It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Successful Black Prejudice

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Guess what kind of skin tone he has? ... If it was REALLY about helping black kids, how come you can't apply to it?



I don't care what skin tone he has.
And I'm not interested in applying for it. That doesn't prove a thing to me.

And watch passing your opinion off as proof.
I hear they're touchy about that around here.



What the show did was tell white America that, "hey, if Dr. Huggstable can do well in America, we shouldn't be concerned about any barriers the average black faces. It's their own fault they aren't successful


Thanks for answering. I see the logic, although I don't agree with it.

So, if blacks are shown on TV as gangsta or silly or uneducated or drug addicted, that furthers the stereotype and if they're shown as affluent middle class family units, that ALSO furthers the stereotype. How should black people be shown on TV to accurately portray the black experience?

I'll answer that. They should be shown in EVERY light imaginable. Because there are stupid, intelligent, poor, wealthy, honorable, criminal black people in the US. That's the only accurate portrayal. But it's hard to show all of those in one TV show, isn't it? So we can pick apart each one, saying it's not an accurate portrayal.

Let me tell you something. The Simpson's are an accurate portrayal of white people. But so is The West Wing. So is 24 and so is South Park. People are people. All kinds of people.


Thanks again for answering me.




posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
My professor brought it up yesterday in class.

What class are you taking? Just curious.


Jack and Jill

Never heard of it. Sorry. Can't comment.


but after we discussed it, I understood.... What the show did was tell white America


So BEFORE you all discussed it you saw the show as just nice family entertainment that was popular with most Americans. But AFTER you discussed it, then you saw the show was just anti-black agenda? Honestly, I think someone (the professor?) is just over analyzing and looking for problems where there aren't any. It was just nice family entertainment and it didn't 'tell me' anything.

BTW - when the show was on TV, my boss (a black woman) loved it. And like BH .. we both LOVED Rudy! (who wouldn't!!)



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
I'm saying, at that point, realize that there may be some undercurrents you're not fully aware of.


I DID realize that!
I even agreed with you. I then went on to talk about what he said, not that I gave it credence because he said it, but because I already had thoughts along the same lines he had. I've told you this. His credibility wasn't the issue. I wanted to talk about the points he was making, which I had heard from other sources and believed to be true because of my personal experiences.


I didn't need 3 black people to tell me that he was a shill.
He's part of the Bush administration! I already don't trust him. But his message (from him or anyone) is one I already held. Even a blind pig is able to find an acorn now and again.
People who have no credibility can still accidently make sense occassionally. And his message (being one I already held) deserved discussion, I thought. I said that long ago, but you guys just kept trying to convince me he's not credible, so nothing he said should be even entertained. I disagree. The message has merit in my opinion, but we couldn't get off the man's credibility.



I would just like to help you weed out the bad science, or generally unaccepted theories, or whatever.


I appreciate your help. As I've said, I'm less and less interested in discussing it here.



What more do you want from me?


I've told you what I want. But you don't owe it to me to change anything. If you want to use the phrase "white people" when talking about the dominant culture, the wealthy elite, the power corrupt, the system, that's entirely your choice.



When have I ever said that, BH? Now I'm insulted.


You haven't. I wasn't addressing anything you'd said. I'm sorry if that insulted you. It was not my intent.



You thought up a whole scenario.


That wasn't directed at you, either. And racist assumptions have been made of me and voiced. Not by you. And yes, it was BS. I made up that scenario to show the other side of the coin of what I'm experiencing here. Similar assumptions are being made about me because I'm white and just typed out as though it's ok to assume that I'm a bigoted racist. And I don't like it any more than you liked reading my scenario.

You have mentioned several times that we should listen to the black people in the thread when talking about black issues, but I'd rather not group you all together and take what you all say as some sort of black authority, because believe me, from this side of the keyboard, you're all VERY different people with different opinions. You're all VERY separate in my mind, believe me. And your blackness, even in your solidarity, doesn't mean (to me) that you should automatically be believed.



I think that all we're saying prejudice and racism against black people by white people does exist. Someone has to be perpetrating it. We don't know every single one of you, so we obviously can't be that precise.


Then just continue to use "white people", even though many of the people who keep blacks down are black, hispanic and Asian people.



Maybe someone should start a thread to find the best name for who you call the 'wealthy corrupt,' in this new classist-not-racist outlook.


No need for a thread. How about "wealthy corrupt"? It's more accurate, it's 2 words, easy to remember.



I'm serious, you're right in saying that we call them the wrong thing, but 'wealthy corrupt' hasn't caught on yet.


Well, we all know it starts with one voice.



When I say that I know 'what black people think', I mean it literally. I'm not projecting my own opinion out onto the black population. I'm basically sharing with you what other black people have told me, or what is the leading opinion. I guess I could say, I'm telling you what the black people I know have told me.


Yeah, I know. A lot of that is about being accused of speaking for black people or speaking for white people. If we could just talk about this stuff, without all the insane sidetracks, we could get somewhere, but I feel like people are just examining my words, just looking for something to exploit (not you) so they can jump on me and say "A-HA"! you think this or that! And I'm sicker than I can say about it.


If you and I could get together an talk I'm absolutely SURE we could learn a LOT from each other, but not here. Not me.
Sorry.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
You know the funny thing, phoenixhasrisin, statistical measures determine a lot. How much people spend. How much people do a certain behavior opposed to another. Even, what shows people watch.

They also give a person a clue that the sample of "successful" Blacks is very wide and diverse, instead of the old "Bill Cosby/Shelby Steele/Alphonso Jackson" tripe that continues to be dripped from the lips of those who believe him. Statistics quickly get to the heart in the matter more than any sentiment could.

I don't expect you to agree. But, in the end, numbers always tell the story.

Secondly, BH, I also don't expect you to understand. I said last night on the HUD board I'd catch hell for what I said. And it happened with precise timing.

I agree with phoenixhasrisin about the problems with academia. In fact, he wrote a pretty good post. It allowed me really to laugh at myself because it shows how sometimes the academic part of me is deeply ingrained sometimes. But if I personalized the same things I had spoken, then a lot more people would be upset. And judging from your comments you are constantly upset. I'm sorry that you are.

But I wonder sometimes if you truly understand what we're trying to say to you instead of trying to take sides.

[edit on 1-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
When All Else Fails, Manipulate The Data!

Originally posted by ceci2006
You know the funny thing, phoenixhasrisin, statistical measures determine a lot. How much people spend. How much people do a certain behavior opposed to another. Even, what shows people watch.

They also give a person a clue that the sample of "successful" Blacks is very wide and diverse, instead of the old "Bill Cosby/Shelby Steele/Alphonso Jackson" tripe that continues to be dripped from the lips of those who believe him. Statistics quickly get to the heart in the matter more than any sentiment could.

I don't expect you to agree. But, in the end, numbers always tell the story.

You do not expect me to agree because deep down you know that the statement was/is non-sense. Statistics can be a useful source of information yes, they will never be able to help you quantify subjective concepts such as success though, and the suggestion that they can is absurd.



But I wonder sometimes if you truly understand what we're trying to say to you instead of trying to take sides.


I don't even understand what you are trying to say, and I'm black. Well, half black in all honesty, but growing up my Father stressed the 1/100 rule in our house.


[edit on 1-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Statistics are like lamposts. They can be used for illumination or for support.

Edit One time for typo.

[edit on 1-2-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally quoted by phoenixhasrisin

You do not expect me to agree because deep down you know that the statement was/is non-sense. Statistics can be a useful source of information yes, they will never be able to help you quantify subjective concepts such as success though, and the suggestion that they can is absurd.


I don't expect you to agree. That's the beauty of opinons: everyone has one. And I accept your critique of my post.

And I thank you for clearly stating what I've been trying to say. No one can truly define who is "successful" and "intelligent". That's why the list presented in this thread was truly biased because it did not include a broader sample of Blacks. It stuck with those in the public eye. If only celebrities and dignitaries who are Black represent the only ones considered successful and intelligent, what about the rest of us?

Something one can do with a topic like this is to try and set up a "working definition" so that each respondent in the thread understands how to perceive "the sample". With a "working definition" people can use it to tailor their opinions according to the evidence. If the "working definition" is not clearly stated, what you get is a bunch of people tossing stereotypes at one another.

That's all I wanted to say about the "success" and "intelligence" issue. Nothing more.

About statistics in use:

There are many studies that tried to define the "Black Achievement Gap" (one of which HH posted). Secondly, in the Educational discipline, these issues are sometimes measured in a quantitative and qualitative sense through the use of data sets and surveys. They help educators determine what is best in terms of not only teaching Black children, but all children in general. They're quite interesting.

On the other hand, this is an example of statistics gone wrong: Charles Murray's The Bell Curve. In this sense, you are very right. Statistics, in this case, are used to promote stereotypes and prejudice about people of color, most namely Blacks. His work, single-handedly reinforced the opinons of some in terms of who is "superior" and "inferior" in society. In that light, the statistics used were outwardly racist and most undoubtedly absurd.

It's not so much what I wrote was nonsense; instead I was pointing out that when people try to approach subjects like this, it is best not to be biased. Or else, such questions are used to reinforce a political agenda complete with stereotypes by describing a narrow list of persons used as evidence.

I hope that this explaination was a bit clearer.


Other than that, there are other ways to discuss this subject matter without it being insulting. However, that takes sensitivity, humanity and vision.



I don't even understand what you are trying to say, and I'm black. Well, half black in all honesty, but growing up my Father stressed the 1/100 rule in our house.


Sorry, phoenixhasrisen. That was addressed to BH.

What I meant is that sometimes the words of Black folk can end up misconstrued. In threads like these, people end up taking sides instead of listening to what others have to say.

I wanted to know why this was so.

I'm sorry if my early afternoon note was rather confusing.





[edit on 1-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
HH, I wanted to post you a note to thank you for trying to explain what I was trying to say when writing the list of who should be believed.

(In fact, that is probably going to be a thread in the near future, btw.)

When I wrote the list, I was writing what I observed people doing in the thread. I found that there is a problem of "semantic" disconnect when it came to the proof being displayed here. However, there are always different perceptions depending on the side of who is posing the questions. That too is very relevant in light of the OP.

Of course, it would be simply easy to answer the question. However, as this thread has shown, this question has become quite more complex. And I laud everyone for trying to work through the deepness that the subject matter introduces.

Not everyone is going to be happy with the answers. However, I would hope that by posting a systematic question asking who is going to be believed, this approach helps define why such questions as the one posed in the OP can be problematic at the outset. Furthermore, it can gauge how biases can be employed to "encourage" others to say "what is real" simply because a particular side says this is so.

By also asking who is to be believed, it is relevant to note how the aspect of race plays a heavy part into this.

Hopefully, by asking about bias, it will help some to reflect a little about how questions (like in the OP) are posed on the board. And in this subject matter alone, it is more important who is to be "believed" in terms of whether the answer "is real" or not.

That's all I wanted to say about my earlier post. That was my way of introducing the aspect of bias into the discussion because people recognize this subject, but never truly try to examine it.

These observances are only my opinion of how I see this. Unfortunately, the road to hell is always paved with good intentions.




[edit on 2-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Benevolent Heretic


We don't need anything confirmed from you of all people.


Who are the "we"? I didn't expect anyone to have anything confirmed by me. Why are you being mean?


We can read. We can see. We can hear.


Again, who said any of "you" didn't?


Your confirmation means absolutely nothing to me.


Fine. You've stated this as such repeatedly. And I don't care.


Ammunition?


Why, yes. But since you've confirmed that you don't believe me, you don't have to be so outraged over my opinion.


For one thing, “people” don’t need any more ammunition if that’s what they’re looking for.


How little you know.



There’s free ammunition everywhere. We don’t have to drag it out of you. Secondly, it says a lot about your own intentions that you assume “people” are scouting for ammunition to attack you.


Now you are really twisting my words here.


That is what ammunition is for. Attacks.


Of course it is. And knowing that you took my words and used them against me, this entire reply to my post demonstrates that you used them as ammunition in attack mode. You proved my suspicion to be correct. Thank you.




[edit on 1-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:46 PM
link   
It would help if people would drop their artificial, grandiloquent statements and just answer the questions posed to them. Sans the brace of "research".

What is your problem, and what do you want? Not what XYZ has to say on the subject.

But I doubt that I will get a response to this. Safe, secure in your cocoon of finger pointing and "deep" concern for and love of academia.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
As a American man of mixed heritage I am sick of being called a sell out. I had a successful military career, academic career and soon a successful political career. I submit that all these so called Africans are misled. My wife(white) went on a missionary trip to Africa. There were blacks on the trip and they were told they were not African they are American. They were shocked to hear this. These people simply want to blame whitey for everything instead of working hard and achieving the dream. Wake up people of color you are Americans. Embrace all people and aspire to a goal. Keep your eye on the prize. God Bless



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   
It's not so much about being safe with an academic explaination, jsobecky. It is about trying to approach the subject with a framework that will help analyze what is being asked.

Yes, it is simple to answer the question. How much fun would that be? People who have the stereotype already derived in their mind would read the answers and nod in confirmation. Then, they would take it to another thread and list it as another reason to negatively think about Black people. The Congressional Black Caucus Thread describes this very action (quite interesting reading for those to see what some members truly think about Blacks).

Questions like these deserve to be challenged. It lets some know that not every answer is cut and dried.

Wouldn't people on ATS appreciate this aspect?

-----------------

Yep. As I post, the same old, same old continues to be posted. Another reason to challenge this tripe.




[edit on 2-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
It's not so much about being safe with an academic explaination, jsobecky. It is about trying to approach the subject with a framework that will help analyze what is being asked.

Well ceci, you finally acknowledge my existence.

Why do you need a framework? Why not answer from your gut?

You are without a doubt the most proficient scholar of information that I have ever encountered on ATs. That's a compliment, btw.

But that tells me that you are more than capable to stand on your own two feet. And that is the person that I want to understand, not what someone else has to say.

When/if Ceci writes her doctorate's thesis, what will be her own thoughts and concerns? That is what I want to know.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well ceci, you finally acknowledge my existence.


You addressed me politely. That compelled me to answer.


Why do you need a framework?


A framework helps me reflect about the topic. It provides me with a foundation in order to address the subject matter. As they say, you can't play a game without any ground rules.


Why not answer from your gut?


Knee-jerk answers never serve anyone well. They are almost never well received. In light of saying that, they work for some people. It pays to reflect sometimes on what you want to say instead of letting it fly out of your mouth.


You are without a doubt the most proficient scholar of information that I have ever encountered on ATs. That's a compliment, btw.


Thank you very much for saying that. That is very kind.


But that tells me that you are more than capable to stand on your own two feet. And that is the person that I want to understand, not what someone else has to say.


In a lot of capacities, I do say what I think. However, in the heat of battle, that is glossed over for the sake of others "answering from their gut" against me.


I find that especially in discussions like these, it is best to work with ideas. Ideas tend to allow people the space to dwell upon them for a while, allowing time for them to answer. Otherwise, if people relied on emotional responses, a topic (like one we know about
) would end up as terrible shouting matches in which everyone walks away angry.

Ideas allow people to shoot the breeze without feeling threatened. Furthermore, ideas are rather cooperative. People can add to them. And as a 'group discussion', ideas can end up changing people for the better, if they let it.

It's not to say that experiences count. They do most whole-heartedly. There are some who are better at telling experiences which affect other people.


When/if Ceci writes her doctorate's thesis, what will be her own thoughts and concerns? That is what I want to know.


My concern has always been about people getting along. I want people to understand each other and work with one another to achieve a better society. I would certainly hope that there are others who have the same goals in mind. I have never deviated from this no matter how much I've been accused of "having an agenda".

I've always been interested in people. Society has always held a fascination for me.

That is why the issues asserted by the OP is important because there are perceptions at stake. The question in the OP most undoubtedly calls into question how one group of people sees another. So, I think in light of what has been said, it is important for one to note that simply answering a question doesn't really tell the story. Instead, like in Eugene Kane's column (that I posted on the HUD thread), it can only initiate these talks that people are afraid of having within the aspects of RL.

Hope that answers your questions.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
And I thank you for clearly stating what I've been trying to say. No one can truly define who is "successful" and "intelligent". That's why the list presented in this thread was truly biased because it did not include a broader sample of Blacks. It stuck with those in the public eye. If only celebrities and dignitaries who are Black represent the only ones considered successful and intelligent, what about the rest of us?


What about the rest of you? No one stated that those in the public eye are the only examples of successful black people, that is your inference. Perhaps the reason that the original list was populated by those in the public eye is due to the fact that they are just that: public . Being public, they are figures, and issues that people are likely to be aware of. Besides, there is no need for a more representative list, after all, this is not a study, this is not statistics.

Ten pages later and you still have given no explanation for the phenomenon, hell unless I missed it somewhere, you haven't even admitted that the problem exists yet!

By all means though, continue chasing your tail.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally quoted by phoenixhasrisin

What about the rest of you? No one stated that those in the public eye are the only examples of successful black people, that is your inference.


What's wrong with making inferences? Others have made them.


Perhaps the reason that the original list was populated by those in the public eye is due to the fact that they are just that: public . Being public, they are figures, and issues that people are likely to be aware of. Besides, there is no need for a more representative list, after all, this is not a study, this is not statistics.


All this drama over introducing a different way to think about the question and critiquing it in terms of bias? I guess there's no room for critical analysis or dissent. Just obeyance.


Ten pages later and you still have given no explanation for the phenomenon, hell unless I missed it somewhere, you haven't even admitted that the problem exists yet!


I didn't know it was supposed to fall on me. However, you admitted it on your part. That should make you feel good.


Btw, the last time I looked this wasn't a confessional, either.


By all means though, continue chasing your tail.


Is that better than sticking one's tail between one's legs?


[edit on 2-2-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well ceci, you finally acknowledge my existence.


You addressed me politely. That compelled me to answer.

Well, I'm glad it did. I've known you from the first day you came to ATS, and from the get-go I knew you were not the typical ATS'er. You were smart, I saw that right off..


Why do you need a framework?



A framework helps me reflect about the topic. It provides me with a foundation in order to address the subject matter. As they say, you can't play a game without any ground rules.

If it helps you, then use it. But just realize, there are times where you need to drop it. Like when I ask **you** what you mean. Books down, coffee cups on the table. Let's talk.


Why not answer from your gut?



Knee-jerk answers never serve anyone well. They are almost never well received. In light of saying that, they work for some people. It pays to reflect sometimes on what you want to say instead of letting it fly out of your mouth.

They never serve any purpose nor are well received on a board this size, I agree. It's a tough assignment to try to make your point when you are ridiculed b/c of your efforts.



You are without a doubt the most proficient scholar of information that I have ever encountered on ATs. That's a compliment, btw.



Thank you very much for saying that. That is very kind.

I would not have said it had I not meant it. It is truly one of your strengths, but you must realize, you are casting your pearls at swine here when you try to use it. It belongs in a better environmenment in order to flourish.



My concern has always been about people getting along. I want people to understand each other and work with one another to achieve a better society. I would certainly hope that there are others who have the same goals in mind. I have never deviated from this no matter how much I've been accused of "having an agenda".

I've always been interested in people. Society has always held a fascination for me.

That's good to know. And it is reassuring to us who are crusty and polluted, believe me. Many of us feel that we dropped the banner and there was nobody behind us to pick it up.

Don't ever let that happen to the generation that is coming up behind you, Ceci.




That is why the issues asserted by the OP is important because there are perceptions at stake. The question in the OP most undoubtedly calls into question how one group of people sees another. So, I think in light of what has been said, it is important for one to note that simply answering a question doesn't really tell the story. Instead, like in Eugene Kane's column (that I posted on the HUD thread), it can only initiate these talks that people are afraid of having within the aspects of RL.

Hope that answers your questions.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by ceci2006]

I will go back and read Kane's column.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by soloperative
As a American man of mixed heritage I am sick of being called a sell out. I had a successful military career, academic career and soon a successful political career. I submit that all these so called Africans are misled. My wife(white) went on a missionary trip to Africa. There were blacks on the trip and they were told they were not African they are American. They were shocked to hear this. These people simply want to blame whitey for everything instead of working hard and achieving the dream. Wake up people of color you are Americans. Embrace all people and aspire to a goal. Keep your eye on the prize. God Bless


No answers to this post?

No questions in regards to this post?

Is this too "Real"?


You have voted soloperative for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


soloperative,

I would like to know what role models you may have had that have enabled you to succeed. I would LOVE to hear your story...

Semper



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   
soloperative, I would like to thank you for posting here as well. And I wish you all the success in the world in your political career. Even though we may disagree politically.

I sometimes wonder if that doesn't get to at least part of the meat of this discussion. Politics. The successful black people mentioned in the original post are conservatives. We don't hear Barack Obama being called a 'sell-out'.

Here's a quote by someone with a similar stance on Equal Rights as Obama:



The Republican party must always be the party of inclusion. It is our diversity that has made this nation strong. Yet our diversity has sadly, throughout our history, been the source of discrimination. Discrimination that we must rip out branch and root. It is our party, the party of Lincoln, that must always stand for equal rights and fair opportunity for all. And where discrimination still exists or where the scars of past discrimination contaminate the present, we must not close our eyes to it, declare a level playing field, and hope it will go away by itself. It did not in the past. It will not in the future. Let the party of Lincoln be in the forefront, leading the crusade, not only to cut off and kill discrimination,-- but to open every avenue of educational and economic opportunity to those who are still denied access because of their race, ethnic background or gender.


I'm sure many people know who this quote is from. But the fact that the speaker of this quote is considered a 'sell-out' by many in the black community is very curious to me. How can this person be considered a 'sell-out' unless it's simply because of political party affiliation?


Originally posted by soloperative
There were blacks on the trip and they were told they were not African they are American.


I can relate to this. I dated a man from Africa for 1.5 years and he expressed the same sentiment. He was proud to be a true African/American, but he called black Americans, "black Americans". As it turns out, I had much more in common with the black Americans than he did.




Wake up people of color you are Americans. Embrace all people and aspire to a goal.


The second part of this statement is probably the most important part of your post to me. Because it's a message that applies to all of us. Inclusive.

Source



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Paging Derrida, Derrida to the front desk please.



I didn't know it was supposed to fall on me. However, you admitted it on your part. That should make you feel good.


Btw, the last time I looked this wasn't a confessional, either.


By all means though, continue chasing your tail.


Is that better than sticking one's tail between one's legs?


Confessional? I must feel good? Define what you mean by "good" ( j/k, please don't) . Tail between one's leg's? You must forgive me as I truly do not get your point, then again, that's just it, you have'nt really had a point in over five pages. If you care to explain though that would be most appreciated.

Anyways, when you imply that the problem mentioned in the OP doesn't actually exist, then yes, there is a time when it falls on you to actually state a position one way or another, and then be ready to back up that claim. Endlessly questioning things, without giving an opinion one way or another leads no where, as this thread is a perfect example of.

Why is it that you refuse to either acknowledge the problem's existence, or deny that it exists at all? Because then you would not have four pages of nonsense, and you would not have people mistaking your inane questioning for deep critical thinking skills.

You truly remind me of Damon Wayans Oswald Bates character from the old T.V. show "In Living Color". You think you actually sound intelligent, unfortunately, you just end up looking absurd...but I digest!

[edit on 2-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join