->>  EC> I gave three examples in response to your earlier question.
->>  EC>  You said (after your usual babbling) that all three
->>  EC>  examples would be racist, but you denied that you said any

->>  Uh... no... I said the last one was racist.

 EC> Yeah, I figured you would backtrack and try to weasel your
 EC> words.

 I figured you make up another line of BS. And I figured you'd
 delete the context, again. I'll put it back at the end of this,
 so anyone interested can reread it.

->>  EC>  of them.  And now you can deny ever saying THAT.  It was
->>  EC>  pretty funny when you fell back to that obvious lie in the
->>  EC>  Bosch thread, but now it has gotten old.  Just like your

->>  You dropped that BS back when I pointed out that you were
->>  creatively interpreting to defend a terrorist.

 EC> Three lies in one sentence.  I didn't defend him, I quoted

 You didn't? Then what was that whole thread about?

 EC> your own words, and I on several occasions pointed out your
 EC> words as well as your denial that they were your words.  I

 If you did, you lied.

 EC> stopped beating the dead horse of your credibility when the
 EC> point had been clearly made and when you had no defense.

 IOW, you were satisfied with your lies.

 EC> If you want to call that "dropping" it, that is about as
 EC> honest as your general twisting of words.

 You have turned yourself into such a corkscrew the whole world
 looks twisted to you.

->>  I will say this. If you call someone an oreo it will probably be
->>  racist

 EC> "Probably?"  Ha ha ha.  Leaving yourself future weasel-room?

 No, I specified *YOU*. That was deliberate.

->>  if you call someone a poverty pimp it will probably be racist.

 EC> You hear "pimp" and you think of a specific race, huh?
 EC> Sounds like the racism is in your mind.

 No, I was specifically referring to *YOU* again.

->>  The "cook" reference was used by someone I am quite convinced
->>  intended it in a racist connotation.

 EC> You attached it in your mind to a specific person!

 You are young, you may not recall the stereotype, but he was
 more my age, he knew it. And he used it.

->>  Oh, and you completely deleted the part where I pointed out that
->>  no one used the term "launder" or anything close to it.

 EC> Nonsense, of course, since Mimi could not have responded to
 EC> my response if I had not MADE a response.  You just make
 EC> yourself look sillier and sillier when you say such
 EC> nonsense.  You even QUOTED me to that effect!

 Oh, you used the term launderer, but it was not in the original
 exchange, and never had the stereotype attached to it. Helm did
 not use it, so your use of it was irrelevant.

 Unless you are attempting to start a racist attack.

 Hey, I just realized. The very fact that you could see the
 racist attachment to "launderer", when it was not used by Helm,
 is evidence you *DO* know that the terms he did use were
 intended to be racial, making it a racist attack.

 You just convicted yourself. My previous comment about you being
 young? Make that, you have no such excuse, you do know the
 stereotypes, otherwise you could not have used it.

 **************************************************************************

->> I do not believe I have ever referred to anyone as an oreo.

 EC> Would it be a racist remark to call a black person an "oreo
 EC> cookie?"

 I wouldn't say. I can imagine a black person would say it to
 another black person. In fact, I have known it to happen. It
 implies a sellout.

 However, I would not use the term.

 EC>> your interpretation that the term "poverty pimp" had
 EC>> to refer to a specific racial group,

->> Where has it ever been used to refer to anyone other than a black
->> liberal or a democrat who is working for racial justice?

 EC> An irrelevant question, but the part after the "or"
 EC> undercuts the notion that it is racially exclusive.

 Uh... what is your point? That makes your original statment a
 non-sequitor.

 For that matter, I never once even suggested the term "poverty
 pimp" had to apply only to blacks. However, when it is applied
 to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton it's not an unreasonable
 interpretation for that particular person's usage.

 And remember, that was not a statement on my part, but an
 interpretation of another's statement, which appeared to
 interpret it the way he meant it, as no one has ever corrected
 it.

 EC>> and your racial stereotypes for the occupations of cook and

->> Black people have long been stereotyped as cooks, in movies and TV.

 EC> And by you.  You asked.  All three answers stand.

 Nope. I never said those things. So they were racist statements,
 but on the part of someone else, never me. Show where I made a
 racist statment. Not where you did, or someone else did, and I
 interpreted it correctly.

 Oh, and you completely deleted the part where I pointed out that
 no one used the term "launder" or anything close to it.

 Of course, deleting material when you are caught red handed is
 your usual modus operandi. You seem to think you can pretend it
 didn't happen.

 Instead you are caught. You lie again.


FORUM:   Fido-Crossfire --                    HOST: FIDOTEL
DATE:    Apr-7-08 7:15am                      MSG:  8875
FROM:    Earl Croasmun
TO:      Bob Klahn
SUBJECT: REMARKS


-> I wouldn't say. I can imagine a black person would say it to another
-> black person.

Not an answer.

-> Nope. I never said those things. So they were racist statements, but
-> on the part of someone else, never me.

Ah, finally an answer after 40 lines of your evasions.

-> Oh, and you completely deleted the part where I pointed out that no
-> one used the term "launder" or anything close to it.

"Laundry" is pretty close to "launder."

 **************************************************************************


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a