One Thing I've Noticed

@Buttermilk,

Because 46 million - majority = at least 1?

Of course, my math skills weren't honed at a prestigious university...

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I back off, for now, re thinking PR needing to be banned.

Let her be reviled well writ.

U r free to take that position if u want to.

I 'll advocate that her work be debated both for its merit and for its shortcomings.
Its not a one-way street, going YOUR way, Osso.

David

0 Replies

@Buttermilk,

Buttermilk wrote:

You said

"Does that mean whites shud put up with it?"

It's on page 4. That comment is indicative that WHITES are sole victims. Funny a New Jersey white kid was busted for playing this game.

Your comment, being anecdotal, doesn't prove anything. That white kid might be the exception who proved the rule.

0 Replies

@Buttermilk,

Buttermilk wrote:

You're a typical white person.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

BTW, I have not seen posters claiming that Pamela, or other posters, have a free-speech right to post. That is just another strawman set up by you and Setanta.

You are such a f*cking idiot (leaving aside your virulent racism). The entire conversation in which Tico and i have been engaged was sparked by precisely the claim that PR would be denied her free speech rights if she were banned, and one member specifically stated that it would be an uglier world if that were to happen.

It's an uglier world because hateful racists like you and PR are in it.

3 Replies

@Lash,

You said it would be an "uglier" world if people like PR were banned. You wrapped yourself in the flag of free speech. Now you claim not be be taking a virtuous position--"Odd to me that the pendulum has swung so wildly since then." I see what you've posted here in defense of that Nazi scumbag to have been an attempt to claim the moral high ground.

It's not a matter of that opinion being "untoward." Its'a matter of this site being used to disseminate racist hatred. Let her run back to Stormfront, where she'll be the darling of the racist crowd.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Advocate wrote:

BTW, I have not seen posters claiming that Pamela, or other posters,
have a free-speech right to post. That is just another strawman set up by you and Setanta.

Setanta wrote:

You are such a f*cking idiot (leaving aside your virulent racism).
The entire conversation in which Tico and i have been engaged
was sparked by precisely the claim that PR would be denied her
free speech rights if she were banned, and one member specifically
stated that it would be an uglier world if that were to happen.

It's an uglier world because hateful racists like you and PR are in it.

For my part, I find the authoritarian-collectivism that u spout
to be most ugly, loathsome and abhorrent, but I do not call upon
the forum to stifle, to ostracize, nor to censor u.

I exhort that nazis, commies, Setanta and Pamela Rosa shud all
be allowed the opportunity to express themselves freely,
regardless of the fact that no one has the right to post
IF un-welcome on a private website.

(Let us note, incidentally, that the Advocate has shown no evidence of sexual activity,
nor of mental impairment, Setanta 's allegations to the contrary notwithstanding.)

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

You said it would be an "uglier" world if people like PR were banned

That is true. To me, ideologically, racially, or religiously homogeneous groups that pick and choose what words or opinions are acceptable and not - and erase from view disapproved opinions is ugly and frightening to me. Washing the words from print is some lame way of pretending those views don't exist. I'd rather see the world as it is and have the ability to speak to it.

Quote:

You wrapped yourself in the flag of free speech.

This is just your silly way of using an emotional, rhetorical visual that doesn't apply. If you believe the point you're trying to make, you can do it without this.

Quote:

Now you claim not be be taking a virtuous position--"Odd to me that the pendulum has swung so wildly since then."

The link I brought from the Should Members be Banned for Untoward Opinions does belong beside this thread. Your own opinion was one I agreed with strongly at the time. It IS odd - and sad - to me that so many opinions about openness of speech have changed. I don't understand what happened to the support for freedom and openness that was almost 100% when Craven asked us about it. It's like - hey, that's important to us IN THEORY, but when the **** actually shows up, you're all turning your backs on your principles. It is your perogative, just don't expect me to be ashamed. I'm not.

Quote:

I see what you've posted here in defense of that Nazi scumbag to have been an attempt to claim the moral high ground.

It's not a matter of that opinion being "untoward." Its'a matter of this site being used to disseminate racist hatred. Let her run back to Stormfront, where she'll be the darling of the racist crowd.

Well, I hope you at least see your assumption about my motivation was incorrect.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Quote:
You said it would be an "uglier" world if people like PR were banned

That is true. To me, ideologically, racially, or religiously homogeneous groups that pick and choose what words or opinions are acceptable and not - and erase from view disapproved opinions is ugly and frightening to me. Washing the words from print is some lame way of pretending those views don't exist. I'd rather see the world as it is and have the ability to speak to it.

Quote:
You wrapped yourself in the flag of free speech.

This is just your silly way of using an emotional, rhetorical visual that doesn't apply. If you believe the point you're trying to make, you can do it without this.

Quote:
Now you claim not be be taking a virtuous position--"Odd to me that the pendulum has swung so wildly since then."

The link I brought from the Should Members be Banned for Untoward Opinions does belong beside this thread. Your own opinion was one I agreed with strongly at the time. It IS odd - and sad - to me that so many opinions about openness of speech have changed. I don't understand what happened to the support for freedom and openness that was almost 100% when Craven asked us about it. It's like - hey, that's important to us IN THEORY, but when the **** actually shows up, you're all turning your backs on your principles. It is your perogative, just don't expect me to be ashamed. I'm not.

Quote:
I see what you've posted here in defense of that Nazi scumbag to have been an attempt to claim the moral high ground.

It's not a matter of that opinion being "untoward." Its'a matter of this site being used to disseminate racist hatred. Let her run back to Stormfront, where she'll be the darling of the racist crowd.

Well, I hope you at least see your assumption about my motivation was incorrect.

That was VERY WELL SAID, if I may offer an opinion.
It seems to me that your point of vu is well grounded
in the founding principles of America. Thay are anathema
to the authoritarian-collectivists who strive to curtail and reduce liberty now.

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Advocate wrote:
BTW, I have not seen posters claiming that Pamela, or other posters, have a free-speech right to post. That is just another strawman set up by you and Setanta.

You are such a f*cking idiot (leaving aside your virulent racism). The entire conversation in which Tico and i have been engaged was sparked by precisely the claim that PR would be denied her free speech rights if she were banned, and one member specifically stated that it would be an uglier world if that were to happen.

It's an uglier world because hateful racists like you and PR are in it.

Pointing out that PR gives us certain documented facts, which might help all of us defend ourselves when out in public, hardly makes me a virulent and hateful racist.

You are very good at making vicious and excrement-laden attacks on those with whom you disagree. You are a sick and disgusting person.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

I explained it you did not quote the rest.

1 Reply

To add further about "typical white person" I'm coming from the experience of a black man who had the unfortunate experience of having to always explain why blacks do x, y, and Z. Instead of using Google, Wikipedia, or FBI statistics (as well as television) there are unfortunately a lot of misinformed white folks on people outside their ethnic circle.

This is why sites like Stormfront and Blackplanet are havens for extremist because hatred and ignorance circulates among the lazy people.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

There was no "excrement" in my post . . . but here's some for you, you dipshit.

PR and you both are hysterical racists. PR does not provide any useful information, and, in fact, the overwhelming majority of victims of black crime are other blacks. Let's get you cranked up about the Palestinians, you usually froth at the mouth on that topic. Then you can go read your new girlfriend's Holocaust thread.

2 Replies

@Lash,

I am not a member of any "ideologically, racially, or religiously" homogeneous group which finds racism such as PR and Advocate indulge in to be disgusting. Go to PR's "My problem with the holocaust" thread to see David arguing against her--he's certainly no liberal. Neither am i, for that matter--to most American conservatives i would be a communist (because most of them indulge no subtlety of thought). Advocate is a racist, and on the American political spectrum he'd be considered a liberal for all of his other views. It's nice for you to put everyone in convenient little boxes, though, isn't it? Nicely labeled boxes which you can then dismiss.

Blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians--both south Asians and East Asians--all condemn racism. I have no religious affiliation at all, but many religiously devoted people publicly deplore racism, and many of them were very active in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. You must inhabit a very narrow, constrained world if this is really your view.

As i pointed out, you were using a phony "free speech" justification for your position. The right of free speech is a principle which applies in public places, as i've already pointed out. This is not a public place, as i've already pointed out.

No, i don't see that my assessment of your motivation was incorrect. You're still trying to beat that free speech drum. I am not concerned with PR's opinions, and whether or not they're "untoward." I have consistently referred to the dissemination of racist hatred. I guess that doesn't bother you.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

There was no "excrement" in my post . . . but here's some for you, you dipshit.

PR and you both are hysterical racists. PR does not provide any useful information, and, in fact, the overwhelming majority of victims of black crime are other blacks. Let's get you cranked up about the Palestinians, you usually froth at the mouth on that topic. Then you can go read your new girlfriend's Holocaust thread.

I guess I knew the excrement insult was coming. I was previously unaware of PR's new thread. This shows was a BS artist you are.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Aren't you clever. I didn't say you were aware of it, i just wanted you to know more about your new girlfriend, you racist piece of ****.

0 Replies

Meantime, I'm back again to seeing/getting Set's and Beth's and Tico's view on this, re banning PR. Trouble is, I wouldn't want that heavily used. But with her long term history, removal is attractive and I see the point that it isn't a free speech question, this being a private site.

But we do have the tools, the ignore button and thumbs and people who see her stuff can confront her.

So, I'm thinking in circles here, even in this response.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

There was no "excrement" in my post . . . but here's some for you, you dipshit.

Well, I guess u put it into THIS one.

Setanta wrote:

PR and you both are hysterical racists.
PR does not provide any useful information,

Setanta KNOWS this from the depth of his fully EXHAUSTIVE, intimate scrutiny n his present exegesis
of the entirety of her work; (Setanta is nothing if not fair, thorough, meticulous & comprehensive).
My admiration for his obsessive attention to detail knows no bounds.
When Setanta announces his conclusion, then we can be sure
that he has been complete in his analysis of the evidence
(especially when he proves a negative) !

Setanta wrote:

and, in fact, the overwhelming majority of victims of black crime are other blacks.

Yes. That is a well-known fact.

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I am not a member of any "ideologically, racially, or religiously" homogeneous group which finds racism such as PR and Advocate indulge in to be disgusting. Go to PR's "My problem with the holocaust" thread to see David arguing against her--he's certainly no liberal. Neither am i, for that matter--to most American conservatives i would be a communist (because most of them indulge no subtlety of thought). Advocate is a racist, and on the American political spectrum he'd be considered a liberal for all of his other views. It's nice for you to put everyone in convenient little boxes, though, isn't it? Nicely labeled boxes which you can then dismiss.

Blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians--both south Asians and East Asians--all condemn racism. I have no religious affiliation at all, but many religiously devoted people publicly deplore racism, and many of them were very active in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. You must inhabit a very narrow, constrained world if this is really your view.

As i pointed out, you were using a phony "free speech" justification for your position. The right of free speech is a principle which applies in public places, as i've already pointed out. This is not a public place, as i've already pointed out.

No, i don't see that my assessment of your motivation was incorrect. You're still trying to beat that free speech drum. I am not concerned with PR's opinions, and whether or not they're "untoward." I have consistently referred to the dissemination of racist hatred. I guess that doesn't bother you.

A PRIVATE website can make a decision
concerning whether or not it will allow free speech.
In some cases, this can be debated.

David

0 Replies

@Buttermilk,

Buttermilk wrote:

I explained it you did not quote the rest.

I quoted the salient part.

Your full comment was this:

Buttermilk wrote:

In other words since she is attacking blacks its no use telling her she's wrong. You're a typical white person. By typical I mean willfully uninformed. Idle, lazy for a just cause. I'm sick of some white folks using the argument

You made a negative generalization based on race, which is racist, in my view. As such, you're no different from those who would say a black person participating in the "knock out game" is a "typical black person."

2 Replies

One Thing I've Noticed

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know