Writing Conference Canceled Because Of Too Many White People, page 7

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What? You are back again? A week after my last reply, three weeks since this thread was begun. Bored are you?
And to boot, somehow after only a short while you have managed to get two others to just ''happen across this ancient thread to give you a couple of stars? You must have quite a following here on ATS.. I should have been more respectful to you.

So, as I am bored myself I will ask you to point to me where it was proven that they were ''in fact'' racist. I said that they might be, not ''in fact'' that they were. Oh right, you're bored and so need to make stuff up.

You claim that now that it is shown that they were racist, which of course it was not, that I claim it was a marketing decision. Have you had the honesty in this thread to even check out my earlier words in this thread??
From page one of this thread this is what my position was.

Yes, I understand that. But I do not see it as a ''PC'' crowd. Basically it is the essence of the market place. You develop product to suit the various whims of the potential buyers. We all know by now that the balance of American demographic is changing. More and more children are being born that do not reflect the white demographic. As the white demographic has already been saturated as I pointed out, and kiddie books that reflect that demographic are on sale in flea markets for a nickel apiece, in order to continue the profit incentive of the book industry, it needs to look to a larger demographic for sales. And what demographic has been under developed? Children of color.

It's capitalism that rules and the book companies are looking for new and wider markets. Simple. If that's what you see as racism, then I guess that is your prerogative though I see it as only catering to the wishes of the emerging market place.

So, there you have it. You claimed that :
So, now that it is shown that they were, in fact, racist, you want to claim it was a marketing decision?? What a crock!!''

And as I made that claim well before you seem to have come to the conclusion that that reply was only in response to whatever proof you think was shown later in the thread and that I agreed to, it should be obvious that your assumption is incorrect.

So as I have suggested before I will put my end of this silliness to rest.
You, however, just keep on posting in dead threads if that is your adrenaline fix for a dull afternoon. And don't forget to let your followers know so you can continue your star accumulation.

This isn't an "ancient thread"; it's pretty current. As for it being "days", I don't live on here, or always get in daily to respond. Most people don't. As for what someone else stars, or doesn't, that's entirely up to them. I don't invite people to these threads. If someone agrees with what I post, they agree. Are stars a serious concern for you? You might be surprised, but I star posts from anyone when I agree, even if I have disagreed elsewhere.

As for the thread, if it's so "dead", why respond at all? You are under no obligation to do so. As far as this being racist, or not, yes, it is racist, by definition, to cancel something because of the races of those scheduled to appear. If most had been non-white, and they cancelled because of "marketing", claiming that not enough white authors would be a bad business move, you'd be in here calling them racist.

No fix needed, and no "followers", either. You seem fixated on that for some reason.