Arkansas football... clean?
Antonio Veranos
recently informed me that in his opinion, Arkansas is among the programs
in the Salaried Employees Conference which don't cheat. The other one,
he says, is Vanderbilt. He did concede that the SEC is by far the most
corruption-riddled organization in American sports, let alone the NCAA.
It's an interesting thought. Can a clean program win the SEC?
--
Antonio Veranos
<insert witty comment here>
J. Hugh Sullivan
few black athletes breaking the rules - speaking about Bama football
only.
It's been a few years since Bama was guilty of lack of institutional
control. But, in recent memory a black athlete (or black athletes)
have broken the rules - no white guys. Apparently lack of discipline
at home is the problem. The same problem exists in other schools,
perhaps not quite as limited to one race.
Putting additional restrictions on atheletes is frowned upon - no
separate dorms or mess halls. And, when most of those being penalized
are black, out come the Sharptons and Jacksons wailing UNFAIR!
Of course the comments are racist - facts often are - WAY too often.
Point out where I am wrong before you shoot off your mouth.
Hugh
Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:32:00 GMT]
: Point out where I am wrong before you shoot off your mouth.
Where you are wrong is to imply that race is the determining factor in
whether or not student-athletes will violate the rules. Strangely, you
don't seem to engage in the same sort of racism when "white" athletes
are caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Jim Brown
> A friend of mine who has more knowledge than most about such things has
> recently informed me that in his opinion, Arkansas is among the programs
> in the Salaried Employees Conference which don't cheat. The other one,
> he says, is Vanderbilt. He did concede that the SEC is by far the most
> corruption-riddled organization in American sports, let alone the NCAA.
>
> It's an interesting thought. Can a clean program win the SEC?
>
>
what he sees in the SEC?
Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:59:25 -0700 (PDT)]
: What's his take on other conferences? Are USC and Tosu similar to
: what he sees in the SEC?
According to him, U$C got hammered to make an example out west. He
maintains that their punishment was overly harsh, by design... as in not
that it's unfair, but that it's out of proportion with similar hits. As
for the Buckeyes, he warns that it's nowhere near over there, and that a
lot depends on whether or not the NCAA *wants* to keep digging.
J. Hugh Sullivan
that race is a determining factor. I mentioned the facts without
implying anything.
I don't believe any white football players at Bama have been caught
with their hands in the cookie jar recently. Correct me if I am wrong.
Almost any review of people being penalized for breaking the law is
disproportionate by race. The facts lead to the conclusion of
implication, not the statement.
Hugh
Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 24 Sep 2011 17:40:35 GMT]
: One might properly conclude, using Bama as the sole test (as I did),
: implying anything.
:
: I don't believe any white football players at Bama have been caught
: with their hands in the cookie jar recently. Correct me if I am wrong.
:
: Almost any review of people being penalized for breaking the law is
: disproportionate by race. The facts lead to the conclusion of
: implication, not the statement.
J. Hugh Sullivan
You obviously are too illiterate to comprehend that I live to be
considered despicable by uneducated defecation orifices like you.
Hugh
juan de fuca
topic, has anyone ever told you that?
Dave Kelsen
weight. Neither did you mention what kind of cars they drive or the
region in which they grew up.
Your specific mention of race absolutely implies that it is directly
related to the action. You are not only an unapologetic racist, you are
a an abject liar. Fuck off.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Since the invention of the calendar, our days have been numbered.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 9/24/2011 12:40 PM J. Hugh Sullivan spake these words of knowledge:
>> that race is a determining factor. I mentioned the facts without
>> implying anything.
>>
>> I don't believe any white football players at Bama have been caught
>> with their hands in the cookie jar recently. Correct me if I am wrong.
>>
>> Almost any review of people being penalized for breaking the law is
>> disproportionate by race. The facts lead to the conclusion of
>> implication, not the statement.
>>
>> Hugh
>
>Nonsense. You didn't mention the height of the people, nor their
>weight. Neither did you mention what kind of cars they drive or the
>region in which they grew up.
>
>Your specific mention of race absolutely implies that it is directly
>related to the action.
the DETERMINING factor, not whether it was related. Certainly it was
related - that was the point of the recitation of FACTS.
Until your reading comprehension improves it would be better for you
to particiate in a farm club of rsfc. You can be promoted to this
newsgroup when you comprehension improves sufficiently.
>You are not only an unapologetic racist, you are
>a an abject liar. Fuck off.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<j.de...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 24, 9:32=A0am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:08:17 +0100, Antonio Veranos
>>
>> <nos...@thanksverymuch.com> wrote:
>> >A friend of mine who has more knowledge than most about such things has
>> >recently informed me that in his opinion, Arkansas is among the programs
>,
>> >he says, is Vanderbilt. =A0He did concede that the SEC is by far the mos=
>> >corruption-riddled organization in American sports, let alone the NCAA.
>>
>> >Antonio Veranos
>>
>> There is a distinct difference between a clean football program and a
>> few black athletes breaking the rules - speaking about Bama football
>> only.
>>
>> It's been a few years since Bama was guilty of lack of institutional
>> control. But, in recent memory a black athlete (or black athletes)
>> have broken the rules - no white guys. Apparently lack of discipline
>> at home is the problem. The same problem exists in other schools,
>> perhaps not quite as limited to one race.
>>
>> Putting additional restrictions on atheletes is frowned upon - no
>> separate dorms or mess halls. And, when most of those being penalized
>> are black, out come the Sharptons and Jacksons wailing UNFAIR!
>>
>> Of course the comments are racist - facts often are - WAY too often.
>>
>> Point out where I am wrong before you shoot off your mouth.
>>
>> Hugh
>
>you have a real natural talent for bringing race into any conversation
>topic, has anyone ever told you that?
deprivation - like liberalism, for example.
Hugh
Dave Kelsen
factor' and 'the determining factor'. Kid, you're not ever going to get
off the farm making those kind of wishful assumptions.
You clearly have no grasp of the subject at hand, or of the method of
dialectic. If you had any idea about usenet and how it works, you'd
know that there are a number of newsgroups being addressed here.
I would say, "Come back when you grow up," but these failures pale
before your clearly demonstrated bigotry. So go away and learn, son,
but don't come back.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"It is a sad thing when men have neither the wit to speak well nor the
judgment to hold their tongues." -- Jean de la Bruyere
J. Hugh Sullivan
not my fault you had to repeat the class.
Hugh
Antonio Veranos
[Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:59:34 GMT]
: Okay I won't visit your second grade comprehension class again. It's
attempt to come back with the above weak nonsense. Too funny, loser.
J. Hugh Sullivan
be discharged from the service. The average IQ had already passed you
by.
Are you still working on that high school GED? DADT doesn;t cover you
there.
Hugh
J.C. Watts Enslin
OOoooo....can I play???
"Hugh is a racist, old coot."
What do I win???
J. Hugh Sullivan
<jone...@charter.net> wrote:
>OOoooo....can I play???
>
>"Hugh is a racist, old coot."
>
>What do I win???
Hugh
Thomas R. Kettler
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
Antonio Veranos
[Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:09:42 GMT]
: >: Okay I won't visit your second grade comprehension class again. It's
: >: not my fault you had to repeat the class.
: >
: >In back to back posts, the guy completely dismantles you, and yet you
: >attempt to come back with the above weak nonsense. Too funny, loser.
: >
: >--
: >Antonio Veranos
: >
: ><insert witty comment here>
:
: You didn't really have to fall off the cot and hurt your shoulder to
: be discharged from the service. The average IQ had already passed you
: by.
:
: Are you still working on that high school GED? DADT doesn;t cover you
: there.
pathetic schoolboy insults actually mean anything. You whip them out
every time you get put in your place and have no other comeback.
juan de fuca
>
> - Show quoted text -
you don't win anything for stating the obvious Jon.
RaginPage
out-dated racial profiling that still exists in the southern law
enforcement, and the fact that a lot of people are OK with that, it
totally makes sense that the FACTS, as you state, are what they are.
When a Black athlete does something wrong, no one in the south will
look the other way. When they are white? Well the facts speak for
themselves, clearly their white players are more important to them, so
they look the other way.
It isn't whether or not Alabama is cheatenous, of course they are.
It's just that racist law enforcement decides to just charge the Black
offenders.
Do you have any facts to show me that I'm wrong Hugh?
Brent
J. Hugh Sullivan
responders obviously lack the comprehension to respond without
changing the subject, I quit shaming their lack of intelligence and
call you and your kind the trash you are.
You are an irritant much like a mosquito and you both need to be
swatted occasionally. I got a few of you on my windshield coming
through East TX. You must be in mourning.
Hugh
Antonio Veranos
[Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:37:07 GMT]
: >: >: Okay I won't visit your second grade comprehension class again. It's
: >: >: not my fault you had to repeat the class.
: >: >
: >: >In back to back posts, the guy completely dismantles you, and yet you
: >: >attempt to come back with the above weak nonsense. Too funny, loser.
: >: >
: >: >--
: >: >Antonio Veranos
: >: >
: >: ><insert witty comment here>
: >:
: >: You didn't really have to fall off the cot and hurt your shoulder to
: >: be discharged from the service. The average IQ had already passed you
: >: by.
: >:
: >: Are you still working on that high school GED? DADT doesn;t cover you
: >: there.
: >
: >Hahahaha... keep trying, old man! Too funny that you think your
: >pathetic schoolboy insults actually mean anything. You whip them out
: >every time you get put in your place and have no other comeback.
Keep trying, Jethro! You might actually come out ahead sometime. ;)
Loser.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 24, 1:40=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:37:27 +0100, Antonio Veranos
>>
>> <nos...@thanksverymuch.com> wrote:
>> >[J. Hugh Sullivan, Ea...@bellsouth.net]
>> >[Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:32:00 GMT]
>>
>> >: Point out where I am wrong before you shoot off your mouth.
>>
>> >Where you are wrong is to imply that race is the determining factor in
The cop was parked in a very white area of town and was a white cop.
Black cops usually let me off with a warning. I like them better.
When was the last time you saw a fight with both races involved on
both sides. I'll bet you think they separated the offenders by race,
arrested the blacks and let the white guys go. At least that what the
lack of anything but the ignorance of your message indicated.
Further, you had no facts to prove your case - just opinions based on
what you think might have happened so you could differ with me..
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tket...@blownfuse.net> wrote:
>In article <4e83c54...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:20:14 -0700 (PDT), "J.C. Watts Enslin"
>> <jone...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >OOoooo....can I play???
>> >
>> >"Hugh is a racist, old coot."
>> >
>> >What do I win???
>>
>> ...a lump of black coal.
>
>Can you afford giving up that section of your brain?
Hugh
RaginPage
players *did* was what other than an opinion?
You and your blustery type, I know them well. You fashion yourself as
non-racist simply because you like a few Black people, and have some
experience with Black people. Yet you accept stereotypes based on
race and try to support it by simply asserting that it's true.
You don't know the facts of the case beyond who was charged and with
what. For all you know there were white players involved and they
*were* let go. You don't really know any different, because if they
weren't charged it's not going to show up on the police blotter,
right?
The thing that is so nasty about your positions, is that your refuse
to accept the context that racism set up the system in the first
place, and that probably has more to do with the disproportionate
number of Blacks in jails and prisons than anything else. You've
lived long enough Hugh to *know* the system isn't fair and never was
fair. You *know* it. I know that you know it. And yet, you still
insist on calling out Black players for misconduct as if it has
something to do with their race. I'm here to tell you, that *if* it
does, it is because of people like you.
More likely, is the fact that a couple of players on the team did
something wrong and got caught. They happen to be Black, but they
could just as easily have been white. You don't seem to think so.
If that isn't you believing in a superior race, I'd like to know what
it is. I invite you to tell me.
Brent
J. Hugh Sullivan
I'm an O-5 - you're at least 6 paygrades behind. I was in management -
you are not on record as even being employable. I have a BS in Math -
AFAIK you are still working on your high school GED. By the record we
have seen, you have zero achievements unless worthlessness counts. I
am an enemy of liberals - almost everyone here has kicked your butt so
often it has become boring. You are the pinata of rsfc. If only it was
toys you are full of...
You are a little two-bit piss ant trying to strut stuff he doesn't
have. You are welcome to continue bragging about your 2" erection and
you won't even understand when the rest of us laugh.
Hugh
RaginPage
do you keep engaging him?
Your very post is a contradiction.
Brent
J. Hugh Sullivan
<btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 1:47=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:51:36 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
>> what you think might have happened so you could differ with me..
>>
>> Hugh
>
>And your *opinion* that race had any relation to what the football
>players *did* was what other than an opinion?
institution. Any opinion was solely that of those who read and replied
to my post. Why is noone intelligent enough to grasp that point?
>You and your blustery type, I know them well. You fashion yourself as
>non-racist simply because you like a few Black people, and have some
>experience with Black people. Yet you accept stereotypes based on
>race and try to support it by simply asserting that it's true.
problem with facts - just with reporting those you don't want
reported. It ain't going away because you ignore it.
>You don't know the facts of the case beyond who was charged and with
>what. For all you know there were white players involved and they
>*were* let go. You don't really know any different, because if they
>weren't charged it's not going to show up on the police blotter,
>right?
involved. Thats more fair than anyone else here would have been.
>The thing that is so nasty about your positions, is that your refuse
>to accept the context that racism set up the system in the first
>place, and that probably has more to do with the disproportionate
>number of Blacks in jails and prisons than anything else.
slavery era - that whites have had all the advantages.
> You've
>lived long enough Hugh to *know* the system isn't fair and never was
>fair. You *know* it. I know that you know it. And yet, you still
>insist on calling out Black players for misconduct as if it has
>something to do with their race. I'm here to tell you, that *if* it
>does, it is because of people like you.
is a peer of all the others - at least that seems to be the opinion of
those who critique the South.
I report on Bama because I went to Bama. The facts are that only black
athletes broke the rules. White coaches and boosters apparenty broke
the rules also. Does that relieve some of your pain?
If the system fails because of people like me we would never have
defeated the British. You can't solve a problem by ignoring the fact
that it exists. And that is exactly what you are saying I should do.
When will people like you ever understand?
>More likely, is the fact that a couple of players on the team did
>something wrong and got caught. They happen to be Black, but they
>could just as easily have been white. You don't seem to think so.
posted. However, I must say that current stats point to blacks as
being disproportinately committing crimes or breaking the rules. You
seem to be upset that I don;t just ignore the facts.
>If that isn't you believing in a superior race, I'd like to know what
>it is. I invite you to tell me.
racist.
Blacks are disproportionately better athletes than whites in major
sports. Blacks are disproportionately in jail more than whites. Give
me a good reason why I should post one but not the other.
Hugh
RaginPage
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:42:36 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
>
> >On Sep 29, 1:47=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:51:36 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
> >> Further, you had no facts to prove your case - just opinions based on
> >> what you think might have happened so you could differ with me..
>
> >> Hugh
>
> >And your *opinion* that race had any relation to what the football
> >players *did* was what other than an opinion?
>
> I did not express an opinion - I reported the facts at one
> institution. Any opinion was solely that of those who read and replied
> to my post. Why is noone intelligent enough to grasp that point?
a fact, when it is an opinion and nothing more.
> >You and your blustery type, I know them well. You fashion yourself as
> >non-racist simply because you like a few Black people, and have some
> >experience with Black people. Yet you accept stereotypes based on
> >race and try to support it by simply asserting that it's true.
>
> Stereotypes are usually based on facts. You don't seem to have a
> problem with facts - just with reporting those you don't want
> reported. It ain't going away because you ignore it.
Ignorant people tend not to question those assumptions.
> >You don't know the facts of the case beyond who was charged and with
> >what. For all you know there were white players involved and they
> >*were* let go. You don't really know any different, because if they
> >weren't charged it's not going to show up on the police blotter,
> >right?
>
> That's exactly right and I asked to be corrected if whites were
> involved. Thats more fair than anyone else here would have been.
premise out there that is formed from ignorance.
> >The thing that is so nasty about your positions, is that your refuse
> >to accept the context that racism set up the system in the first
> >place, and that probably has more to do with the disproportionate
> >number of Blacks in jails and prisons than anything else.
>
> That is a lie. I have often said that blacks still suffer from the
> slavery era - that whites have had all the advantages.
arrested in the first place, or that they did something wrong? I'm
confused.
> > You've
> >lived long enough Hugh to *know* the system isn't fair and never was
> >fair. You *know* it. I know that you know it. And yet, you still
> >insist on calling out Black players for misconduct as if it has
> >something to do with their race. I'm here to tell you, that *if* it
> >does, it is because of people like you.
>
> I know the system is not fair in the South. In the north every person
> is a peer of all the others - at least that seems to be the opinion of
> those who critique the South.
> I report on Bama because I went to Bama. The facts are that only black
> athletes broke the rules. White coaches and boosters apparenty broke
> the rules also. Does that relieve some of your pain?
problem in making an issue out of that? How many players are we
talking about?
> If the system fails because of people like me we would never have
> defeated the British. You can't solve a problem by ignoring the fact
> that it exists. And that is exactly what you are saying I should do.
> When will people like you ever understand?
see you making lots of assertions, but I don't see you laying out
solutions to any "problem". So how is what you are doing helpful?
>
> >More likely, is the fact that a couple of players on the team did
> >something wrong and got caught. They happen to be Black, but they
> >could just as easily have been white. You don't seem to think so.
>
> I have no opinion on what "might have been". The facts are as I
> posted. However, I must say that current stats point to blacks as
> being disproportinately committing crimes or breaking the rules. You
> seem to be upset that I don;t just ignore the facts.
acknowledge that the system isn't fair, and yet seem to want to point
toward something OTHER than the system as the reason there is a
disproportion. That makes no sense. But even more glaring than that,
is that you are taking a singular incident on the Alabama football
team, and using it to support an assertion that Black
disproportionately break the rules. Do you even know if that's true
across college football? Or is that an assumption you are adopting?
>
> >If that isn't you believing in a superior race, I'd like to know what
> >it is. I invite you to tell me.
>
> The superior call can only be made by category - and to do that is
> racist.
>
> Blacks are disproportionately better athletes than whites in major
> sports. Blacks are disproportionately in jail more than whites. Give
> me a good reason why I should post one but not the other.
around talking about what red-haired people are disproportionately
good at, so why is skin color such an important topic?
Virtually nobody else on here even discusses these events in terms of
race, so why do you?
Brent
J. Hugh Sullivan
<btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hugh, if Slick is so ineffective and so below your level, why on earth
>do you keep engaging him?
>
>Your very post is a contradiction.
>
>Brent
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 10:37=A0am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:42:36 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
>>
>> <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:51:36 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
>> >> Further, you had no facts to prove your case - just opinions based on
>> >> what you think might have happened so you could differ with me..
>>
>> >> Hugh
>>
>> >And your *opinion* that race had any relation to what the football
>> >players *did* was what other than an opinion?
>>
>> I did not express an opinion - I reported the facts at one
>> institution. Any opinion was solely that of those who read and replied
>> to my post. Why is noone intelligent enough to grasp that point?
>
>Because it isn't true. You said race was related and claimed it to be
>a fact, when it is an opinion and nothing more.
factor" in response to a comment. I reported the facts. I am not
responsible for reader's conclusions. And if I judge by what was said
they aren't responsible either. You people say what you wanted me to
say so you can respond.
>> >You and your blustery type, I know them well. =A0You fashion yourself as
>>
>> Stereotypes are usually based on facts. You don't seem to have a
>> problem with facts - just with reporting those you don't want
>> reported. It ain't going away because you ignore it.
>
>Stereotypes are based on assumptions about facts without context.
>Ignorant people tend not to question those assumptions.
Let's see you refute that stereotype. A black once told me that, if I
had ever been a black man on Saturday night I would never want to be a
white man again. I guess you believe he didn't say it.
>> >You don't know the facts of the case beyond who was charged and with
>> >*were* let go. =A0You don't really know any different, because if they
>> >right?
>>
>> That's exactly right and I asked to be corrected if whites were
>> involved. Thats more fair than anyone else here would have been.
>
>The problem isn't asking to be corrrected, the problem is putting a
>premise out there that is formed from ignorance.
may not, exist is much more ignorant.
>> >The thing that is so nasty about your positions, is that your refuse
>> >to accept the context that racism set up the system in the first
>> >place, and that probably has more to do with the disproportionate
>> >number of Blacks in jails and prisons than anything else.
>>
>> That is a lie. I have often said that blacks still suffer from the
>> slavery era - that whites have had all the advantages.
>
>So are you saying the players being Black had to do with them being
>arrested in the first place, or that they did something wrong? I'm
>confused.
And I asked to be corrected if that was wrong. Others are trying to
say that I said something different. I expected them to do that-it
proves their level of ignorance.
>> > You've
>> >lived long enough Hugh to *know* the system isn't fair and never was
>> >insist on calling out Black players for misconduct as if it has
>>
>> I know the system is not fair in the South. In the north every person
>> is a peer of all the others - at least that seems to be the opinion of
>> those who critique the South.
>
>The north is less honest about its racism, that's all.
>> I report on Bama because I went to Bama. The facts are that only black
>> athletes broke the rules. White coaches and boosters apparenty broke
>> the rules also. Does that relieve some of your pain?
>
>And? What does Black have to do with anything? Don't you see the
>problem in making an issue out of that? How many players are we
>talking about?
knew people would say what they are saying. I enjoy baiting them. The
sharper ones have not taken the bait - only the Veranos types - and
now you! If I say black is black some Veranos type would say it was
racist.
>> If the system fails because of people like me we would never have
>> defeated the British. You can't solve a problem by ignoring the fact
>> that it exists. And that is exactly what you are saying I should do.
>> When will people like you ever understand?
>
>What is the problem, as you see it, Hugh? I'm genuinely curious. I
>see you making lots of assertions, but I don't see you laying out
>solutions to any "problem". So how is what you are doing helpful?
had a chance of working would be considered heartless - not that being
heartless to solve a problem would bother me.
My philosophy is that people respond to challenges. How can anybody be
satisfied to be irresponsible, second-class and dissed all the time? I
was slow, couldn't play golf, was enlisted, in an accounting dept.
with no accounting classes and a hundred other things. I improved
every one of those areas because I was not satisfied to be an also
ran. I don't understand how anyone can be satisfied with that. I
understand that not everyone is interested in any of those things
>> >More likely, is the fact that a couple of players on the team did
>> >could just as easily have been white. =A0You don't seem to think so.
>> I have no opinion on what "might have been". The facts are as I
>> posted. However, I must say that current stats point to blacks as
>> being disproportinately committing crimes or breaking the rules. You
>> seem to be upset that I don;t just ignore the facts.
>
>You don't even see the problem with your own logic, do you? You
>acknowledge that the system isn't fair, and yet seem to want to point
>toward something OTHER than the system as the reason there is a
>disproportion. That makes no sense. But even more glaring than that,
>is that you are taking a singular incident on the Alabama football
>team, and using it to support an assertion that Black
>disproportionately break the rules. Do you even know if that's true
>across college football? Or is that an assumption you are adopting?
here I didn't want to comment on something I knew nothing about. I
stated the facts - I MADE NO ASSERTION. Others did that as I knew they
would. It's comical.
>>
>> >If that isn't you believing in a superior race, I'd like to know what
>> The superior call can only be made by category - and to do that is
>> racist.
>>
>> me a good reason why I should post one but not the other.
>
>I see no reason to make either assertion, quite frankly.
>We don't go
>around talking about what red-haired people are disproportionately
>good at, so why is skin color such an important topic?
go to college? Skin color is a major current event - don't be so
naive. The difference is that I let others draw all the conclusions -
and watch them lie when they say I did.
There is a vast difference between being a racist and being called one
by the numbnuts here. No black person I know thinks I am a racist -
that's good enough.
>Virtually nobody else on here even discusses these events in terms of
>race, so why do you?
think when it is controversial - like race and queer.. They seek the
approval of everyone. They accept that everything is okay as long as
he is doing his thing. I don't.
Hugh
RaginPage
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:56:46 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
>
>
>
>
>
> <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 10:37=A0am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:42:36 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
>
> >> <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 29, 1:47=3DA0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:51:36 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
> >> >> Further, you had no facts to prove your case - just opinions based on
> >> >> what you think might have happened so you could differ with me..
>
> >> >> Hugh
>
> >> >And your *opinion* that race had any relation to what the football
> >> >players *did* was what other than an opinion?
>
> >> I did not express an opinion - I reported the facts at one
> >> institution. Any opinion was solely that of those who read and replied
> >> to my post. Why is noone intelligent enough to grasp that point?
>
> >Because it isn't true. You said race was related and claimed it to be
> >a fact, when it is an opinion and nothing more.
>
> I believe I said race was obviously a part but not the "determining
> factor" in response to a comment. I reported the facts. I am not
> responsible for reader's conclusions. And if I judge by what was said
> they aren't responsible either. You people say what you wanted me to
> say so you can respond.
declare that it was "obviously a part". That is an opinion. I know
you are looking for wiggle room here, but there isn't any.
> >> >You and your blustery type, I know them well. =A0You fashion yourself as
> >> >non-racist simply because you like a few Black people, and have some
> >> >experience with Black people. =A0Yet you accept stereotypes based on
> >> >race and try to support it by simply asserting that it's true.
>
> >> Stereotypes are usually based on facts. You don't seem to have a
> >> problem with facts - just with reporting those you don't want
> >> reported. It ain't going away because you ignore it.
>
> >Stereotypes are based on assumptions about facts without context.
> >Ignorant people tend not to question those assumptions.
>
> The stereotype is that blacks like watermelon, sex and can dance.
> Let's see you refute that stereotype. A black once told me that, if I
> had ever been a black man on Saturday night I would never want to be a
> white man again. I guess you believe he didn't say it.
not mean that they are a reasonable way to draw conclusions or make
assumptions. Old people are computer illiterate. Therefore you must
be a younger person pretending to be old. Therefore you are a fake
and have concocted a fake personality. You see the problem with that?
> >> >You don't know the facts of the case beyond who was charged and with
> >> >what. =A0For =A0all you know there were white players involved and they
> >> >*were* let go. =A0You don't really know any different, because if they
> >> >weren't charged it's not going to show up on the police blotter,
> >> >right?
>
> >> That's exactly right and I asked to be corrected if whites were
> >> involved. Thats more fair than anyone else here would have been.
>
> >The problem isn't asking to be corrrected, the problem is putting a
> >premise out there that is formed from ignorance.
>
> Facts might be ignorance to you, You assuumption of facts that may, or
> may not, exist is much more ignorant.
as an ignorant fact. It's when you start trying to extrapolate cause
and effect from facts out of context that gets you into trouble.
I didn't assume any facts at all, Hugh. What I did, was concoct a
scenario that would prove your assumptions incorrect to illustrate
that they weren't facts at all, but your opinion.
>
> >> >The thing that is so nasty about your positions, is that your refuse
> >> >to accept the context that racism set up the system in the first
> >> >place, and that probably has more to do with the disproportionate
> >> >number of Blacks in jails and prisons than anything else.
>
> >> That is a lie. I have often said that blacks still suffer from the
> >> slavery era - that whites have had all the advantages.
>
> >So are you saying the players being Black had to do with them being
> >arrested in the first place, or that they did something wrong? I'm
> >confused.
>
> What I said was that blacks were the only ones who broke the rules.
> And I asked to be corrected if that was wrong. Others are trying to
> say that I said something different. I expected them to do that-it
> proves their level of ignorance.
without coming out and saying it, doesn't change your post one iota.
You can try and backpeddle now and claim that you didn't mean anything
other than what you said, but that ignores a long history of you on
RSFC, and makes your other statements very strange and out of context.
>
> >> > You've
> >> >lived long enough Hugh to *know* the system isn't fair and never was
> >> >fair. =A0You *know* it. =A0I know that you know it. =A0And yet, you stil=
> >l
> >> >insist on calling out Black players for misconduct as if it has
> >> >something to do with their race. =A0I'm here to tell you, that *if* it
> >> >does, it is because of people like you.
>
> >> I know the system is not fair in the South. In the north every person
> >> is a peer of all the others - at least that seems to be the opinion of
> >> those who critique the South.
>
> >The north is less honest about its racism, that's all.
>
> Surely not. They are all paragons of honesty and equality.
> >> I report on Bama because I went to Bama. The facts are that only black
> >> athletes broke the rules. White coaches and boosters apparenty broke
> >> the rules also. Does that relieve some of your pain?
>
> >And? What does Black have to do with anything? Don't you see the
> >problem in making an issue out of that? How many players are we
> >talking about?
>
> ...at least 7 or 8 in 3 separate instances - I think there are more. I
> knew people would say what they are saying. I enjoy baiting them. The
> sharper ones have not taken the bait - only the Veranos types - and
> now you! If I say black is black some Veranos type would say it was
> racist.
look it up. Nonetheless, 7 or 8 is pretty meaningless when you are
trying to make a statement about an entire race. Look up "statistical
significance" since you are good at math and all that.
> >> If the system fails because of people like me we would never have
> >> defeated the British. You can't solve a problem by ignoring the fact
> >> that it exists. And that is exactly what you are saying I should do.
> >> When will people like you ever understand?
>
> >What is the problem, as you see it, Hugh? I'm genuinely curious. I
> >see you making lots of assertions, but I don't see you laying out
> >solutions to any "problem". So how is what you are doing helpful?
>
> I don't see any workable solutions except time. Most any solution that
> had a chance of working would be considered heartless - not that being
> heartless to solve a problem would bother me.
discussion in any way.
> My philosophy is that people respond to challenges. How can anybody be
> satisfied to be irresponsible, second-class and dissed all the time?
race.
>I was slow, couldn't play golf, was enlisted, in an accounting dept.
> with no accounting classes and a hundred other things. I improved
> every one of those areas because I was not satisfied to be an also
> ran. I don't understand how anyone can be satisfied with that. I
> understand that not everyone is interested in any of those things
race or color?
>
>
>
> >> >More likely, is the fact that a couple of players on the team did
> >> >something wrong and got caught. =A0They happen to be Black, but they
> >> >could just as easily have been white. =A0You don't seem to think so.
>
> >> I have no opinion on what "might have been". The facts are as I
> >> posted. However, I must say that current stats point to blacks as
> >> being disproportinately committing crimes or breaking the rules. You
> >> seem to be upset that I don;t just ignore the facts.
>
> >You don't even see the problem with your own logic, do you? You
> >acknowledge that the system isn't fair, and yet seem to want to point
> >toward something OTHER than the system as the reason there is a
> >disproportion. That makes no sense. But even more glaring than that,
> >is that you are taking a singular incident on the Alabama football
> >team, and using it to support an assertion that Black
> >disproportionately break the rules. Do you even know if that's true
> >across college football? Or is that an assumption you are adopting?
>
> I took one school because I only knew the facts about one, Unlike some
> here I didn't want to comment on something I knew nothing about. I
> stated the facts - I MADE NO ASSERTION. Others did that as I knew they
> would. It's comical.
internet that has already been busted by Snopes for being false. In
other words, it's a debate tactic to try and claim you don't want to
comment on something you know nothing about, rather than the truth.
You now claim that you didn't make an assertion? Go read the
beginning of your post once again where you state "I believe I said
race was obviously a part". In what world is that at all a fact
rather than a blind assertion? You know absolutely nothing about the
backgrounds, motivations, or circumstances, as you freely admit, but,
make such a statement anyway. See how silly the phrase "I didn't want
to comment on something I knew nothing about" seems to me now? The
whole reason I jumped into this thread is because you made a comment
about something you know nothing about.
>
> >> >If that isn't you believing in a superior race, I'd like to know what
> >> >it is. =A0I invite you to tell me.
>
> >> The superior call can only be made by category - and to do that is
> >> racist.
>
> >> Blacks are disproportionately better athletes than whites in =A0major
> >> sports. Blacks are disproportionately in jail more than whites. Give
> >> me a good reason why I should post one but not the other.
>
> >I see no reason to make either assertion, quite frankly.
>
> Fine - then don't. But you are not equipped to tell me how to reason.
hard to respect my elders, realize that they have far more experience
than I do, and weigh their insight and comments accordingly. Even
with that extra level of respect, your comments are not very reasoned.
> >We don't go
> >around talking about what red-haired people are disproportionately
> >good at, so why is skin color such an important topic?
>
> Why do we call obama a black president? Does every race need quotas to
> go to college? Skin color is a major current event - don't be so
> naive. The difference is that I let others draw all the conclusions -
> and watch them lie when they say I did.
knowing it. Turn thy eye upon thyself.
> There is a vast difference between being a racist and being called one
> by the numbnuts here. No black person I know thinks I am a racist -
> that's good enough.
they did?
> >Virtually nobody else on here even discusses these events in terms of
> >race, so why do you?
>
> I am not a sheep. I think most others are too chicken to say what they
> think when it is controversial - like race and queer.. They seek the
> approval of everyone. They accept that everything is okay as long as
> he is doing his thing. I don't.
couldn't possibly be sharing what you *think* when it is
controversial.
Your post is a series of contradictions, and you don't really seem to
know what you are saying and what you aren't.
I see it though.
Brent
Antonio Veranos
[Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:06:05 GMT]
: I'm an O-5 - you're at least 6 paygrades behind.
You're a has-been, mostly never-was, clinging to a status that stopped
mattering decades ago. You don't impress me, never have, likely never
will... and yet you keep trying to prove that your imagined superiority
actually exists anywhere other than outside your own fantasy world.
J. Hugh Sullivan
I AM a has-been. You are a never was so you can never be a has-been..
There are a couple of billion people I need to impress before I get to
those, like you, who never mattered. In fact I would send an
assistant.
You would be at a real disadvantage in an ass-kicking contest - you
are all ass.
Hugh
Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 01 Oct 2011 13:59:55 GMT]
: >: I'm an O-5 - you're at least 6 paygrades behind.
: >
: >You're a has-been, mostly never-was, clinging to a status that stopped
: >mattering decades ago. You don't impress me, never have, likely never
: >will... and yet you keep trying to prove that your imagined superiority
: >actually exists anywhere other than outside your own fantasy world.
: those, like you, who never mattered.
an argument with assertions for which you have no evidence. It's what
you're good at, like when you try to justify your abhorrent bigotry.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 3:21=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:56:46 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
>> factor" in response to a comment. I reported the facts. I am not
>> responsible for reader's conclusions. And if I judge by what was said
>> they aren't responsible either. You people say what you wanted me to
>> say so you can respond.
>
>Hugh that doesn't change my point. You don't even have a basis to
>declare that it was "obviously a part". That is an opinion. I know
>you are looking for wiggle room here, but there isn't any.
approval would be like "what else is new".
>> The stereotype is that blacks like watermelon, sex and can dance.
>> Let's see you refute that stereotype. A black once told me that, if I
>> had ever been a black man on Saturday night I would never want to be a
>> white man again. I guess you believe he didn't say it.
>
>Stereotypes being repeated over and over by both Black and Whites do
>not mean that they are a reasonable way to draw conclusions or make
>assumptions.
"reasonable" definition is absurd, not to mention self-serving.
>Old people are computer illiterate. Therefore you must
>be a younger person pretending to be old. Therefore you are a fake
>and have concocted a fake personality. You see the problem with that?
people don't have to be computer illiterate - I didn't choose to be.
But I can't compete with you younger guys on the sophisticated stuff.
>> >> That's exactly right and I asked to be corrected if whites were
>> >> involved. Thats more fair than anyone else here would have been.
>>
>> >The problem isn't asking to be corrrected, the problem is putting a
>> >premise out there that is formed from ignorance.
>>
>> Facts might be ignorance to you, You assuumption of facts that may, or
>> may not, exist is much more ignorant.
>
>No, your premise and assumptions are ignorant.
yourself.
>There is no such thing
>as an ignorant fact. It's when you start trying to extrapolate cause
>and effect from facts out of context that gets you into trouble.
>
>I didn't assume any facts at all, Hugh. What I did, was concoct a
>scenario that would prove your assumptions incorrect to illustrate
>that they weren't facts at all, but your opinion.
>> What I said was that blacks were the only ones who broke the rules.
>> And I asked to be corrected if that was wrong. Others are trying to
>> say that I said something different. I expected them to do that-it
>> proves their level of ignorance.
>
>I think you said more than that Hugh. The fact that you insinuated
>without coming out and saying it, doesn't change your post one iota.
ever a consideration.
>You can try and backpeddle now and claim that you didn't mean anything
>other than what you said, but that ignores a long history of you on
>RSFC, and makes your other statements very strange and out of context.
piss-ants that I am a racist. It's enough for me that black people who
know me don't think so.
>> >> I know the system is not fair in the South. In the north every person
>> >> is a peer of all the others - at least that seems to be the opinion of
>> >> those who critique the South.
>>
>> >The north is less honest about its racism, that's all.
>>
>> Surely not. They are all paragons of honesty and equality.
>
>Well, we've agreed on something at least.
that only black
>You *think* there are more? You almost have me interested enough to
>look it up. Nonetheless, 7 or 8 is pretty meaningless when you are
>trying to make a statement about an entire race. Look up "statistical
>significance" since you are good at math and all that.
entire race - I mentioned a set of facts at one school. Now, if you
were to say that I knew the simpletons here would draw the stupid
conclusions you have, I would have to plead guilty. I set the trap on
purpose for my amusement. I have never seen as much gullibility as
what I see displayed here.
>> >What is the problem, as you see it, Hugh? =A0I'm genuinely curious. =A0I
>> >see you making lots of assertions, but I don't see you laying out =A0
>> >solutions to any "problem". =A0So how is what you are doing helpful?
>> I don't see any workable solutions except time. Most any solution that
>> had a chance of working would be considered heartless - not that being
>> heartless to solve a problem would bother me.
>
>Vague statements that neither implicate yourself nor further the
>discussion in any way.
it or not. Let's see anyone do better or change anything.
>> My philosophy is that people respond to challenges. How can anybody be
>> satisfied to be irresponsible, second-class and dissed all the time?
>
>I don't know. But I do know that this line of thought isn't based on
>race.
> >I was slow, couldn't play golf, was enlisted, in an accounting dept.
>> with no accounting classes and a hundred other things. I improved
>> every one of those areas because I was not satisfied to be an also
>> ran. I don't understand how anyone can be satisfied with that. I
>> understand that not everyone is interested in any of those things
>
>You aren't making a bit of sense. How does this apply in any way to
>race or color?
about my belief that people respond to challendes - or should. You are
talking about race. i am only responding to what you say.
>Just as it's comical when you feel the need to post a story from the
>internet that has already been busted by Snopes for being false. In
>other words, it's a debate tactic to try and claim you don't want to
>comment on something you know nothing about, rather than the truth.
debate at all. All's fair in love and war. ($1 to somebody)
>You now claim that you didn't make an assertion? Go read the
>beginning of your post once again where you state "I believe I said
>race was obviously a part". In what world is that at all a fact
>rather than a blind assertion?
assertion. If you pass a field of cows you can factually state their
color on the side you see. Stating the color of the other side would
be an assertion based on experience but not fact.
You know absolutely nothing about the
>backgrounds, motivations, or circumstances, as you freely admit, but,
>make such a statement anyway. See how silly the phrase "I didn't want
>to comment on something I knew nothing about" seems to me now? The
>whole reason I jumped into this thread is because you made a comment
>about something you know nothing about.
The statement that "I didn't want to comment on something I knew
nothing about" was accurate and precise - and I made no such
statement.
I made one statement, both clear and factual. Everything since is me
responding to a bunch of crap.
>> >I see no reason to make either assertion, quite frankly. =A0
>> Fine - then don't. But you are not equipped to tell me how to reason.
>
>I know reason when I see it.
> I also know the lack thereof. I try
>hard to respect my elders,
realize that they have far more experience
>than I do, and weigh their insight and comments accordingly. Even
>with that extra level of respect, your comments are not very reasoned.
>> Why do we call obama a black president? Does every race need quotas to
>> go to college? Skin color is a major current event - don't be so
>> naive. The difference is that I let others draw all the conclusions -
>> and watch them lie when they say I did.
>> by the numbnuts here. No black person I know thinks I am a racist -
>> that's good enough.
>
>As far as you know they don't think that. Why would they tell you if
>they did?
I coached thier kids or officiated games they played, by stopping by
at football games to shake my hand. And none have called me "massa"
yet.
> nobody else on here even discusses these events in terms of
>> >race, so why do you?
>>
>> I am not a sheep. I think most others are too chicken to say what they
>> think when it is controversial - like race and queer.. They seek the
>> approval of everyone. They accept that everything is okay as long as
>> he is doing his thing. I don't.
>
>But I thought you weren't sharing an opinion? If that's true, you
>couldn't possibly be sharing what you *think* when it is
>controversial.
are that smart.
>Your post is a series of contradictions, and you don't really seem to
>know what you are saying and what you aren't.
>
>I see it though.
Hugh
RaginPage
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:55:50 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
>
> >On Sep 30, 3:21=A0pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:56:46 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
> >> I believe I said race was obviously a part but not the "determining
> >> factor" in response to a comment. I reported the facts. I am not
> >> responsible for reader's conclusions. And if I judge by what was said
> >> they aren't responsible either. You people say what you wanted me to
> >> say so you can respond.
>
> >Hugh that doesn't change my point. You don't even have a basis to
> >declare that it was "obviously a part". That is an opinion. I know
> >you are looking for wiggle room here, but there isn't any.
>
> I never look for wiggle room. I say and you can like it or not. Your
> approval would be like "what else is new".
You can pretend that if you like. The fact that your arguments circle
back on themselves AND that you keep arguing suggest otherwise.
> >> The stereotype is that blacks like watermelon, sex and can dance.
> >> Let's see you refute that stereotype. A black once told me that, if I
> >> had ever been a black man on Saturday night I would never want to be a
> >> white man again. I guess you believe he didn't say it.
>
> >Stereotypes being repeated over and over by both Black and Whites do
> >not mean that they are a reasonable way to draw conclusions or make
> >assumptions.
>
> Yeah, Marciano's repeated wins didn't prove he could fight. Your
> "reasonable" definition is absurd, not to mention self-serving.
A statement about an individual is not a stereotype. You aren't even
ponying up in the debate front, let alone backing up whatever point it
is you think you had.
> >Old people are computer illiterate. Therefore you must
> >be a younger person pretending to be old. Therefore you are a fake
> >and have concocted a fake personality. You see the problem with that?
>
> $100,000 would be a cheap price for me to pay to be young again. Old
> people don't have to be computer illiterate - I didn't choose to be.
> But I can't compete with you younger guys on the sophisticated stuff.
Do you think that somehow dismisses the point that I'm making?
> >> >> That's exactly right and I asked to be corrected if whites were
> >> >> involved. Thats more fair than anyone else here would have been.
>
> >> >The problem isn't asking to be corrrected, the problem is putting a
> >> >premise out there that is formed from ignorance.
>
> >> Facts might be ignorance to you, You assuumption of facts that may, or
> >> may not, exist is much more ignorant.
>
> >No, your premise and assumptions are ignorant.
>
> My premise was fact - I made no assumptions, you are doing that all by
> yourself.
How was your premise that race was at least part of it, in any way
fact?
> >There is no such thing
> >as an ignorant fact. It's when you start trying to extrapolate cause
> >and effect from facts out of context that gets you into trouble.
>
> >I didn't assume any facts at all, Hugh. What I did, was concoct a
> >scenario that would prove your assumptions incorrect to illustrate
> >that they weren't facts at all, but your opinion.
>
> The key word is "concoct". You did, I did not.
Yes, you did. You can state all day long that you didn't concoct
anything, but by saying that race had something to do with what those
football players did, that's exactly what you did. There isn't a
shred of evidence to suggest that race had anything to do with it.
> >> What I said was that blacks were the only ones who broke the rules.
> >> And I asked to be corrected if that was wrong. Others are trying to
> >> say that I said something different. I expected them to do that-it
> >> proves their level of ignorance.
>
> >I think you said more than that Hugh. The fact that you insinuated
> >without coming out and saying it, doesn't change your post one iota.
>
> So far there has never been a day in my life when what you thought was
> ever a consideration.
Your loss, Hugh. The fact that I'm taking your thoughts into
consideration, even when they aren't very coherent, helps me grow. My
dad has always said that you constantly get better, or you constantly
get worse, there is no staying the same. If you've stopped trying to
grow by taking other people's thoughts into consideration, you know
which way you are headed.
> >You can try and backpeddle now and claim that you didn't mean anything
> >other than what you said, but that ignores a long history of you on
> >RSFC, and makes your other statements very strange and out of context.
>
> The "history" you speak of is based on conclusions by a bunch of
> piss-ants that I am a racist. It's enough for me that black people who
> know me don't think so.
No, Hugh. It's your own statements, such as calling Obama a "half-
breed" that make you look racist. I'm not a "PC" person by any means,
but you have to recognize that your adoption of phrases and terms from
people that *were* or *are* racist, is going to put you firmly in
their camp.
> >> >> I know the system is not fair in the South. In the north every person
> >> >> is a peer of all the others - at least that seems to be the opinion of
> >> >> those who critique the South.
>
> >> >The north is less honest about its racism, that's all.
>
> >> Surely not. They are all paragons of honesty and equality.
>
> >Well, we've agreed on something at least.
>
> There is no >> I report on Bama because I went to Bama. The facts are
> that only black
>
> >You *think* there are more? You almost have me interested enough to
> >look it up. Nonetheless, 7 or 8 is pretty meaningless when you are
> >trying to make a statement about an entire race. Look up "statistical
> >significance" since you are good at math and all that.
>
> You don't comprehend anything. I have NOT made a statement about an
> entire race - I mentioned a set of facts at one school. Now, if you
> were to say that I knew the simpletons here would draw the stupid
> conclusions you have, I would have to plead guilty. I set the trap on
> purpose for my amusement. I have never seen as much gullibility as
> what I see displayed here.
Trap? Are you really Jonah fishing after all these years? Although
it isn't really Jonah fishing, because I am NOT fishing. But you
trying to claim you were is beyond ridiculous.
You can't have it both ways, Hugh. Either you set a trap by saying
something inflammatory that you knew was racist, or you stand behind
what you said, and therefore it really wasn't a trap.
> >> >What is the problem, as you see it, Hugh? =A0I'm genuinely curious. =A0I
> >> >see you making lots of assertions, but I don't see you laying out =A0
> >> >solutions to any "problem". =A0So how is what you are doing helpful?
>
> >> I don't see any workable solutions except time. Most any solution that
> >> had a chance of working would be considered heartless - not that being
> >> heartless to solve a problem would bother me.
>
> >Vague statements that neither implicate yourself nor further the
> >discussion in any way.
>
> Time is the only solution except for those adversely affected - like
> it or not. Let's see anyone do better or change anything.
You are talking about race-relations in general, not your specific
instance that your brought up, nor the issue that you hold with a
stereotype about. It's a classic back peddle.
>
> >> My philosophy is that people respond to challenges. How can anybody be
> >> satisfied to be irresponsible, second-class and dissed all the time?
>
> >I don't know. But I do know that this line of thought isn't based on
> >race.
>
> The racial bias is only in your mind. How sad.
????? I just said that your statement has nothing to do with race. I
read my line again to make sure it wasn't my grammar, or lack of
communication. Either you misread my statement, or you are just
spouting nonsense.
>
> > >I was slow, couldn't play golf, was enlisted, in an accounting dept.
> >> with no accounting classes and a hundred other things. I improved
> >> every one of those areas because I was not satisfied to be an also
> >> ran. I don't understand how anyone can be satisfied with that. I
> >> understand that not everyone is interested in any of those things
>
> >You aren't making a bit of sense. How does this apply in any way to
> >race or color?
>
> I see your problem - you can't even remember the previous statement
> about my belief that people respond to challendes - or should. You are
> talking about race. i am only responding to what you say.
Responding to challenges is a completely different discussion than the
one we are having. Let me remind you. You stated that the race of
the Alabama football players at least played a part in them breaking
the rules. I've asked you repeatedly to either back that up, admit
it's a stereotype, or just further expound on what you meant by that.
You've refused.
> >Just as it's comical when you feel the need to post a story from the
> >internet that has already been busted by Snopes for being false. In
> >other words, it's a debate tactic to try and claim you don't want to
> >comment on something you know nothing about, rather than the truth.
>
> No, I post that because I hope it is damaging to obama. It's not for
> debate at all. All's fair in love and war. ($1 to somebody)
That's moronic. When you post something easily refutable it isn't
damaging to Obama, it helps him. It makes his detractors look like
morons.
> >You now claim that you didn't make an assertion? Go read the
> >beginning of your post once again where you state "I believe I said
> >race was obviously a part". In what world is that at all a fact
> >rather than a blind assertion?
>
> Race was OBVIOUSLY a part. That is a statement of fact, not an
> assertion.
That is not a fact. How can you possibly claim to be so intelligent
when you can't grasp something as basic as that? That is no more a
fact than stating "obviously Brent debating Hugh, is partially because
Brent has red hair".
Get a clue.
>If you pass a field of cows you can factually state their
> color on the side you see.
This is your problem, Hugh. Stating that the players are Black, is
neither racist, nor an assertion, but a statement of fact. Stating
that it in any way played a role in them breaking the rules, THAT is
an assertion and an OPINION not a fact. I can't believe at your
advanced age you need someone to explain that to you.
>Stating the color of the other side would
> be an assertion based on experience but not fact.
>
> You know absolutely nothing about the
>
> >backgrounds, motivations, or circumstances, as you freely admit, but,
> >make such a statement anyway. See how silly the phrase "I didn't want
> >to comment on something I knew nothing about" seems to me now? The
> >whole reason I jumped into this thread is because you made a comment
> >about something you know nothing about.
>
> You are an imbecile. I made a statement of facts that were obvious.
> The statement that "I didn't want to comment on something I knew
> nothing about" was accurate and precise - and I made no such
> statement.
>
> I made one statement, both clear and factual. Everything since is me
> responding to a bunch of crap.
No, you didn't. Read up above where I explain as many times as you
need to. Either you are a very poor communicator of what you mean, or
you aren't very intelligent.
> >> >I see no reason to make either assertion, quite frankly. =A0
>
> >> Fine - then don't. But you are not equipped to tell me how to reason.
>
> >I know reason when I see it.
>
> Sometimes at least I'm sure. You are proving "not always" here.
You have yet to show me a flaw in my reasoning, Hugh. You have yet to
back up yours.
> > I also know the lack thereof. I try
> >hard to respect my elders,
>
> Respect is not a tactic on rsfc.
I know that. I'm just stating that under normal circumstances I would
have simply put your post in the trash, where it belongs.
> realize that they have far more experience
>
> >than I do, and weigh their insight and comments accordingly. Even
> >with that extra level of respect, your comments are not very reasoned.
>
> Stupid conclusions and assertions require no reasoned comment.
Oh, so you are admitted your conclusions and assertions were stupid?
> >> Why do we call obama a black president? Does every race need quotas to
> >> go to college? Skin color is a major current event - don't be so
> >> naive. The difference is that I let others draw all the conclusions -
> >> and watch them lie when they say I did.
> >> There is a vast difference between being a racist and being called one
> >> by the numbnuts here. No black person I know thinks I am a racist -
> >> that's good enough.
>
> >As far as you know they don't think that. Why would they tell you if
> >they did?
>
> They tell me that they don't - by hugs, greetings, recalling days when
> I coached thier kids or officiated games they played, by stopping by
> at football games to shake my hand. And none have called me "massa"
> yet.
Actually Hugh, this may be hard for you to believe, but someone can
love and respect someone and still believe them to be racist or have
some other flaw that they don't like.
> > nobody else on here even discusses these events in terms of
> >> >race, so why do you?
>
> >> I am not a sheep. I think most others are too chicken to say what they
> >> think when it is controversial - like race and queer.. They seek the
> >> approval of everyone. They accept that everything is okay as long as
> >> he is doing his thing. I don't.
>
> >But I thought you weren't sharing an opinion? If that's true, you
> >couldn't possibly be sharing what you *think* when it is
> >controversial.
>
> I'm not sharing an opinion here. I'm telling you what to think if you
> are that smart.
Deflection technique, but obvious and nonsensical.
> >Your post is a series of contradictions, and you don't really seem to
> >know what you are saying and what you aren't.
>
> >I see it though.
>
> Good for you. For your sake I hope you never wake up.
You wish. You are so entangled by your own words right now, and I'm
sure you wish you could find a way to make it stop. If your statement
hadn't been so stupid to begin with, and more importantly, if you
hadn't insisted on continuing to call it a statement of fact, this
would all be over right now.
Stubborness just makes you look all the more foolish.
Brent
J. Hugh Sullivan
<btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>No, Hugh. It's your own statements, such as calling Obama a "half-
>breed" that make you look racist. I'm not a "PC" person by any means,
>but you have to recognize that your adoption of phrases and terms from
>people that *were* or *are* racist, is going to put you firmly in
>their camp.
response from me.
I call him a half-breed because HE IS A HALF BREED. I call a queer a
queer because HE IS A QUEER. I don't avoid facts like the gutless
wonders today. I call a bastard a bastard because HE IS. We are what
we are and all your lying to cover it up doesn;t change a thing. That
doesn't mean that all half breeds and all bastards are unacceptable.
I am not existence challenged, I am old. I am not gravity challenged,
I am overweight. I feel sorry for people who lack sufficient
self-esteem to face the facts.
You used to make some intelligent posts. I'm very sorry that you don't
appear to be able to do that anymore. If you want to earn another
response from me either find your old brain or get help.
Hugh
RaginPage
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:31:00 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
>
> >No, Hugh. It's your own statements, such as calling Obama a "half-
> >breed" that make you look racist. I'm not a "PC" person by any means,
> >but you have to recognize that your adoption of phrases and terms from
> >people that *were* or *are* racist, is going to put you firmly in
> >their camp.
>
> This is your only response that is intelligent enough to get a
> response from me.
You don't fool me Hugh. At least you are smart enough to end this
now.
> I call him a half-breed because HE IS A HALF BREED.
No, he's not. We are humans. There is no "breeding" involved, that's
for livestock. Don't be a simpleton.
>I call a queer a
> queer because HE IS A QUEER.
I am surprised you don't use the term fag. Is there any particular
reason you avoid that one?
> I don't avoid facts like the gutless
> wonders today.
You avoid facts that you don't like just like everyone else does. You
can claim the opposite all you want, but you are full of just as much
rhetoric and hyperbole as the next guy. You are full of hot air.
> I call a bastard a bastard because HE IS.
Are you sure you haven't used that term on people that actually
aren't? I think maybe you have. Are you sure you don't use as an
insult?
>We are what
> we are and all your lying to cover it up doesn;t change a thing.
I have lied about what, exactly?
> That
> doesn't mean that all half breeds and all bastards are unacceptable.
I'm pretty sure all of the people you are referring to, consider that
an insult whether you find them acceptable or not.
> I am not existence challenged, I am old. I am not gravity challenged,
> I am overweight. I feel sorry for people who lack sufficient
> self-esteem to face the facts.
Isn't this interesting. I just got done saying "I'm not PC by any
means" and you go on this long diatribe about being PC. Figures.
Deflect when you have nothing else left.
> You used to make some intelligent posts.
Agreeing with you doesn't make a post intelligent.
>I'm very sorry that you don't
> appear to be able to do that anymore.
Funny how time does that. It erodes excuses until you realize
somethings really are unacceptable.
> If you want to earn another
> response from me either find your old brain or get help.
Please. I don't solicite responses from you. I pointed out your
statements for the ridiculous stereotypes that they were. You've been
trying to defend them for several posts now. About time you gave up.
Brent
J. Hugh Sullivan
<btpag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Please. I don't solicite responses from you. I pointed out your
>statements for the ridiculous stereotypes that they were. You've been
>trying to defend them for several posts now. About time you gave up.
>
>Brent
>
>
>
I tell them.
Hugh
Dave Kelsen
Please stop.
RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"It is a sad thing when men have neither the wit to speak well nor the
judgment to hold their tongues." -- Jean de la Bruyere
RaginPage
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:13:56 -0700 (PDT), RaginPage
>
> >Please. I don't solicite responses from you. I pointed out your
> >statements for the ridiculous stereotypes that they were. You've been
> >trying to defend them for several posts now. About time you gave up.
>
> >Brent
>
> When will you understand that I don't defend to people at your level -
> I tell them.
>
Brent
J. Hugh Sullivan
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>When will you get that replying to this cretin is what encourages him?
>Please stop.
>
>
>RFT!!!
>Dave Kelsen
promoted to cretin. I really hope I live that long.
Hugh