Thalamus wrote:
>> "Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> skrev i melding
> news:ah73mn$dr3$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...> > In article "Thalamus" <zhil at online.no> writes:
> > Well, first off, Jet, allow me to apologize for this excresence
> > on the fundament of my own race. He's the idiot cousin we keep
> > locked in the attic.
>> I don't know what you have locked in your attic.
> And what have your attic anything to do with the crime-stats that I
> presented, I don't know.
> Besides the factoids thta I presented can't be refuted - I'm using the FBI,
> the Justice Department etc. etc. and all you can come up with are Ad Hominem
> insults.
> Shows us what a weak-minded idiot you are, CK.
You mean Ad Hominem insults like: "nigger", "inferior race" and "weak
minded idiot"?
> If you want to try me, grab some factoids; which can't be refuted; and show
> me that I'm wrong, if you can (hypocrite).
>> > Formalities aside, I have to wonder just exactly what:
> >
> > < Here's the crime-stats and other data about your inferior race.
> >
> > all that has to do with her criticism of John's "findings"
> > in regard to the male-female debate that the rest of us
> > (pay attention now, eh?) are actually engaged in.
>> when you cut-and-paste, it can easily be confusing for such a small mind as
> yours, CK ?
> She said, and I quote (something you should learn):
> "Ah, so you are a racist and a woman hater. Must really piss you off that
> this BLACK WOMAN can do basic algebra and you can't."
>> And I threw facts about her race back into her ugly monkey-face.
Monkeys have straight hair, light skin and thin lips. So, who's got the
monkey face? :)
I am better than basic algebra than John, what does that have to do with
crime stats?
>> > I don't suppose it could be that you're ill-equipped to debate
> > her face to face, so you resort to screaming magic hate-words
> > in the hope that no one will notice you're changing the subject?
>> Pure B.S, CK, and I think people here will agree, that once you bring up
> racism, then you have to expect factoids to be played onto the arena of
> debate.
> If people are small minded, they might object to my use of real data, as it
> would damage their self-esteem.
> Keep playing a looser, looser - that way I'll steamroll right over you,
> blitzkrieg-style.
>> > Man, I bet you were the king of badinage on the junior high playground.
>> 'Bandinage' - please excuse my ignorance (I'm Norwegain), could anybody
> explain what this has to do with the current debate ?
> I can't imagine what anybodies time at school would have to do with this
> debate, but I'll give it a try.
> "He did it. No, <screaming> she did it !" - this must be the exchange that
> CK is most familiar with, and so expect me to play by the same rules.
> Sorry CK, I play civilized, unlike the inferior subhumans.
> If I played UNcivilized, they wouldn't know what hit them.
> Ohhhh, I guess I was a bit uncivil that I expected them to actually
> UNDERSTAND what I was refering to........................
>> > < Maybe John is a misogyn,
> >
> > Maybe Don Corleone was a bit shady,
>> And he might NOT be a misogyn.
> He's stating things from his point of view, but I think it is a stretch to
> say that the only thing a woman is good for is in the kitchen and the
> bedroom (this example is not my point of view - women should be shovered in
> wealth, and I like them very much).
>> > <but I doubt he's a racist.
> >
> > Well, you're right there. John isn't a "racist", he's a pan-racist.
> > The polymath of racists. A universal racist. An equal opportunity
> > racist.
>> And your objection to this is exactly what ?
>
Racists are assholes.
J
