
themselves (who does he think he is... Jesus???). That they had no
"backbone." That they had to "stand up now and be counted," or
"have the decency" to leave the newsgroup. Alternating between
begging, whining, insulting, demanding and ending in hypocrisy by
claiming I was the one demonizing, when he even admitted that was
his intention. There is little doubt in my mind that, at that moment,
in posting that comment, he had become a raging lunatic in his
desperation to extract himself from the obvious conclusion that one
cannot attack someone--- ANYONE -- for posting an
ANTI-RACISM post, without being brushed with the tag of being
a racist for presuming to offer such an attack.
He overstepped there... and I will not soon let him forget it.
PV
Honest Nev
> On 13 Mar 2003 16:55:51 -0800, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote:
>
> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<2t507vost30lprv8g...@4ax.com>...
> >
> ><snip waffling of the self-styled `intellectual` PV>
> >
> >> Pride..... goeth before a fall....
> >>
> >> Let me be clear about this... Our differences have reached the point
> >> that I NEVER wish you to agree with me in ANYTHING, since you
> >> AGREE with someone who called me a racist, which, regardless of
> >> how you would try to twist it, means you have the same feeling toward
> >> me in respect to racism. I loath your agreements. I certainly don't
> >> need them, since you've proved yourself to be rather untrustworthy,
> >> which casts a gloom over those times you might agree DETRACTING
> >> rather than ADDING to their meaning. People then start to question
> >> MY comment, simply because YOU agreed with it.
> >
> >People will disagree with you cos yr a priggish twat, jim-bob. You are
> >a silly billy, really.
>
> LOL... Ol' Nev is determined to make a further ass of himself. Tell you
> what I'm going to do, Nev... I will argue your views with you, if you insure
> that others understand what your position is prior to you making any comment -
ROTFLMAO!
You would never understand `my position` in a million years FW, you
are too blinkered by yr own hatred of Desi (and indeed anyone who is
outta time with yr pompous jackbooted goose-stepping).
<badly written FW condemnation of free-speech snipped>
> But barring that, I simply cannot provide you a forum
FW, you do not `provide` this forum: you are one jumped-up arrogant
twat and no mistake. Are you gonna call me "effete" again? LOL!
> to spread your racism and expect to ALSO presume you are not a racist,
> yourself.
Alas Jim-bob it is you who specialises in `doublespeak`.
> Thus, without such an admission on your part,
I am not a racist, nor do I need to justify mysen to you to post to
this forum, Jim-bob, you dirty censor, fascist, homophobe and
accredited "racist prick".
> it certainly cannot be expected that I could argue against racism, with
> someone who is also against racist.
As has been pointed out to you before (and not just by me) FW: you do
not know wot `racism` is.
If you fink I am a racist Jim-bob, that`s up to you. To be absolutely
candid I find your *grip* on virtually any subject you wish to espouse
upon looser than even the cheapest whore; and yr deductions to be even
more frequently floored than said whore`s drawers.
Please do not read into these comments that I find you to be a
cheap-whore who can be fucked-over easy, Jimbob, and that I have a low
opinion of whores. To the contrary, I in fact have a rather high
opinion of whores. LOL!
> Aside from any issues of racism... I simply find you to be a non-person.
>
> <comments clipped>
Where is yr admission of yr lie regards the OED? Wot`s up FW, why not
offer yr "opinion" that you did not lie? Do you feel this will not
`wash`? LOL!
Yrs Nevvie
Just passing by
>
> Certainly, although his comments did not contain a slur, his remarks to
> my tribute to MLK attempted to destroy my character, while the
> obvious and clear meaning of my post was certainly ANTI-RACIST.
> Someone attempting to destroy the character of someone having
> expressed an ANTI-RACIST commentary, must have an agenda
> which contains an element of racism, simply because they have attacked
> an ANTI-RACIST commentary.
Let's examine the logic of your claim that Desmond's reply to your
"MLK Day" post was somehow racist, by using a hypothetical parallel.
Supposing you posted a tribute to somebody who had been proven
innocent some time after being wrongly executed, and in doing so were
strongly critical of the system that allowed such an example of
ultimate injustice to occur. Now imagine that Desmond then attacked
you for making that tribute, not because he felt that nobody should
write one, but because he felt it inappropriate for you, a supporter
of the death penalty, to do so. Would that make Desmond a
retentionist?
If not, then what is the difference? He believes you are a racist, and
so attacked you for making an anti racist tribute that he saw as
hypocritical. For that you called him a racist. So if he were to call
you a hypocrite in the above hypothetical situation, wouldn't that,
according to your logic, make him a retentionist?
Mr Q. Z. D. at home
Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 02:54:25 GMT, "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
> <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote:
>
> >In article <v1q47vs1h65aatn11...@4ax.com>, A Planet
> >Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> >
> >[snip debate regarding the use of racist words]
> >
> >My feelings about this are pretty straighforward. Whether a term is
> >racist (or indicates that its user is racist) depends on a number of
> >things, amongst which are
> >
> >- context
> >- audience
> >- intent.
> >
> >Of these, I feel that the notion of "intent" is the most important. A
> >word or comment becomes immediately innocuous if it is not _intended_ as
> >a racist slur, particularly if the word is used in the spirit of irony
> >or satire.
> >
> I disagree. Most especially in this forum. I find irony and satire to
> only
> be an EXCUSE to use those words. My opinion.
And one which I do not share.
> I simply find
> nothing which would excuse the use of those words here, since we
> are certainly not examining the power behind them... but USING that
> power when we post them, regardless of what we call it when we do.
Once again, I can't bring myself to agree. I keep pretty clear of them
on most occasions but I'm not above using one or three for the effect of
pure shock. I find most forms of political correctness repugnant
regardless of whether their origins lie to the left or the right.
I can't quite see why the racist words alluded to (which I will continue
not to mention for some reason completely unknown to me or anyone else)
are any more offensive than, for example, "spag" or "retard". In fact,
I would say that those two derogatory terms are _more_ offensive as they
refer to conditions which adversely affect individuals. Being black (of
itself) is not an adverse condition and the spouting of racist epithets
in the manner and context that I encounter here seems comparatively
harmless.
All my opinion, of course.
> I saw it clearly in ol' Nev.
I can't say that I paid much attention to his posts. They seemed
occasionally amusing but I must admit to have merely skimmed over them.
I have excised any direct references to Desmond here because, quite
simply, we are not (and will never be) in agreement regarding his
character, just as Desmond and I are not (and will probably never be) in
agreement about yours.
> >Context is also important but should be glaringly obvious to one and
> >all.
> >
> Well... when someone USES those words, and presumes to be quoting
> them from another, and lies by offering those quotes here, it is doubly
> offensive, IMHO.
I don't know whether I'd count it as offensive but I find it rather
galling that a number of posters have labelled you a racist when the
prima facie evidence suggests strongly that the opposite is true.
> Someone attempting to destroy the character of someone having
> expressed an ANTI-RACIST commentary, must have an agenda
> which contains an element of racism, simply because they have attacked
> an ANTI-RACIST commentary.
I can't agree with this, either. An attack on someone making an
anti-racist statement could also constitute an attempt to expose
hypocrisy or besmirch the character of the speaker/writer. FWIW at this
late stage, I _know_ that your MLK tribute post was just that - a
tribute.
> FRANK. Did he ever mention FRANK'S racism?
I think that we all recognised Frank's racism.
My comments were intended to address the use of racist terms on a.a.d-p.
_in_general_ rather than in a specific case. In general, I am
ambivalent about the issue. When a bona fide racist appears here,
however, I am prepared to hound them until they are sorry that they were
foolish enough ever to post to Usenet.
A Planet Visitor
JPB HYPOCRISY ALERT JPB HYPOCRISY ALERT JPB HYPOCRISY ALERT
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<fgr57v8lp5b07erl6...@4ax.com>...
>
>>
>> Certainly, although his comments did not contain a slur, his remarks to
>> my tribute to MLK attempted to destroy my character, while the
>> obvious and clear meaning of my post was certainly ANTI-RACIST.
>> Someone attempting to destroy the character of someone having
>> expressed an ANTI-RACIST commentary, must have an agenda
>> which contains an element of racism, simply because they have attacked
>> an ANTI-RACIST commentary.
>
>Let's examine the logic of your claim that Desmond's reply to your
>"MLK Day" post was somehow racist, by using a hypothetical parallel.
>
Let's examine this --
1)
a) desi posted some comments containing racist slurs.
b) PV called him a racist when remarking on those racist slurs.
c) JPB argued that PV COULD NOT call him a racist for doing so.
2)
a) PV posted a tribute to MLK
b) desi called PV a racist when remarking on that tribute.
c) JPB argued that desi COULD call PV a racist for doing so.
Do you possibly see the HYPOCRISY in your comments regarding 1)c),
and 2)c)??? Apparently, in your view, I CANNOT see racism in desi posting
racist slurs, but desi CAN see racism in my posting a tribute to MLK.
I CANNOT call desi a racist for his providing racist slurs, but he CAN
call me a racist for providing an anti-racist tribute. Apparently NO ONE
can call desi a racist when he posts racist slurs, which demonstrate his
racism... But desi can call someone a racist when they post a TRIBUTE to
those who fight for civil rights.
I repeat ---
You are the world's biggest hypocrite. A disgusting mentally crippled and
emotionally stunted little goblin, cackling along behind desi, arms flailing and
forked tongue slithering in and out as you offer your agreement with him...
simply because you love racists, and have this obsession with flab... as a
confirmed _chubby chaser_. In your view, desi can post all the racial
slurs he wishes, and can never be faulted for doing so. While at the same
time, he can call someone else a racist, when they post a tribute to MLK.
And you agree with him doing so.
>Supposing you posted a tribute to somebody who had been proven
>innocent some time after being wrongly executed, and in doing so were
>strongly critical of the system that allowed such an example of
>ultimate injustice to occur. Now imagine that Desmond then attacked
>you for making that tribute, not because he felt that nobody should
>write one, but because he felt it inappropriate for you, a supporter
>of the death penalty, to do so. Would that make Desmond a
>retentionist?
>
No... It would make him what he's always been -- an evil swine,
intent on only providing another example of his insults by way of
hyperbole.... just as you now demonstrate you are a hypocrite.
One does not need to be blind to various flaws in the concept of
the DP, to still support the DP, if those flaws are seen as fewer than
the flaws seen in abolition. Itt would be reasonable, and balanced
to expect someone to rightly point them out when they are seen.
I would be more suspect of those who found NO flaws in their
particular argument of either abolition or retention. Thus, if someone
attacked another for pointing out a particular flaw, it could only be
seen as a PERSONAL ATTACK on the original poster, rather than
proof that one must hold a contrary view of the DP itself.. Something
desi is well familiar with as a weapon. But there is no flaw in
anti-racism. Only a racist could possibly find a flaw in any comment
which expresses an anti-racist sentiment. When someone attacks
another for expressing anti-racism, their only purpose is to attack
that tribute to ANTI-RACISM, which thus must itself contain an
element of racism. In any case, it is the ultimate hypocrisy on
YOUR part, to presume that I could not call desi a racist for his
posting racist slurs, but that HE could call me a racist because I
posted an anti-racism tribute. Neither abolition nor retention are
_absolute_ concepts, thus various shadings can be presumed. But
racism has no such shadings...it is an _absolute_ monstrosity
directed at other humans as a group. One can well attack BOTH
abolition and retention -- that is in fact why this group is even here.
One CANNOT attack anti-racism, without expressing a racist
view. Thus, when I offered a tribute to MLK, I was expressing
an anti-racist comment, and attacking that is attacking such an
anti-racist comment. Which is an opinion which CANNOT be
supported, unless one presumes to hold a contrary opinion... a
racist opinion. Quite certainly desi demonstrated very clear racist
view, in attacking a tribute to MLK, regardless of who the author
was.
>If not, then what is the difference? He believes you are a racist, and
>so attacked you for making an anti racist tribute that he saw as
>hypocritical.
And you support him for doing so... but presumed that I could not
believe that he is a racist, for the many racist slurs he has provided in
comments in this group. Can you possibly see a double-standard you
are using in your hysterical defense of his racist view? Apparently
there is NOTHING he could do to appear as a racist to you, but he
could accuse another of being a racist when the other posts a tribute
to MLK, and you would defend him in making any absurd claim he
might make. Or else, contrary to your recent claims, YOU are also
calling me a racist.
> For that you called him a racist. So if he were to call
>you a hypocrite in the above hypothetical situation, wouldn't that,
>according to your logic, make him a retentionist?
Not at all... not as long as abolition and retention can be seen as two
moral possibilities. While an anti-racist view and a racist view
CANNOT. Unless one believes being a racist is MORAL. Someone
objecting to a comment regarding abolition or retention, does not
make it necessary that they by definition hold the contrary argument
in respect to the CONCEPT. If it did, this would mean that every
crazy comment from a particular side, would necessarily need to be
supported simply because one holds the same view on the DP.
I certainly disagree with many of those who hold for retention,
for different reasons, and I would find it stupid if someone held for
abolition by supporting EVERY crazy who has expressed an abolitionist
view here, at one time or another, simply because they are also
abolitionists. But those objecting to an anti-racist view, necessarily
makes them by definition holding the contrary argument in respect to
the CONCEPT of racism. Because the contrary argument cannot be
argued unless one is opposed to that anti-racist view.... which
makes one a racist.
Which returns us to the questions you have never answered --
Have you decided yet WHY you supported desi calling me a racist,
if you believe I am not, since I provided a tribute to MLK, rather than
any comment which could possibly imply racism on my part?
Regardless of any presumption you might offer that he has the _right_
to do so, you obviously SUPPORT him doing so, as you offer no
objection to him doing so. Don't you usually oppose calling people
racists, when you don't see them as racists? Isn't that what you did in
respect to the 30 racist comments from desi that I referred to? Why
did you disagree with my calling desi a racist when providing those
30 racist slurs desi had posted (rather forcefully I might add), and then
not disagree with desi when he called me a racist? Unless you AGREE
that you believe I am a racist, which you've tried to deny having said?
Do you pick and choose those you allow to call others racists, when
you don't see them as racists? Or can it all go back to the _Great
White Whale_?
Then, could you answer as to who was the first to attempt to demonize
the other in the MLK day thread after looking at my original comment
which began that thread and desi's various remarks directed to that
tribute?
Then in respect to your words -- ""Prior to that, there were no such rants
from PV about racism - neither that which he is accusing Desmond of nor
general racism in society. PV only decided to don this anti-racism hat
of his after Desmond began accusing him of racism. "
Given that I've provided conclusive evidence that you simply posted a
LIE...Can I expect an admission of you having lied?
And finally, given that I've apologized for putting my TRANSLATION
A Planet Visitor
<Jonathan...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <fgr57v8lp5b07erl6...@4ax.com>, A Planet
>Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003 02:54:25 GMT, "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
>> <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <v1q47vs1h65aatn11...@4ax.com>, A Planet
>> >Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip debate regarding the use of racist words]
>> >
>> >My feelings about this are pretty straighforward. Whether a term is
>> >racist (or indicates that its user is racist) depends on a number of
>> >things, amongst which are
>> >
>> >- context
>> >- audience
>> >- intent.
>> >
>> >Of these, I feel that the notion of "intent" is the most important. A
>> >word or comment becomes immediately innocuous if it is not _intended_ as
>> >a racist slur, particularly if the word is used in the spirit of irony
>> >or satire.
>> >
>> I disagree. Most especially in this forum. I find irony and satire to
>> only
>> be an EXCUSE to use those words. My opinion.
>
>And one which I do not share.
>
An opinion you are welcome to. But that does not mean that I cannot find
it becomes an excuse to throw racist slurs around here. Nor does it mean
I cannot find racism within someone doing so, simply to use them as an
expression of THEIR power to insult, as desi does.
>> I simply find
>> nothing which would excuse the use of those words here, since we
>> are certainly not examining the power behind them... but USING that
>> power when we post them, regardless of what we call it when we do.
>
>Once again, I can't bring myself to agree. I keep pretty clear of them
>on most occasions but I'm not above using one or three for the effect of
>pure shock. I find most forms of political correctness repugnant
>regardless of whether their origins lie to the left or the right.
>
Rubbish. PC is more than a simple attempt to _be correct_, if the violation
of that concept is meant as an expression which insults a particular group.
We ALWAYS call attempts to insult a particular race, country or group...
bigotry, anti-Semitism, or racism. There is nothing PC about opposing
those ideas. They remain fundamentally expressions of disrespect toward
specific GROUPS of fellow members of our species. Any other meaning
attached to such insults, calling it _irony_ or _satire_, is to me, simply
attempting to EXCUSE the real purpose, and justify insulting others by
USING the power contained in those insults. Since they obviously have
the meaning of conveying an insult to an entire country, group or race.
I am certainly powerless to STOP it in this group. But I will NEVER be
presumed as powerless to not speak out against what I see it as, when it
see it used as such. Those words meant to insult American Blacks are the
most offensive to me, since they perpetuate a cycle of violence in my own
society. Europeans, and those from other countries outside of the
U.S. have NO RIGHT to presume they can be _ironic_ or _satiric_,
in using them, when the violence they perpetuate does not affect THEM,
but certainly affects ME.
>I can't quite see why the racist words alluded to (which I will continue
>not to mention for some reason completely unknown to me or anyone else)
>are any more offensive than, for example, "spag" or "retard". In fact,
>I would say that those two derogatory terms are _more_ offensive as they
>refer to conditions which adversely affect individuals. Being black (of
>itself) is not an adverse condition and the spouting of racist epithets
>in the manner and context that I encounter here seems comparatively
>harmless.
>
Well, to me there is certainly a difference between insulting an INDIVIDUAL,
who might well DESERVE it, because of a particular behavior, and an entire
race, nation or group, who certainly cannot possibly ALL exhibit that same
behavior. But one cannot insult an INDIVIDUAL with a racist slur, since
the meaning is an insult to the race in question, rather than that individual.
My point is calling an ENTIRE nation, group or race, "spags" or "retards," is
much worse in my opinion than using it as a personal insult against a single
individual, regardless of how offensive the word is. But using a racist slur
CANNOT be presumed as being directed against one PARTICULAR
individual... it is obviously against the entire race. It is impossible to employ
that racist slur without insulting ALL of that particular race. For example,
desi once referred to ALL Americans as "spags." By presuming to DEFINE
the word to be the SAME as "Americans" -- See --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021120212944.28561.00001819%40mb-mv.aol.com
Regardless of how insulting that word is when applied to an individual, it is
multiplied by EVERY member of the group mentioned when applied as desi
did. One who cannot see run-away bigotry in that statement is blind to the
very meaning of bigotry.
>All my opinion, of course.
>
>> I saw it clearly in ol' Nev.
>
>I can't say that I paid much attention to his posts. They seemed
>occasionally amusing but I must admit to have merely skimmed over them.
>
>I have excised any direct references to Desmond here because, quite
>simply, we are not (and will never be) in agreement regarding his
>character, just as Desmond and I are not (and will probably never be) in
>agreement about yours.
>
Strange... you seem a bit more _convinced_ in respect to not finding it
in desi, speaking in rather _absolute_ terms, than you _probably_ never
will in me. I would hope that was inadvertent, and not a Freudian slip.
Let me observe that I know of no other poster here, who has ever been
killfiled because of something PERSONAL between the two members,
as has happened with desi and another poster here. A poster who once
offered the hospitality of his home to desi, found it necessary to killfile him
because of something PERSONAL. Nothing to do with the subject of
this newsgroup. I cannot help but find something destructive in desi's
PERSONAL character must have been responsible for such a drastic
step being taken. I would suggest you remain on desi's good side
if you wish to remain friends... since like the jackal... he quickly turns on
those who displease him.
>> >Context is also important but should be glaringly obvious to one and
>> >all.
>> >
>> Well... when someone USES those words, and presumes to be quoting
>> them from another, and lies by offering those quotes here, it is doubly
>> offensive, IMHO.
>
>I don't know whether I'd count it as offensive but I find it rather
>galling that a number of posters have labelled you a racist when the
>prima facie evidence suggests strongly that the opposite is true.
>
>> Someone attempting to destroy the character of someone having
>> expressed an ANTI-RACIST commentary, must have an agenda
>> which contains an element of racism, simply because they have attacked
>> an ANTI-RACIST commentary.
>
>I can't agree with this, either. An attack on someone making an
>anti-racist statement could also constitute an attempt to expose
>hypocrisy or besmirch the character of the speaker/writer. FWIW at this
>late stage, I _know_ that your MLK tribute post was just that - a
>tribute.
>
>> FRANK. Did he ever mention FRANK'S racism?
>
>I think that we all recognised Frank's racism.
>
How many times did desi recognize frank's racism? See --
url:http://www.google.com/groups?as_q=frank&as_oq=racism%20racist&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_ugroup=alt.activism.death-penalty&as_uauthors=desmond&lr=&hl=en
Gee -- it seems like searching on "frank" and "racism" or "racist" gives ONE
result... and THAT result is desi calling richard a racist, and only using the word
_frank_ as not meaning anyone, but simply in a sentence of "I don't know, to be
frank, and I care even less..." I can find NO example of desi ever addressing
frank's racism. I find a number of comments from YOU, addressing it... and I find
these (and many more) from ME, addressing it-- My words, and the references --
"Why take the difficult path of arguing with Frankie... when all that's necessary is
to remark == "Frankie --- You're a fuckin' racist.""
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8nO27.214028%24WB1.31878049%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
"Frank hates blacks because they are BLACK. That's racism."
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=0muq7.202321%248c3.31823743%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
"I clearly stated that FRANK is a racist, and I would have NOTHING to do with any
post of his, even though he is a retentionist."
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=n9r97.9056%24bl1.1365967%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"FRANK is neither a liberal or a conservative. He is a not-stupid (unfortunately),
emotionally retarded, racist fruitcake."
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=uV1w7.289970%24aZ.57567210%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
"frank is that MOST dangerous of racists."
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rO827.206794%24WB1.29499998%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
"BTW, since some claim that I never insult retentionists, let me observe that FRANK
is a racist fuckwit, not deserving of ANY response from anyone."
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=I4Ec7.21101%24iq1.3948551%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
"and even your loyal fellow racist FRANK,"
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3CCg7.1228%24XY4.118657%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net
"Frank == Him being a racist, I couldn't care less."
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=uV1d7.32056%24iq1.5480042%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
"We well recognize the words meant to express hate for other races and cultures, when
FRANK or mike, or some obscure 'white-power' or hate groups post."
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Uod98.39623%24Gb1.8550432%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
"This most certainly shows its face when you quack racist claims. If ONLY you
realized how destructive you actually are, FRANK."
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=UjDz7.403001%248c3.71810060%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
"FRANK could call himself Black, and continue what we KNOW to be racist comments, but
claim it wasn't because he claims to be Black."
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=JLJw8.276694%24K52.43715232%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
"I don't think dirt is as racist as FRANK either."
url:http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8uWA8.398290%24K52.64486213%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
I think my point is made.
>My comments were intended to address the use of racist terms on a.a.d-p.
>_in_general_ rather than in a specific case. In general, I am
>ambivalent about the issue. When a bona fide racist appears here,
>however, I am prepared to hound them until they are sorry that they were
>foolish enough ever to post to Usenet.
I have no doubt you do. But often it is a bit more insidious than at first glance.
desi is _very good_ at that. USING racist slurs as insults... always presuming
they do not come from him. But of course, they do, since those he refers to
have not used them... and the ease with which they are penned by him here,
demonstrates how little he cares what they racist slurs actually MEAN. Just
another of desi's rather strange mental aberrations, as far as I'm concerned.
And I am, of course, more concerned with those racist slurs against American
Blacks, first, since they are not only my species, but my countrymen, and second
because the use of them perpetuates a cycle of violence in the U.S., which does
not affect those in other countries. Thus, I find it offensive that those in other
countries would presume how others in the U.S. should TAKE those words.
For example, presuming that _I_ am overreacting. I take them in deadly seriousness
because they are part of that very same elevated violence that those outside of the
U.S. are always complaining about. It seems they complain... yet are willing
partners... because it doesn't affect them... and it gives them something to complain
about with the U.S. My opinion differs from yours... I find desi's use of racist
slurs to be related quite deeply with his anti-Americanism. And he would be
happy to see racism in the U.S. only grow, so he would have something further to
complain about. Have you ever realized how _offended_ he becomes when bigotry
is implied in France? But how easily he would spread it into the U.S. through the
use of those slurs?
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<v1q47vs1h65aatn11...@4ax.com>...
>> On 13 Mar 2003 16:55:51 -0800, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote:
>>
>> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<2t507vost30lprv8g...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> ><snip waffling of the self-styled `intellectual` PV>
>> >
>> >> Pride..... goeth before a fall....
>> >>
>> >> Let me be clear about this... Our differences have reached the point
>> >> that I NEVER wish you to agree with me in ANYTHING, since you
>> >> AGREE with someone who called me a racist, which, regardless of
>> >> how you would try to twist it, means you have the same feeling toward
>> >> me in respect to racism. I loath your agreements. I certainly don't
>> >> need them, since you've proved yourself to be rather untrustworthy,
>> >> which casts a gloom over those times you might agree DETRACTING
>> >> rather than ADDING to their meaning. People then start to question
>> >> MY comment, simply because YOU agreed with it.
>> >
>> >People will disagree with you cos yr a priggish twat, jim-bob. You are
>> >a silly billy, really.
>>
>> LOL... Ol' Nev is determined to make a further ass of himself. Tell you
>> what I'm going to do, Nev... I will argue your views with you, if you insure
>> that others understand what your position is prior to you making any comment -
>
It's a shame... but ---
As Nev did not begin his post with his official admission of his overall stance in
our argument by posting his required statement of ==> I AM A RACIST... AND
THE ARGUMENT I OFFER IS IN DEFENSE OF RACISM <=== I can thus
do nothing more than clip his racism, and not allow it to be perpetuated in this
group.
<rest of ol' racist Nev's insane ravings clipped>
PV
>
>
>Yrs Nevvie
Just passing by
challenge, and all his latest references to evil cackling goblins,
clipped >
A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<hcba7v81gk1crloo8...@4ax.com>...
> Which returns us to the questions you have never answered --
>
> Have you decided yet WHY you supported desi calling me a racist,
> if you believe I am not, since I provided a tribute to MLK, rather than
> any comment which could possibly imply racism on my part?
That one has already been answered - see....
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.03030...@posting.google.com
> Then in respect to your words -- ""Prior to that, there were no such rants
> from PV about racism - neither that which he is accusing Desmond of nor
> general racism in society. PV only decided to don this anti-racism hat
> of his after Desmond began accusing him of racism. "
>
> Given that I've provided conclusive evidence that you simply posted a
> LIE...Can I expect an admission of you having lied?
That one has already been answered - see....
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.03031...@posting.google.com
(and note that the above question of PV's was worded EXACTLY as it was
in the one linked to)
> And finally, given that I've apologized for putting my TRANSLATION
> comments in quotes... when can we expect one from you, regarding
> you doing that with words you quote from me that certainly did not
> come from me?
That one has already been answered - see....
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.03030...@posting.google.com
and also .....
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.03030...@posting.google.com
> Then, could you answer as to who was the first to attempt to demonize
> the other in the MLK day thread after looking at my original comment
> which began that thread and desi's various remarks directed to that
> tribute?
That one has not yet been answered, not because, as you seem to think,
I am running away from it, but because I have not yet bothered to
study the early posts in that thread looking specifically for examples
of what I would define as "demonising". So here is a deal for you: I
will happily answer this question you accuse me of running away from
if you will answer the one I have been similarly accusing you of ever
since we first began exchanging posts, which is to show how the
injuries that led to Matthew Eappen's death could possibly have been
inflicted on Feb. 4, 1997, in view of the seven medical facts I
provided that prove those injuries to have been weeks old. And as I
will be answering your question in my own words, I will expect you to
do the same rather than simply repeat what the whole world already
knows - i.e. what the jury verdict was, what the judge reduced that
to, and that the SJC did not ultimately overturn the conviction,
because that is NOT an answer to the question I am asking you.
But I will be reasonable here. If you are unable to provide your own
answer to this question, then provide instead any example of where the
prosecution or their medical experts have rebutted the evidence of
those seven facts. Or, if you prefer, find any example of where
anybody else, since the trial, has ever shown how those seven items
are either incorrect or are not proof of Matthew's injuries having
been caused before Feb. 4. For example, read that Robert Reece letter
to see if you can find any direct reference to those seven findings,
and if you can, post those references here (or you could just save
time by looking elsewhere, because I can assure you that the letter
does not directly address the findings).
But don't try to avoid this challenge by providing the usual matter
you rely on, such as the SJC ruling or the entire Reece letter without
even reading them yourself to see if the seven facts are even referred
to, let alone rebutted. What I mean by this is that if, in what you
provide, there is not a single direct mention of, for example, lipped
edges on the skull fracture, that means that the lipped edges have not
been addressed. Similarly, if words such as "periosteum" or "soft
tissue" do not appear, then clearly the matters they relate to have
not been directly addressed.
To save you having to find the seven medical facts from my earlier
postings, here they are again:
1. Osteoblasts (identified from slides taken of the dura) were found
at the fracture site. These do not appear until healing has been
underway for at least one week.
2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
Dr. DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
prosecution, were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed
that this lipping was indeed present.
3. New bone (periosteum) was clearly identified at the fracture site.
This takes 10-14 days to begin to appear. Dr. DeGirolami (a
PROSECUTION witness) testified that this could only be explained by
the injury being an old one.
4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew's head
against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a 2nd
storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew's head did
not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises; no cuts;
no scratches.
5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
than 2 weeks.
7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
weeks old.
danh
news:21b1da28.03031...@posting.google.com...
[...]> A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:<hcba7v81gk1crloo8...@4ax.com>...
Off topic material deleted.