Hilarious 'own goal' for Friends of the Earth

[Eeyore]

I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
their site ..........

"If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
prefer?

Investment in public transport
Cuts in fuel tax

Vote"
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html

Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
public transport " to be the more popular response.

To see the result you have to click on Vote.

I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 17, 9:09 pm, Eeyore >
wrote:
> I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> their site ..........

Are there no groups in the UK who oppose these two groups, or are you
in a minority of one?

> "If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
> prefer?
>
> Investment in public transport
> Cuts in fuel tax
>
> Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html
>
> Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
> public transport " to be the more popular response.

Wow. If that was the case, I'd have written the poll like this:

If the government could do just one thing, which would you prefer?

1. Remove your scrotum or nipples with acid and a wire brush
2. Invest in public transportation

Or

If the government could do just one thing, which would you prefer?

1. Raise your taxes by 30% to cover damage to the environment
2. Invest in public transportation

Being very conservative, I'm sure you do not know which one to choose
now.

Of course, it is always possible that they expected the result that
they got, which they then used as an opportunity to explain why they
feel that is the wrong choice.

> To see the result you have to click on Vote.
>
> I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
> public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

Or, as perhaps another possibility, which you can also assume, people
will usually vote for whatever selfishly benefits them immediately the
most.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> their site ..........
>
> "If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
> prefer?
>
> Investment in public transport
> Cuts in fuel tax
>
> Vote"
> http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html
>
> Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
> public transport " to be the more popular response.
>
> To see the result you have to click on Vote.
>
> I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
> public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..

**Why do you find it hilarious that so many ignorant people responded?
Why do you find it hilarious that FoE was honest about the results?

Trevor Wilson

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote
>
> > I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> > their site ..........
>
> Are there no groups in the UK who oppose these two groups

You were asking for evidence of the 'green' position I had talked about.

'Other groups' are not the point. 'Other groups' don't make claims for AGW
either.

Your obfuscation is getting tiring. I can only assume you're not actually
interested in the subject and just want to argue sematics.

Clearly

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
>
> >I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> > their site ..........
> >
> > "If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
> > prefer?
> >
> > Investment in public transport
> > Cuts in fuel tax
> >
> > Vote"
> > http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html
> >
> > Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
> > public transport " to be the more popular response.
> >
> > To see the result you have to click on Vote.
> >
> > I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
> > public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..
>
> **Why do you find it hilarious that so many ignorant people responded?
> Why do you find it hilarious that FoE was honest about the results?

Why do you think the majority of visitors to the FoE site are ignorant people
? It sounds pretty unlikely to me. Most won't even know who they are.


Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 17, 10:37 pm, Eeyore >
wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
>
> > Eeyore wrote
>
> > > I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> > > their site ..........
>
> > Are there no groups in the UK who oppose these two groups
>
> You were asking for evidence of the 'green' position I had talked about.

Yes, I did, You made it sound like they were totalitarians, with
secret cabinets, brown-shirted secret police and so on. Other groups
might imply there is a groundswell of opposition. Are the "greens" the
only game in town? Or are you the lone donkey, braying opposition in
the wilderness?

> 'Other groups' are not the point. 'Other groups' don't make claims for AGW
> either.

You were talking about what political parties are doing. Christ, but
you're an emotional one. Calm down, have some tea. Maybe you should
have a crumpet too. I prefer strumpets.

> Your obfuscation is getting tiring. I can only assume you're not actually
> interested in the subject and just want to argue sematics.

What I'm wondering is why you're so worked up about it. There are
fringe groups here too, concerning all sorts of things from far right
to far left. So you have a continuum there from "Actively fight AGW
using any means" to "do nothing, AGW is not an issue" to "stop air
travel and all technology and go to an agrarian civilization like
there was in the sixteenth century". I do not know the UK as far as
where these groups fall in the continuum.

I fail to see what the big deal is. Your population will decide for
itself what it's willing to do. If your labour or conservative parties
do politically unpopular things, they will lose their power. If you're
in the minority, then too bad. In our case here, we Dems were in the
majority in 2000 and *still* had to put up with bushie and his cabal.
Most people I talk to here either want to do more concerning AGW or
they are not paying attention and don't care one way or the other. If
your population feels like you do, then there's nothing to worry
about.

> Clearly

You jump to a lot of conclusions.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>>
>> >I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
>> > their site ..........
>> >
>> > "If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
>> > prefer?
>> >
>> > Investment in public transport
>> > Cuts in fuel tax
>> >
>> > Vote"
>> > http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html
>> >
>> > Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
>> > public transport " to be the more popular response.
>> >
>> > To see the result you have to click on Vote.
>> >
>> > I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
>> > public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..
>>
>> **Why do you find it hilarious that so many ignorant people responded?
>> Why do you find it hilarious that FoE was honest about the results?
>
> Why do you think the majority of visitors to the FoE site are ignorant
> people
> ?

**Non-sequitur. READ what I wrote.

It sounds pretty unlikely to me. Most won't even know who they are.
>

Trevor Wilson

[Fella]

You would know about "own goal"s.

[Clyde Slick]

On 18 Dec, 05:09, Eeyore >
wrote:
> I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> their site ..........
>
> "If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
> prefer?
>
> Investment in public transport
> Cuts in fuel tax
>
> Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html
>
> Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
> public transport " to be the more popular response.
>
> To see the result you have to click on Vote.
>
> I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
> public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..
>

public transportation 'only goes so far.'

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> > their site ..........
> >
> > "If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
> > prefer?
> >
> > Investment in public transport
> > Cuts in fuel tax
> >
> > Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html
> >
> > Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
> > public transport " to be the more popular response.
> >
> > To see the result you have to click on Vote.
> >
> > I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
> > public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..
>
>
> public transportation 'only goes so far.'

Tell me about it !

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 12:45 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 17, 8:37 pm, Eeyore >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
>
> > > Eeyore wrote
>
> > > > I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> > > > their site ..........
>
> > > Are there no groups in the UK who oppose these two groups
>
> > You were asking for evidence of the 'green' position I had talked about.
>
> > 'Other groups' are not the point. 'Other groups' don't make claims for AGW
> > either.
>
> > Your obfuscation is getting tiring. I can only assume you're not actually
> > interested in the subject and just want to argue sematics.
>
> Bingo.

Look, 2pid! you found another friend!

Um, guys, I really hate to be a bother and all, but you see, to many
people words do have meanings. The funny thing is on a forum like RAO
that's all you get to see. No voice inflections, no body language, no
eye contact. All you get are the words that the poster chooseo to use
to make their point.

So, for example, when the donkey says "all greens", I tend to believe
that he really means "all greens". Not "some", not "a portion
thereof", not "the greens that I don't like" and so on. And here we
see that when the donkey's words are questioned, it's "obfuscation".
And (of course) 2pid, being 2pid, agrees.

See how this works guys? Here's another example: when I got here and
when I first saw 2pid's posts, I realized that he'd been shorted in
the brains department. So I called him "stupid". Later, after having a
chance to see him in action some more, I realized that "stupid" was
not the appropriate word for him and I began using "moron". Even later
I realized that "moron" was again insufficient and began using
"imbecile".

Now if I had just jumped in with "imbecile" 2pid could have argued, "I
am not an imbecile, I am only a moron". But by carefully choosing my
words, he has not been able to argue about his imbecility.

2pid's communications dysfunctions are too numerous to even broach.
Thankfully there is no need to as they are quite obvious to everybody
on RAO.

So we have two of the weakest communicators here whining that they are
often misunderstood. Clarification equals "obfuscation". Now how does
that work?

Yes, 2pid, "Bingo".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 11:02 am, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
>
> > > I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> > > their site ..........
>
> > > "If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
> > > prefer?
>
> > > Investment in public transport
> > > Cuts in fuel tax
>
> > > Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html
>
> > > Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
> > > public transport " to be the more popular response.
>
> > > To see the result you have to click on Vote.
>
> > > I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
> > > public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..
>
> > public transportation 'only goes so far.'
>
> Tell me about it !

Like it or not, there will be more.

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > > > I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> > > > their site ..........
> >
> > > > "If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
> > > > prefer?
> >
> > > > Investment in public transport
> > > > Cuts in fuel tax
> >
> > > > Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html
> >
> > > > Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
> > > > public transport " to be the more popular response.
> >
> > > > To see the result you have to click on Vote.
> >
> > > > I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
> > > > public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..
> >
> > > public transportation 'only goes so far.'
> >
> > Tell me about it !
>
> Like it or not, there will be more.

I positively applaud top-class public transport, well executed and available at a
competitive price.

In another post I just mentioned how difficult it would be to get round London
without the Tube for example.

However public transport is not a universal panacea. It works best in busy cities
and on busy inter-city and commuter routes where the number of pasemngers who all
want to get from the same A, B, C or D etc to the same B, C, D or E is high.

Round here, peak hour public transport is also merely a way of experiencing what a
sardine in a can feels like.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brayed:

> Round here, peak hour public transport is also merely a way of experiencing what a
> sardine in a can feels like.

I'm sure you can name some other where the opposite is true. Take Calcutta
for example, or Moscow, or New York... All of them afford commuters a
leisurely and comfortable trip. You English certainly have the worst time
of it.

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brayed:

> Round here, peak hour public transport is also merely a way of experiencing what a
> sardine in a can feels like.

I'm sure you can name some other places where the opposite is true. Take
Calcutta for example, or Moscow, or New York... All of them afford
commuters a leisurely and comfortable trip. You English certainly have the
worst time of it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 5:07 pm, Eeyore >
wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > Clyde Slick wrote:
> > > > Eeyore wrote:
>
> > > > > I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> > > > > their site ..........
>
> > > > > "If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
> > > > > prefer?
>
> > > > > Investment in public transport
> > > > > Cuts in fuel tax
>
> > > > > Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html
>
> > > > > Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
> > > > > public transport " to be the more popular response.
>
> > > > > To see the result you have to click on Vote.
>
> > > > > I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
> > > > > public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..
>
> > > > public transportation 'only goes so far.'
>
> > > Tell me about it !
>
> > Like it or not, there will be more.
>
> I positively applaud top-class public transport, well executed and available at a
> competitive price.

But let me guess: you would have voted "reduce fuel taxes" instead of
"Invest in public transport".

Am I right?

> In another post I just mentioned how difficult it would be to get round London
> without the Tube for example.

I never needed a car in Rome. either.

> However public transport is not a universal panacea. It works best in busy cities
> and on busy inter-city and commuter routes where the number of pasemngers who all
> want to get from the same A, B, C or D etc to the same B, C, D or E is high.

I don't believe it is a universal panacea either. I also do not claim
to know the infrastructure in the UK. I will say it is vastly
underdeveloped here in the US in most cities. It's far more efficient
as far as fuel and pollution. Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's recent
comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example of
this.

> Round here, peak hour public transport is also merely a way of experiencing what a
> sardine in a can feels like.

I used to live in Boston. I drove to work exactly once. my first day
there. After that it was worth the $35/month for a pass (at that time,
it may be $150 now, and it would still be worth it), sardine or not.

I admit it: I think we should turn back the clock here in many
instances by investing in more public transport, more city-to-city
rail links on busy routes, and more shipping via rail instead of
"lorrie". Not as a *substitute* in all cases though. For example, if I
go to Chicago from here it's about a six-hour drive. It's very nearly
a wash even though the flight time is less than an hour once you
factor in parking, arriving early to meet TSA rquirements, checking
bags, picking up bags, arranging for transportation there, etc. And
it's cheaper. I'd love a good rail link.

We have "sane" lanes on our freeways here. You cannot use them if you
are driving alone during rush hour. Carpools and motorcycles can use
them, or individuals can buy a transmitter and charge it to an account
if they use these lanes. A one-way trip can cost $8 during peak times,
plus they have to buy the transmitter. Like a tax, it's just a way to
try to get people to alter the choices they make, or to alter their
behavior. Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > Clyde Slick wrote:
> > > > > Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> > > > > > their site ..........
> >
> > > > > > "If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
> > > > > > prefer?
> >
> > > > > > Investment in public transport
> > > > > > Cuts in fuel tax
> >
> > > > > > Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html
> >
> > > > > > Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
> > > > > > public transport " to be the more popular response.
> >
> > > > > > To see the result you have to click on Vote.
> >
> > > > > > I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
> > > > > > public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..
> >
> > > > > public transportation 'only goes so far.'
> >
> > > > Tell me about it !
> >
> > > Like it or not, there will be more.
> >
> > I positively applaud top-class public transport, well executed and available at a
> > competitive price.
>
> But let me guess: you would have voted "reduce fuel taxes" instead of
> "Invest in public transport".
>
> Am I right?

Without more detail I don't think either is right.

1. I don't see any compellling need to reduce fuel taxes. There is an argument that high
fuel taxes are putting UK truck operators at a disadvantage with continental operators
and that probably deserves attention.

2. Government DOES invest in public transport already. I'm in favour of continuing that
at some modest level. I'm not in favour of massive hand-outs for public transport
however. There's a very compelling argument that they should be made financially
competitive first rather than encourage inefficient operation.

Currently we have this nonsense ....

"THE Government struck a secret deal with Britain’s biggest train company to double
fares on some routes as the cheapest way of reducing overcrowding.

Cheap day returns are no longer valid between 4.30pm and 7pm, forcing people to buy much
more expensive standard returns.

Fares between St Albans and London have increased from £7.90 to £14.50 for people who
want to travel home during that 2½-hour period."

That's £14.50 ( $30) for a 40 mile round trip btw.


Graham

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > However public transport is not a universal panacea. It works best in busy cities
> > and on busy inter-city and commuter routes where the number of pasemngers who all
> > want to get from the same A, B, C or D etc to the same B, C, D or E is high.
>
> I don't believe it is a universal panacea either.

We can agree on that then.


> I also do not claim
> to know the infrastructure in the UK. I will say it is vastly
> underdeveloped here in the US in most cities. It's far more efficient
> as far as fuel and pollution.

Only when utilisation is high it has to be said. When I see full-size buses passing with
only one or two or NO passengers, all it's doing is providing a very expensive service
for those without cars mainly.


> Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
> are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's recent
> comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example of
> this.

It depends what it's spent on.

After what seems like decades of dithering, the London 'Crossrail' link is finally being
built.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/

Now that deserves investment as it'll produce important infrastructure benefits.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > Round here, peak hour public transport is also merely a way of experiencing what a
> > sardine in a can feels like.
>
> I used to live in Boston. I drove to work exactly once. my first day
> there. After that it was worth the $35/month for a pass (at that time,
> it may be $150 now, and it would still be worth it), sardine or not.

A monthly season ticket from St Albans to London (a 20 mile journey) would appear to
cost around £230 ( $460).


> I admit it: I think we should .... more shipping via rail instead of
> "lorrie". Not as a *substitute* in all cases though.

Rail is great for long distance but slow goods trains on UK lines would destroy the high
speed passengers services. Something that the greens like to overlook.

The other big problem with rail is that if there isn't a railhead near you, sending
goods part of the way by train may be counter-productive with all the on and offloading
between road and rail. It'll certainly be slower.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie hnawked:

> Rail is great for long distance but slow goods trains on UK lines would destroy the high
> speed passengers services. Something that the greens like to overlook.

Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
lines? All the best countries have them.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie hnawked:
>
> > Rail is great for long distance but slow goods trains on UK lines would destroy the high
> > speed passengers services. Something that the greens like to overlook.
>
> Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
> lines? All the best countries have them.

Certain US lines are freight only simply because you don't run passenger trains on them. I
know for a fact that some US rail lines experience freight/passenger service conflicts too.

Worldwide, freight and passenger traffic share the same tracks.

Now tell me more about that sky you're afraid of falling on your head will you ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brayed:

> > Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
> > lines? All the best countries have them.

> Certain US lines are freight only simply because you don't run passenger trains on them.

Not so, dreary donkey. The freight lines have wider, heavier, and shorter
rails.

> know for a fact that some US rail lines experience freight/passenger service conflicts too.

Only in a few congested areas between Baltimore and Boston.

> Worldwide, freight and passenger traffic share the same tracks.

You're not credible. You took your netnym from a fictional donkey, for
chrissakes.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> You're not credible.

And you are ?

Bwahahahaahhahaaa !

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie brayed:
>
> > > Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
> > > lines? All the best countries have them.
>
> > Certain US lines are freight only simply because you don't run passenger trains on them.
>
> Not so, dreary donkey. The freight lines have wider, heavier, and shorter
> rails.

The US track gauge is identical to ours. Not wider at all. I see nothing about it being different
for freight here. It would be highly illogical anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge#United_States

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie joins the IKYABWAI Club.

> > You're not credible.

> And you are ?

Scottie, Poopie, and Kroo
Crying together in the loo
"Mommy, mommy, Georgie made me cry!"
Said Mommy with her sweetest smile
"I know you are but what am I?"

[George M. Middius]

New depths of unimaginable idiocy.

> > words do have meanings.

> More obfuscation.

Feeling sorry for yourself, Scooter? Or is that "you'reself"? ;-)

[George M. Middius]

And still aNOTHer IKYABWAI from Scottie Witlessmongrel.

> > New depths of unimaginable idiocy.

> >> > words do have meanings.

> >> More obfuscation.

> > Feeling sorry for yourself, Scooter?

> Nah, I feel sorry for you

Of course you're too much of a coward to answer my point, so you take
refuge in a babyish IKYABWAI. By now you might have notched up as many of
them as the Krooborg has, although god knows nobody wants to do an exact
count.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
> > are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's recent
> > comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example of
> > this.
>
> Poor ss****head. Did I say all public transport around the world?
> Word do have meaning for some people.
>
> California has wasted billions on public transport that doesn't work.

And it has spent a lot of money on public transportation that works.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 10:06 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
> > Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
> > are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's recent
> > comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example of
> > this.
>
> Poor ss****head. Did I say all public transport around the world?
> Word do have meaning for some people.

More obfuscation. Poor 2pid! He has nothing!

(George, I actually am sorry for the IKYABWAI but I couldn't resist.)

Now, 2pid, let's talk about those "words that have meanings". You
know, like "morality".

lol Lol LoL LOL!

> California has wasted billions on public transport that doesn't work.

When I was in San Francisco, BART seemed to work well and was not
empty.

> But as one "all" those greens....you think busses running around almost empty
> cuz they won't get you where you need to go is a good thing.

I would imagine, based on this, that you are an advocate of public
transportation and you that are actively working to make it more
efficient near you instead of just whining. Good for you! We have no
basis for disagreement then.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 9:58 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 11:02 am, Eeyore >
> > wrote:
> >> Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> > Eeyore wrote:
>
> >> > > I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll on
> >> > > their site ..........
>
> >> > > "If the Government could do just one of the following. Which would you
> >> > > prefer?
>
> >> > > Investment in public transport
> >> > > Cuts in fuel tax
>
> >> > > Vote"http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/transport/issues/aviation/index.html
>
> >> > > Being a 'green' site they were presumably expecting "Investment in
> >> > > public transport " to be the more popular response.
>
> >> > > To see the result you have to click on Vote.
>
> >> > > I can only assume the Britsih public is wising up the the nonsense of
> >> > > public transport as a panacea for all our transport woes..
>
> >> > public transportation 'only goes so far.'
>
> >> Tell me about it !
>
> > Like it or not, there will be more.
>
> Only because there will be more people.

Is that the only reason?

Good! Then that's settled!

> Anybody willing to get to the bottom line of this issue?

That public transportation is necessary, that's it's more efficient,
and that it pollutes less? Sure.

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

.. Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-

Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Dec, 03:57, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Poopie hnawked:
>
> > Rail is great for long distance but slow goods trains on UK lines would destroy the high
> > speed passengers services. Something that the greens like to overlook.
>
> Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
> lines? All the best countries have them.

that leaves us out

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Dec, 04:09, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Poopie brayed:
>
> > > Are you sure your beloved country doesn't have separate freight rail
> > > lines? All the best countries have them.
> > Certain US lines are freight only simply because you don't run passenger trains on them.
>
> Not so, dreary donkey. The freight lines have wider, heavier, and shorter
> rails.
>

not in the usa. guage is the same

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie joins the IKYABWAI Club.
>
> > > You're not credible.
>
> > And you are ?
>
> Scottie, Poopie, and Kroo
> Crying together in the loo
> "Mommy, mommy, Georgie made me cry!"

You rate your effect way too highly LOL !

You're amusing to play with for a while but the value invariably wears
off after a while.

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
>
> . Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-
>
> Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.

Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Dec, 20:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > . Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-
>
> > Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.
>
> Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.

i would send NOW after you, if they had the integrity to do anything.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 19, 2:09 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 19 Dec, 20:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > . Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-
>
> > > Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.
>
> > Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.
>
> i would send NOW after you, if they had the integrity to do anything.

Why should they? If what I said was actually true then it would be a
police matter.

Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.
Whatever are we to do?

I'd recommend staying with those 'moral' republicans. After all, we've
had seven years of 'morality' in the White House, and look at how far
we've come! We can conclude that choosing candidates based on
'integrity' is a sure-fire solution!

You are, of course, correct. To the best of my knowledge, NOW has not
waterboarded anybody. Clearly they do not have the integrity to do
anything. Thank you for pointing that out.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
> liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.

Stop obfuscating, please. Your use of "group" is both random and pointed.
Also, when you put "hypocritical" and "integrity" in the same sentence,
your clearley diskrimmanating against some of us who's education may not
be as severely educated as you're's is.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 19, 3:11 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
> > liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.
>
> Stop obfuscating, please. Your use of "group" is both random and pointed.
> Also, when you put "hypocritical" and "integrity" in the same sentence,
> your clearley diskrimmanating against some of us who's education may not
> be as severely educated as you're's is.

Please do not blame me. It is not my fault. I attended an institution
of higher education and therefore have been indoctrinated into the
hypocritical liberals. When I accepted my diploma, BTW, I also signed
away my integrity.

It is these liberal institutions ("Liberal Arts"? WTF?) that are to
blame. Oh, and Mary Mapes. We can't forget that bitch.

As an aside, this just occurred to me: why do you suppose that using
the word "bitch" is not acceptable to Clyde when it is used in black
culture, yet Clyde has remained curiously and absolutely silent on the
several occasions that his good buddy 2pid has used it? Oh well. I'm
quite sure that there's a non-hypocritical reason that my lack of
integrity obscures.

One reason I can think of is that 2pid is black and Clyde's blanket
condemnation of that culture using the word "bitch" covers 2pid as
well.

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Dec, 23:02, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2:09 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19 Dec, 20:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > . Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-
>
> > > > Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.
>
> > > Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.
>
> > i would send NOW after you, if they had the integrity to do anything.
>
> Why should they? If what I said was actually true then it would be a
> police matter.
>
> Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
> liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.
> Whatever are we to do?

stop making things up.
>
> I'd recommend staying with those 'moral' republicans. After all, we've
> had seven years of 'morality' in the White House, and look at how far
> we've come! We can conclude that choosing candidates based on
> 'integrity' is a sure-fire solution!
>

you can vote for one with no integrity, if you choose.

> You are, of course, correct. To the best of my knowledge, NOW has not
> waterboarded anybody. Clearly they do not have the integrity to do
> anything. Thank you for pointing that out.- Ascunde citatul -

they don't have the integrity to stand up
for women's rights, if it means ****ing
off other factions of the liberal alliance.

[Clyde Slick]

On 19 Dec, 23:42, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 3:11 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
>
> net> wrote:
> > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
> > > liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.
>
> > Stop obfuscating, please. Your use of "group" is both random and pointed.
> > Also, when you put "hypocritical" and "integrity" in the same sentence,
> > your clearley diskrimmanating against some of us who's education may not
> > be as severely educated as you're's is.
>
> Please do not blame me. It is not my fault. I attended an institution
> of higher education and therefore have been indoctrinated into the
> hypocritical liberals. When I accepted my diploma, BTW, I also signed
> away my integrity.
>
> It is these liberal institutions ("Liberal Arts"? WTF?) that are to
> blame. Oh, and Mary Mapes. We can't forget that bitch.
>
> As an aside, this just occurred to me: why do you suppose that using
> the word "bitch" is not acceptable to Clyde when it is used in black
> culture, yet Clyde has remained curiously and absolutely silent on the
> several occasions that his good buddy 2pid has used it? Oh well. I'm
> quite sure that there's a non-hypocritical reason that my lack of
> integrity obscures.
>
> One reason I can think of is that 2pid is black and Clyde's blanket
> condemnation of that culture using the word "bitch" covers 2pid as
> well.

he`showed me his NOW privilege certificate.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 19, 3:56 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 19 Dec, 23:42, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 3:11 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
>
> > net> wrote:
> > > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
> > > > liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.
>
> > > Stop obfuscating, please. Your use of "group" is both random and pointed.
> > > Also, when you put "hypocritical" and "integrity" in the same sentence,
> > > your clearley diskrimmanating against some of us who's education may not
> > > be as severely educated as you're's is.
>
> > Please do not blame me. It is not my fault. I attended an institution
> > of higher education and therefore have been indoctrinated into the
> > hypocritical liberals. When I accepted my diploma, BTW, I also signed
> > away my integrity.
>
> > It is these liberal institutions ("Liberal Arts"? WTF?) that are to
> > blame. Oh, and Mary Mapes. We can't forget that bitch.
>
> > As an aside, this just occurred to me: why do you suppose that using
> > the word "bitch" is not acceptable to Clyde when it is used in black
> > culture, yet Clyde has remained curiously and absolutely silent on the
> > several occasions that his good buddy 2pid has used it? Oh well. I'm
> > quite sure that there's a non-hypocritical reason that my lack of
> > integrity obscures.
>
> > One reason I can think of is that 2pid is black and Clyde's blanket
> > condemnation of that culture using the word "bitch" covers 2pid as
> > well.
>
> he`showed me his NOW privilege certificate.

How do you know those hip-hoppers don't have one too?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 19, 3:53 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 19 Dec, 23:02, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 2:09 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 19 Dec, 20:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > . Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-
>
> > > > > Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.
>
> > > > Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.
>
> > > i would send NOW after you, if they had the integrity to do anything.
>
> > Why should they? If what I said was actually true then it would be a
> > police matter.
>
> > Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
> > liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.
> > Whatever are we to do?
>
> stop making things up.
>
>
>
> > I'd recommend staying with those 'moral' republicans. After all, we've
> > had seven years of 'morality' in the White House, and look at how far
> > we've come! We can conclude that choosing candidates based on
> > 'integrity' is a sure-fire solution!
>
> you can vote for one with no integrity, if you choose.

Of the current field in either party, who of them does not have
integrity?

> > You are, of course, correct. To the best of my knowledge, NOW has not
> > waterboarded anybody. Clearly they do not have the integrity to do
> > anything. Thank you for pointing that out.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> they don't have the integrity to stand up
> for women's rights, if it means ****ing
> off other factions of the liberal alliance.

What examples of this do you have?

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Dec, 00:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 3:53 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19 Dec, 23:02, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 19, 2:09 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 19 Dec, 20:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > . Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-
>
> > > > > > Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.
>
> > > > > Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.
>
> > > > i would send NOW after you, if they had the integrity to do anything.
>
> > > Why should they? If what I said was actually true then it would be a
> > > police matter.
>
> > > Damn. Not one liberal group has integrity. Not a single one. Every
> > > liberal, and every liberal group, is hypocritical. Every single one.
> > > Whatever are we to do?
>
> > stop making things up.
>
> > > I'd recommend staying with those 'moral' republicans. After all, we've
> > > had seven years of 'morality' in the White House, and look at how far
> > > we've come! We can conclude that choosing candidates based on
> > > 'integrity' is a sure-fire solution!
>
> > you can vote for one with no integrity, if you choose.
>
> Of the current field in either party, who of them does not have
> integrity?
>


Hillary!!!
now ron paul, won't return 500 from a racist.

> > > You are, of course, correct. To the best of my knowledge, NOW has not
> > > waterboarded anybody. Clearly they do not have the integrity to do
> > > anything. Thank you for pointing that out.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> > they don't have the integrity to stand up
> > for women's rights, if it means ****ing
> > off other factions of the liberal alliance.
>
> What examples of this do you have?-

most of my previous weeks conversations with you covered that

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
> >> > are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's recent
> >> > comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example of
> >> > this.
> >>
> >> Poor ss****head. Did I say all public transport around the world?
> >> Word do have meaning for some people.
> >>
> >> California has wasted billions on public transport that doesn't work.
> >
> > And it has spent a lot of money on public transportation that works.
>
> What public transport do you use on a regular basis?
>
> ScottW

Impossible on a regular basis, as I live in the "boonies" where it
doesn't come. When in LA, SF, or NYC I use it regularly.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 19, 10:25 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
> > On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> . Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-
>
> >> Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.
>
> > Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.
>
> My money's on her.

So how badly would you beat Pelosi or Feinstein, 2pid? Like a bitch
deserves?

You'd lose your money, 2pid: she's smarter than you are. Everybody is.

lol Lol LoL LOL!

[Jenn]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 19, 11:16 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > .
> > >com
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > > >> message
> > > ..
> > > >>.
> > > >> > Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
> > > >> > are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's
> > > >> > recent
> > > >> > comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example of
> > > >> > this.
> >
> > > >> Poor ss****head. Did I say all public transport around the world?
> > > >> Word do have meaning for some people.
> >
> > > >> California has wasted billions on public transport that doesn't work.
> >
> > > > And it has spent a lot of money on public transportation that works.
> >
> > > What public transport do you use on a regular basis?
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Impossible on a regular basis, as I live in the "boonies" where it
> > doesn't come.
>
> I don't live in the boonies and it doesn't come to me or go where I
> need to go either.
>
> ScottW

Your point?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 20, 2:23 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 20, 12:18 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 19, 11:16 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
>
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > .
> > > > >com
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > > > > >> message
> > > > > ..
> > > > > >>.
> > > > > >> > Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
> > > > > >> > are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's
> > > > > >> > recent
> > > > > >> > comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example of
> > > > > >> > this.
>
> > > > > >> Poor ss****head. Did I say all public transport around the world?
> > > > > >> Word do have meaning for some people.
>
> > > > > >> California has wasted billions on public transport that doesn't work.
>
> > > > > > And it has spent a lot of money on public transportation that works.
>
> > > > > What public transport do you use on a regular basis?
>
> > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > Impossible on a regular basis, as I live in the "boonies" where it
> > > > doesn't come.
>
> > > I don't live in the boonies and it doesn't come to me or go where I
> > > need to go either.
>
> > > ScottW
>
> > Your point?
>
> We have a sample of 2 and for neither of us does Ca. public transit
> serve
> our needs.
>
> So I guess you need to move your green behind out of the boonies to
> save the planet from your excessive carbon footprint.

I see that public transportation is a panacea to you.

That's nice to know.

[Jenn]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Dec 20, 12:18 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Dec 19, 11:16 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > >igy.
> > > > >com
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > > > > >> message
> > > > >
> > > > > >>om..
> > > > > >>.
> > > > > >> > Attutudes of "some" conservatives here
> > > > > >> > are responsible for our lagging in this area. Check out 2pid's
> > > > > >> > recent
> > > > > >> > comments about "wasting" money on public transport as an example
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > this.
> >
> > > > > >> Poor ss****head. Did I say all public transport around the world?
> > > > > >> Word do have meaning for some people.
> >
> > > > > >> California has wasted billions on public transport that doesn't
> > > > > >> work.
> >
> > > > > > And it has spent a lot of money on public transportation that
> > > > > > works.
> >
> > > > > What public transport do you use on a regular basis?
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > Impossible on a regular basis, as I live in the "boonies" where it
> > > > doesn't come.
> >
> > > I don't live in the boonies and it doesn't come to me or go where I
> > > need to go either.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Your point?
>
> We have a sample of 2 and for neither of us does Ca. public transit
> serve
> our needs.
>
> So I guess you need to move your green behind out of the boonies to
> save the planet from your excessive carbon footprint.
>
> ScottW

As usual, we're far off topic. My sentence was, "And it has spent a lot
of money on public transportation that works." Are you attempting to
say that this isn't true?

[George M. Middius]

Yapper's tank is totally empty.

> > And still aNOTHer IKYABWAI from Scottie Witlessmongrel.

> > > > New depths of unimaginable idiocy.
> > > >> > words do have meanings.
> > > >> More obfuscation.
> > > > Feeling sorry for yourself, Scooter?
> > > Nah, I feel sorry for you

> > Of course you're too much of a coward to answer my point, so you take
> > refuge in a babyish IKYABWAI. By now you might have notched up as many of
> > them as the Krooborg has, although god knows nobody wants to do an exact
> > count.

> You're the most pointless person imaginable.

Oh dear. The stupidest poster in RAO history says he can't figure out my
"point". Should I be worried? ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 20, 2:17 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Dec 20, 3:04 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 10:25 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote
>
> > > > On Dec 19, 3:04 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > >> On 19 Dec, 02:11, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > >> > wrote:
>
> > > >> . Freedom is great. Responsible freedom is even better.-
>
> > > >> Yaw ho' bitch made you say that.
>
> > > > Don't worry, Clyde. I beat some sense into her.
>
> > > My money's on her.
>
> > So how badly would you beat Pelosi or Feinstein, 2pid? Like a bitch
> > deserves?
>
> I don't resort to violence or other immature antics.

No, you call women you don't like "bitches", which we all know is the
adult thing to do. You can ask Clyde about that. I know he doesn't
appreciate it either.

And, BTW, beating is not generally considered an "antic".

AP Los Angeles: Rodney King was severely beaten by the LAPD today. He
said he may sue them for their antics. "I was ludicrously and
extravagantly beaten up," said Mr. King, with a bemused look on his
swollen face. "Those crazy guys! What a fun-loving bunch!" Mr. King
exclaimed as he watched the video of several uniformed policemen
kicking and beating him, "Look at that one kicking me in the ribs as I
lay in pain on the ground. Now THAT'S funny!" Mr. King tried to wink,
but the 17 stitches over his eye made this act impossible.

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Dec, 00:07, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>
> And, BTW, beating is not generally considered an "antic".
>

unless its a black man beating up a black woman, in your book.
Well, maybe you might say it really isn't such a good thing,
but no problem for you with the black man calling black women ho's and
bitches.
It's a matter of privelege, you say.
But is it the privilege of black men to denigrate black women,.
or is it the privilege of black women to be denigrated by black men.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 20, 5:07 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 21 Dec, 00:07, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
>
> > And, BTW, beating is not generally considered an "antic".
>
> unless its a black man beating up a black woman, in your book.

Quit lying. You know better.

> Well, maybe you might say it really isn't such a good thing,

Oh, impossible!

> but no problem for you with the black man calling black women ho's and
> bitches.

Quit lying. What I said was that unfortunately we white people don't
have much of a leg to stand on regarding telling black people what
they should or should not do. I said we should clean up our own house
first (like 2pid calling women he doesn't like "bitches", which you
STILL remain curiously silent on. Is it only bad in your book when
black people do it?)

> It's a matter of privelege, you say.

Quit lying. You know better than that. Through free speech, though, I
suppose you could defend 2pid calling women he doesn't like "bitches".

> But is it the privilege of black men to denigrate black women,.
> or is it the privilege of black women to be denigrated by black men.

Or is it a double-standard? Like your silence when 2pid calls women he
doesn't like "bitches"? Or is it hypocrisy, like your silence when
2pid calls women he doesn't like "bitches", yet consistently whining
about hip-hop lyrics? Or is it a lack of integrity, like your silence
when 2pid calls women he doesn't like "bitches"? And you apparently
have no problem trivializing women through advertising, music and
other methods when whites do it. What up wit dat?

Wow. Silence when confronting issues, hypocrisy, lack of integrity,
agreeing that women should be trivialized and double standards. You
must be 100% liberal!

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Dec, 01:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>
> > but no problem for you with the black man calling black women ho's and
> > bitches.
>
> Quit lying. What I said was that unfortunately we white people don't
> have much of a leg to stand on regarding telling black people what
> they should or should not do. I said we should clean up our own house
> first (like 2pid calling women he doesn't like "bitches", which you
> STILL remain curiously silent on. Is it only bad in your book when
> black people do it?)
>


We are humans first, whether black or white, we have the right
to call another human on his/her misbehavior, no matter the race of
any of the parties
involved. You are sliding down a slippery slope


> > It's a matter of privelege, you say.
>
> Quit lying. You know better than that.

No, you stop lying, you DID say that
I wouldn't mind if you backtracked, though




Through free speech, though, I
> suppose you could defend 2pid calling women he doesn't like "bitches".
>
> > But is it the privilege of black men to denigrate black women,.
> > or is it the privilege of black women to be denigrated by black men.
>
> Or is it a double-standard?


The double standard is yours, separate
expectations of decent behavior, depending
upon race.



Like your silence when 2pid calls women he
> doesn't like "bitches"? Or is it hypocrisy, like your silence when
> 2pid calls women he doesn't like "bitches", yet consistently whining
> about hip-hop lyrics? Or is it a lack of integrity, like your silence
> when 2pid calls women he doesn't like "bitches"?


My problem is a lot more with your hypocricy than
it is with rap lyrics. The original point is your
making double standards of toughness on
whites and laxity on blacks.
my beef is not what blacks
might say, it is on your diuble standard.

i don't really care ht scott says, i care about
whether YOU are applying double standards


And you apparently
> have no problem trivializing women through advertising, music and
> other methods when whites do it. What up wit dat?
>


what white ads call women bitches and ho's
i haven't seen any.
maybe i am just watching too much fox and not
enough network, LOL!!!!!



> Wow. Silence when confronting issues, hypocrisy, lack of integrity,
> agreeing that women should be trivialized and double standards. You
> must be 100% liberal!


i haven'y agreed to any such thing, stop lying,Arny.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 20, 5:42 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 21 Dec, 01:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > but no problem for you with the black man calling black women ho's and
> > > bitches.
>
> > Quit lying. What I said was that unfortunately we white people don't
> > have much of a leg to stand on regarding telling black people what
> > they should or should not do. I said we should clean up our own house
> > first (like 2pid calling women he doesn't like "bitches", which you
> > STILL remain curiously silent on. Is it only bad in your book when
> > black people do it?)
>
> We are humans first, whether black or white, we have the right
> to call another human on his/her misbehavior, no matter the race of
> any of the parties
> involved. You are sliding down a slippery slope

We already slid down that slippery slope, Clyde. You're applying
different standards either based on friendship or skin color. Not my
problem.

> > > It's a matter of privelege, you say.
>
> > Quit lying. You know better than that.
>
> No, you stop lying, you DID say that
> I wouldn't mind if you backtracked, though

Did I use the word "privelege? Yes.

Did you apparently not understand what I said when using that word?
Yes.

Not my problem.

> Through free speech, though, I
>
> > suppose you could defend 2pid calling women he doesn't like "bitches".
>
> > > But is it the privilege of black men to denigrate black women,.
> > > or is it the privilege of black women to be denigrated by black men.
>
> > Or is it a double-standard?
>
> The double standard is yours, separate
> expectations of decent behavior, depending
> upon race.

Not true. And not my problem. You can make up whatever you'd like to,
Clyde. I'd like you to cite where I said, "I fully agree with hip-hop
lyrics denigrating women." Go ahead, if you can find it.

> Like your silence when 2pid calls women he
>
> > doesn't like "bitches"? Or is it hypocrisy, like your silence when
> > 2pid calls women he doesn't like "bitches", yet consistently whining
> > about hip-hop lyrics? Or is it a lack of integrity, like your silence
> > when 2pid calls women he doesn't like "bitches"?
>
> My problem is a lot more with your hypocricy than
> it is with rap lyrics. The original point is your
> making double standards of toughness on
> whites and laxity on blacks.

Not true. And not my problem.

> my beef is not what blacks
> might say, it is on your diuble standard.

Look, if you don't understand what I said, then just say so.

Last time, Clyde: I do not agree with hip-hop lyrics denigrating
women. I do disagree that white America has not a leg to stand on in
telling blacks what black culture should be, especially since it is
most often white America that is telling blacks what their culture is.
You can thank our forefathers for that. Further, since white America
is guilty of the exact same thing, I suggested we should clean up our
own house first.

You have had a big problem with that, or you do not understand the
overall point. Not my problem.

> i don't really care ht scott says, i care about
> whether YOU are applying double standards

There you go. There's your hypocrisy. The word "bitch" drives you up a
wall (unless it is your white friend saying it). I'd say both were
equally wrong, but you don't care. Not my problem.

> And you apparently
>
> > have no problem trivializing women through advertising, music and
> > other methods when whites do it. What up wit dat?
>
> what white ads call women bitches and ho's
> i haven't seen any.

Ah, so it's merely the use of a swear word that bothers you. It's not
the underlying attitude toward women that bothers you. No wonder you
and 2pid get along so well. No wonder you didn't understand it when I
said they're all just points along the same contiuum. Not my problem.

> maybe i am just watching too much fox and not
> enough network, LOL!!!!!

Garbage in, garbage out. Not my problem.

> > Wow. Silence when confronting issues, hypocrisy, lack of integrity,
> > agreeing that women should be trivialized and double standards. You
> > must be 100% liberal!
>
> i haven'y agreed to any such thing, stop lying,Arny.

Nor have I agreed with anything that you wrote, but that hasn't
stopped you. You just got a dose of what you've been dishing. Not my
problem.

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Dec, 02:28, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 5:42 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Dec, 01:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > but no problem for you with the black man calling black women ho's and
> > > > bitches.
>
> > > Quit lying. What I said was that unfortunately we white people don't
> > > have much of a leg to stand on regarding telling black people what
> > > they should or should not do. I said we should clean up our own house
> > > first (like 2pid calling women he doesn't like "bitches", which you
> > > STILL remain curiously silent on. Is it only bad in your book when
> > > black people do it?)
>
> > We are humans first, whether black or white, we have the right
> > to call another human on his/her misbehavior, no matter the race of
> > any of the parties
> > involved. You are sliding down a slippery slope
>
> We already slid down that slippery slope, Clyde. You're applying
> different standards either based on friendship or skin color. Not my
> problem.
>

irrelevant
i am not advocating standards, just noting your double standards

> No, you stop lying, you DID say that
> > I wouldn't mind if you backtracked, though
>
> Did I use the word "privelege? Yes.
>
> Did you apparently not understand what I said when using that word?
> Yes.
>
> Not my problem.
>

>
> > The double standard is yours, separate
> > expectations of decent behavior, depending
> > upon race.
>
> Not true. And not my problem. You can make up whatever you'd like to,
> Clyde. I'd like you to cite where I said, "I fully agree with hip-hop
> lyrics denigrating women." Go ahead, if you can find it.
>

you said that blacks had license to call each other ****ty names.
the original discussion was about Imus.
you said a white could not do that,but a black could.
the offending words were "nappy headed ho'".




>
> > My problem is a lot more with your hypocricy than
> > it is with rap lyrics. The original point is your
> > making double standards of toughness on
> > whites and laxity on blacks.
>
> Not true. And not my problem.

no the double standard is exa`ctly what you said.

> > my beef is not what blacks
> > might say, it is on your diuble standard.
>
> Look, if you don't understand what I said, then just say so.
>
> Last time, Clyde: I do not agree with hip-hop lyrics denigrating
> women. I do disagree that white America has not a leg to stand on in
> telling blacks what black culture should be, especially since it is
> most often white America that is telling blacks what their culture is.
> You can thank our forefathers for that. Further, since white America
> is guilty of the exact same thing, I suggested we should clean up our
> own house first.
>

we should not pund on whites for saying nthose horrible things, then
excuse blacks for saying the same things. that is a double standard.
Did the military allow this? Could a male black soldier publicly refer
to female
black soldiers as being bitches and ho's?


> You have had a big problem with that, or you do not understand the
> overall point. Not my problem.
>
> > i don't really care ht scott says, i care about
> > whether YOU are applying double standards
>
> There you go. There's your hypocrisy. The word "bitch" drives you up a
> wall (unless it is your white friend saying it). I'd say both were
> equally wrong, but you don't care. Not my problem.

you fail to comprehend. not my problem.


>
> > And you apparently
>
> > > have no problem trivializing women through advertising, music and
> > > other methods when whites do it. What up wit dat?
>
> > what white ads call women bitches and ho's
> > i haven't seen any.
>
> Ah, so it's merely the use of a swear word that bothers you. It's not
> the underlying attitude toward women that bothers you. No wonder you
> and 2pid get along so well. No wonder you didn't understand it when I
> said they're all just points along the same contiuum. Not my problem.
>

you fail to comprehend. not my problem.

> > maybe i am just watching too much fox and not
> > enough network, LOL!!!!!
>
> Garbage in, garbage out. Not my problem.
>
> > > Wow. Silence when confronting issues, hypocrisy, lack of integrity,
> > > agreeing that women should be trivialized and double standards. You
> > > must be 100% liberal!
>
> > i haven'y agreed to any such thing, stop lying,Arny.
>
> Nor have I agreed with anything that you wrote, but that hasn't
> stopped you. You just got a dose of what you've been dishing. Not my
> problem.- Ascunde citatul -
>

you fail to comprehend. not my problem.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 21, 6:54 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 21 Dec, 02:28, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 5:42 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 21 Dec, 01:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > but no problem for you with the black man calling black women ho's and
> > > > > bitches.
>
> > > > Quit lying. What I said was that unfortunately we white people don't
> > > > have much of a leg to stand on regarding telling black people what
> > > > they should or should not do. I said we should clean up our own house
> > > > first (like 2pid calling women he doesn't like "bitches", which you
> > > > STILL remain curiously silent on. Is it only bad in your book when
> > > > black people do it?)
>
> > > We are humans first, whether black or white, we have the right
> > > to call another human on his/her misbehavior, no matter the race of
> > > any of the parties
> > > involved. You are sliding down a slippery slope
>
> > We already slid down that slippery slope, Clyde. You're applying
> > different standards either based on friendship or skin color. Not my
> > problem.
>
> irrelevant
> i am not advocating standards, just noting your double standards

Fine. As I said another time, then I have double standards. So do you.
There we are.

> > No, you stop lying, you DID say that

> > > I wouldn't mind if you backtracked, though
>
> > Did I use the word "privelege? Yes.
>
> > Did you apparently not understand what I said when using that word?
> > Yes.
>
> > Not my problem.
>
> > > The double standard is yours, separate
> > > expectations of decent behavior, depending
> > > upon race.
>
> > Not true. And not my problem. You can make up whatever you'd like to,
> > Clyde. I'd like you to cite where I said, "I fully agree with hip-hop
> > lyrics denigrating women." Go ahead, if you can find it.
>
> you said that blacks had license to call each other ****ty names.

Um, what I said was that whites cannot call them on it. And yes, that
the implications of a white person saying things like that have far
different implications than for a black person saying them.

Double standard? Good.

> the original discussion was about Imus.
> you said a white could not do that,but a black could.
> the offending words were "nappy headed ho'".

Not quite, but Imus got what he deserved.

> > > My problem is a lot more with your hypocricy than
> > > it is with rap lyrics. The original point is your
> > > making double standards of toughness on
> > > whites and laxity on blacks.
>
> > Not true. And not my problem.
>
> no the double standard is exa`ctly what you said.

Clyde, you apparently do not understand the point I made. As I said,
that is not my problem.

> > > my beef is not what blacks
> > > might say, it is on your diuble standard.
>
> > Look, if you don't understand what I said, then just say so.
>
> > Last time, Clyde: I do not agree with hip-hop lyrics denigrating
> > women. I do disagree that white America has not a leg to stand on in
> > telling blacks what black culture should be, especially since it is
> > most often white America that is telling blacks what their culture is.
> > You can thank our forefathers for that. Further, since white America
> > is guilty of the exact same thing, I suggested we should clean up our
> > own house first.
>
> we should not pund on whites for saying nthose horrible things, then
> excuse blacks for saying the same things. that is a double standard.

We should not *focus* on black people saying those things while giving
whites (such as 2pid) a pass. Don't you agree, Clyde? I have yet to
see you say, "2pid, referring to women as "bitches" is not acceptable
behavior".

As I said, we need to clean up our own house first. Double standard?
Too bad.

Here, Clyde. Bitch away:

Kid Rock - So Hott Lyrics

You got a body like the devil and you smell like sex
I can tell you're trouble but I'm still obsessed

Because you know you're
SO HOT I wanna get you alone
SO HOT I wanna get you stoned
SO HOT I dont wanna be your friend
I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again

Yeaa
Come on
Yea

You're like the kiss of death, like the hand of faith
I can tell you're trouble but I still wanna taste

Because you know you're
SO HOT I wanna get you alone
SO HOT I wanna get you stoned
SO HOT I dont wanna be your friend
I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again

Because you know you're
SO HOT I wanna get you alone
SO HOT I wanna get you stoned
SO HOT I dont wanna be your friend
I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again

You're So Hot, I wanna get you alone
I wanna get you stoned
I dont wanna be your friend
I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again
See you again
See you again

Pretty cool, huh? And not demeaning or degrading to women at all!

Or how about this?

"My audience has gone from being over 95 percent Black 10 years ago to
over 95 percent white today," laments Boots Riley of the Coup, whose
1994 Genocide and Juice responded to Snoop Dogg's 1993 gangsta party
anthem "Gin and Juice." "We jokingly refer to our tour as the Cotton
Club," he says--a reference to the 1920s and '30s Harlem jazz spot
where Black musicians played to whites-only audiences."

http://www.villagevoice.com/music/0526,kitwana,65332,22.html

Or this:

We used to think of hip-hop as just a black thing, but it's not. The
largest share of rap music sales in America goes to white listeners.
That would be me.

So I'm not just sounding off when I say this: It's time for a boycott
of all rap music that stereotypes African-Americans or insults and
degrades women.

And in particular, the people who need to be doing the boycotting are
white fans like myself.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20070919_HIP-HOP_MUSICS_WHITE_ENABLERS.html

Not to mention that I've already mentioned this several times to you.
So you don't get it. Guess what? That's not my problem. Double
standard? Good. Hypocrisy? Fine.

This is what you are doing under the guise of focusing on my alleged
"double standard" and ignoring your own. And you don't get it when I
say we need to clean up our own house first. Guess what? Still not my
problem.

> Did the military allow this? Could a male black soldier publicly refer
> to female black soldiers as being bitches and ho's?

The military isn't "entertainment" like Imus is. Nor could someone in
any other workplace anywhere that I'm aware of say those things, or
grab a woman's boobs, or put a pubic hair on a can of Coke.

It's all entertainment, Clyde. Lighten up! Go find a "ho" and a
"bitch"! 2pid can help you find a "bitch" I'll bet!

> > You have had a big problem with that, or you do not understand the
> > overall point. Not my problem.
>
> > > i don't really care ht scott says, i care about
> > > whether YOU are applying double standards
>
> > There you go. There's your hypocrisy. The word "bitch" drives you up a
> > wall (unless it is your white friend saying it). I'd say both were
> > equally wrong, but you don't care. Not my problem.
>
> you fail to comprehend. not my problem.

Oh, I get it, Clyde. See above.

> > > And you apparently
>
> > > > have no problem trivializing women through advertising, music and
> > > > other methods when whites do it. What up wit dat?
>
> > > what white ads call women bitches and ho's
> > > i haven't seen any.
>
> > Ah, so it's merely the use of a swear word that bothers you. It's not
> > the underlying attitude toward women that bothers you. No wonder you
> > and 2pid get along so well. No wonder you didn't understand it when I
> > said they're all just points along the same contiuum. Not my problem.
>
> you fail to comprehend. not my problem.

Oh, I get it, Clyde. I comprehend completely. See above.

> > > maybe i am just watching too much fox and not
> > > enough network, LOL!!!!!
>
> > Garbage in, garbage out. Not my problem.
>
> > > > Wow. Silence when confronting issues, hypocrisy, lack of integrity,
> > > > agreeing that women should be trivialized and double standards. You
> > > > must be 100% liberal!
>
> > > i haven'y agreed to any such thing, stop lying,Arny.
>
> > Nor have I agreed with anything that you wrote, but that hasn't
> > stopped you. You just got a dose of what you've been dishing. Not my
> > problem.

> you fail to comprehend. not my problem.

I comprehend fully, Clyde. You are more interested in "nailing" my
alleged double standard than you are in the true underlying issues.
That's why you can give 2pid a pass on doing the exact same thing as
those hip-hop lyrics that bug you so much. And I'm "guilty" because
I'd rather focus on cleaning up my house before casting aspersions on
a group that the privileged white class has been trying to tell what
to do for 2-3 hundred years. Yes, I'm very sensitive to how me coming
down on black artists that primarily serve a white audience can look.
Why, that could look hypocritical, even!

It's obvious that it isn't that you actually care that hip-hop lyrics
demean or trivialize women, just as it is that you actually don't care
if your friend refers to women as "bitches". You don't. As you said,
you're more interested in "uncovering" any double standards on my part
than for the conduct of whites or being against the degradation of
women or blacks. That's exactly what you said.

So have at it, champ. You're mad that a white gets fired for making
racially-disparaging or demeaning comments towards blacks or toward
women and that a black person saying those same things doesn't. And
that I agree with that for reasons given, what, a dozen times or so?
Too bad. Not my problem.

Double standard? Sure. Affirmative Action a "double standard"?
"Hypocritical"? If you say so, Clyde. The Civil Rights and the Voting
Rights Acts double standards? Whatever you say, Clyde. We (as the
privileged white majority) have earned all of those double standards
and more. (And even so, there are still efforts to disenfranchise
blacks from voting, for example.)

You don't get it? Not my problem.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 20, 9:47*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> m...
>
> > In article
>
> >> * We have a sample of 2 and for neither of us does Ca. public transit
> >> serve
> >> our needs.
>
> >> *So I guess you need to move your green behind out of the boonies to
> >> save the planet from your excessive carbon footprint.
>
> >> ScottW
>
> > As usual, we're far off topic. *My sentence was, "And it has spent a lot
> > of money on public transportation that works." *Are you attempting to
> > say that this isn't true?
>
> It's all semantics. *Since every public transit project costs a lot of money
> and there are thousands of them in the state, they could have a woefully
> poor success rate (and do IME) and your statement could still
> be true.
>
> From a what's best for our carbon footprint perspective,
> public transit may not make up for the pollution created by
> congested roads that could be alleviated if public transit funds
> were spent on roads for all.
> Even buses don't operate efficiently in a traffic jam.
>
> Meanwhile Ca. passes silly laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
> by 25% *by 2020. *All the while the population continues to grow.
>
> http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/12/21/news/state/14_57_5612_19_0...
>
> If we have to reduce total emissions 25% by 2020 and then hold them there....
> what do you think the per capita reductions are going have to be?
>
> Funny thing here is, at least according to John and Ken on KFI, Ca. population
> of US citizens over those same 7 years...decreased by 90,000.
>
> Do you think getting a handle on immigration might help constrain population
> growth and therefore help reduce ca. carbon emissions?
>
> http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/ncalifornia.asp
>
> Maybe AGW will bring about approval of same sex marriages.
>
> http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/5.25/991223-samesex.html
>
> ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 20, 9:47*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> If we have to reduce total emissions 25% by 2020 and then hold them there....
> what do you think the per capita reductions are going have to be?

100% more than you are willing to do?

> Funny thing here is, at least according to John and Ken on KFI, Ca. population
> of US citizens over those same 7 years...decreased by 90,000.
>
> Do you think getting a handle on immigration might help constrain population
> growth and therefore help reduce ca. carbon emissions?

According to you, they already did in Arizona. In 174 years they'll
have nothing to worry about there!

> Maybe AGW will bring about approval of same sex marriages.

Nah. Too many scared white guys.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 18, 9:54*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 12:45 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> On Dec 17, 8:37 pm, Eeyore >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
>
> >> > > Eeyore wrote
>
> >> > > > I was looking for the FoE position or air flights and found this poll
> >> > > > on
> >> > > > their site ..........
>
> >> > > Are there no groups in the UK who oppose these two groups
>
> >> > You were asking for evidence of the 'green' position I had talked about.
>
> >> > 'Other groups' are not the point. 'Other groups' don't make claims for AGW
> >> > either.
>
> >> > Your obfuscation is getting tiring. I can only assume you're not actually
> >> > interested in the subject and just want to argue sematics.
>
> >> *Bingo.
>
> > Look, 2pid! you found another friend!
>
> > Um, guys, I really hate to be a bother and all, but you see, to many
> > people words do have meanings.
>
> More obfuscation. *You just can't help yourself.

Yes, those pesky words!

Perhaps you should offer classes in communication in addition to those
other areas you're expert in, integrity and morality.

lol Lol LoL LOL!

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> Kid Rock - So Hott Lyrics
>
> You got a body like the devil and you smell like sex
> I can tell you're trouble but I'm still obsessed
>
> Because you know you're
> SO HOT I wanna get you alone
> SO HOT I wanna get you stoned
> SO HOT I dont wanna be your friend
> I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again
[snip]

> Pretty cool, huh? And not demeaning or degrading to women at all!

Is that how you read it? I saw an overgrown adolescent pandering to other
lowbrow adolescents. Too bad Mr. Ritchie isn't a musician.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 21, 3:44*pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > Kid Rock - So Hott Lyrics
>
> > You got a body like the devil and you smell like sex
> > I can tell you're trouble but I'm still obsessed
>
> > Because you know you're
> > SO HOT I wanna get you alone
> > SO HOT I wanna get you stoned
> > SO HOT I dont wanna be your friend
> > I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again
>
> [snip]
>
> > Pretty cool, huh? And not demeaning or degrading to women at all!
>
> Is that how you read it? I saw an overgrown adolescent pandering to other
> lowbrow adolescents. Too bad Mr. Ritchie isn't a musician.

Which isn't much different in my opinion from what hip-hop is after.
That might explain the demographic hip-hop gets.

Yes, I see that as degrading to women and trivializing them as sex
objects, but I also see the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue the same
way (unless there is some bikini tie-in to the World Series or the
Super Bowl I don't understand). Just different points along the same
path.

It's my hypocrisy and double standards showing through. Now that Clyde
has pointed them out, one has to wonder if he'll ever point out his
own just as tenaciously. Or if he'll ever get around to calling his
friend 2pid on 2pid's multiple references to women he doesn't like as
"bitches". I doubt it.

Perhaps we'll get an admission that Clyde just wants to be considered
the same as a black man, with all the "privileges" that entails. He
is, after all, "colorblind". Just ask him. :-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 21 Dec, 22:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 6:54 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 21 Dec, 02:28, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> > > On Dec 20, 5:42 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 21 Dec, 01:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > but no problem for you with the black man calling black women ho's and
> > > > > > bitches.
>
> > > > > Quit lying. What I said was that unfortunately we white people don't
> > > > > have much of a leg to stand on regarding telling black people what
> > > > > they should or should not do. I said we should clean up our own house
> > > > > first (like 2pid calling women he doesn't like "bitches", which you
> > > > > STILL remain curiously silent on. Is it only bad in your book when
> > > > > black people do it?)
>
> > > > We are humans first, whether black or white, we have the right
> > > > to call another human on his/her misbehavior, no matter the race of
> > > > any of the parties
> > > > involved. You are sliding down a slippery slope
>
> > > We already slid down that slippery slope, Clyde. You're applying
> > > different standards either based on friendship or skin color. Not my
> > > problem.
>
> > irrelevant
> > i am not advocating standards, just noting your double standards
>
> Fine. As I said another time, then I have double standards. So do you.
> There we are.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > No, you stop lying, you DID say that
> > > > I wouldn't mind if you backtracked, though
>
> > > Did I use the word "privelege? Yes.
>
> > > Did you apparently not understand what I said when using that word?
> > > Yes.
>
> > > Not my problem.
>
> > > > The double standard is yours, separate
> > > > expectations of decent behavior, depending
> > > > upon race.
>
> > > Not true. And not my problem. You can make up whatever you'd like to,
> > > Clyde. I'd like you to cite where I said, "I fully agree with hip-hop
> > > lyrics denigrating women." Go ahead, if you can find it.
>
> > you said that blacks had license to call each other ****ty names.
>
> Um, what I said was that whites cannot call them on it. And yes, that
> the implications of a white person saying things like that have far
> different implications than for a black person saying them.
>
> Double standard? Good.
>
> > the original discussion was about Imus.
> > you said a white could not do that,but a black could.
> > the offending words were "nappy headed ho'".
>
> Not quite, but Imus got what he deserved.
>
> > > > My problem is a lot more with your hypocricy than
> > > > it is with rap lyrics. The original point is your
> > > > making double standards of toughness on
> > > > whites and laxity on blacks.
>
> > > Not true. And not my problem.
>
> > no the double standard is exa`ctly what you said.
>
> Clyde, you apparently do not understand the point I made. As I said,
> that is not my problem.
>
> > > > my beef is not what blacks
> > > > might say, it is on your diuble standard.
>
> > > Look, if you don't understand what I said, then just say so.
>
> > > Last time, Clyde: I do not agree with hip-hop lyrics denigrating
> > > women. I do disagree that white America has not a leg to stand on in
> > > telling blacks what black culture should be, especially since it is
> > > most often white America that is telling blacks what their culture is.
> > > You can thank our forefathers for that. Further, since white America
> > > is guilty of the exact same thing, I suggested we should clean up our
> > > own house first.
>
> > we should not pund on whites for saying nthose horrible things, then
> > excuse blacks for saying the same things. that is a double standard.
>
> We should not *focus* on black people saying those things while giving
> whites (such as 2pid) a pass. Don't you agree, Clyde? I have yet to
> see you say, "2pid, referring to women as "bitches" is not acceptable
> behavior".
>
> As I said, we need to clean up our own house first. Double standard?
> Too bad.
>
> Here, Clyde. Bitch away:
>
> Kid Rock - So Hott Lyrics
>
> You got a body like the devil and you smell like sex
> I can tell you're trouble but I'm still obsessed
>
> Because you know you're
> SO HOT I wanna get you alone
> SO HOT I wanna get you stoned
> SO HOT I dont wanna be your friend
> I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again
>
> Yeaa
> Come on
> Yea
>
> You're like the kiss of death, like the hand of faith
> I can tell you're trouble but I still wanna taste
>
> Because you know you're
> SO HOT I wanna get you alone
> SO HOT I wanna get you stoned
> SO HOT I dont wanna be your friend
> I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again
>
> Because you know you're
> SO HOT I wanna get you alone
> SO HOT I wanna get you stoned
> SO HOT I dont wanna be your friend
> I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again
>
> You're So Hot, I wanna get you alone
> I wanna get you stoned
> I dont wanna be your friend
> I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again
> See you again
> See you again
>
> Pretty cool, huh? And not demeaning or degrading to women at all!
>
> Or how about this?
>
> "My audience has gone from being over 95 percent Black 10 years ago to
> over 95 percent white today," laments Boots Riley of the Coup, whose
> 1994 Genocide and Juice responded to Snoop Dogg's 1993 gangsta party
> anthem "Gin and Juice." "We jokingly refer to our tour as the Cotton
> Club," he says--a reference to the 1920s and '30s Harlem jazz spot
> where Black musicians played to whites-only audiences."
>
> http://www.villagevoice.com/music/0526,kitwana,65332,22.html
>
> Or this:
>
> We used to think of hip-hop as just a black thing, but it's not. The
> largest share of rap music sales in America goes to white listeners.
> That would be me.
>
> So I'm not just sounding off when I say this: It's time for a boycott
> of all rap music that stereotypes African-Americans or insults and
> degrades women.
>
> And in particular, the people who need to be doing the boycotting are
> white fans like myself.
>
> http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20070919_HIP-HOP_MUSICS_WHITE...
>
> Not to mention that I've already mentioned this several times to you.
> So you don't get it. Guess what? That's not my problem. Double
> standard? Good. Hypocrisy? Fine.
>
> This is what you are doing under the guise of focusing on my alleged
> "double standard" and ignoring your own. And you don't get it when I
> say we need to clean up our own house first. Guess what? Still not my
> problem.
>
> > Did the military allow this? Could a male black soldier publicly refer
> > to female black soldiers as being bitches and ho's?
>
> The military isn't "entertainment" like Imus is. Nor could someone in
> any other workplace anywhere that I'm aware of say those things, or
> grab a woman's boobs, or put a pubic hair on a can of Coke.
>
> It's all entertainment, Clyde. Lighten up! Go find a "ho" and a
> "bitch"! 2pid can help you find a "bitch" I'll bet!
>
> > > You have had a big problem with that, or you do not understand the
> > > overall point. Not my problem.
>
> > > > i don't really care ht scott says, i care about
> > > > whether YOU are applying double standards
>
> > > There you go. There's your hypocrisy. The word "bitch" drives you up a
> > > wall (unless it is your white friend saying it). I'd say both were
> > > equally wrong, but you don't care. Not my problem.
>
> > you fail to comprehend. not my problem.
>
> Oh, I get it, Clyde. See above.
>
> > > > And you apparently
>
> > > > > have no problem trivializing women through advertising, music and
> > > > > other methods when whites do it. What up wit dat?
>
> > > > what white ads call women bitches and ho's
> > > > i haven't seen any.
>
> > > Ah, so it's merely the use of a swear word that bothers you. It's not
> > > the underlying attitude toward women that bothers you. No wonder you
> > > and 2pid get along so well. No wonder you didn't understand it when I
> > > said they're all just points along the same contiuum. Not my problem.
>
> > you fail to comprehend. not my problem.
>
> Oh, I get it, Clyde. I comprehend completely. See above.
>
> > > > maybe i am just watching too much fox and not
> > > > enough network, LOL!!!!!
>
> > > Garbage in, garbage out. Not my problem.
>
> > > > > Wow. Silence when confronting issues, hypocrisy, lack of integrity,
> > > > > agreeing that women should be trivialized and double standards. You
> > > > > must be 100% liberal!
>
> > > > i haven'y agreed to any such thing, stop lying,Arny.
>
> > > Nor have I agreed with anything that you wrote, but that hasn't
> > > stopped you. You just got a dose of what you've been dishing. Not my
> > > problem.
> > you fail to comprehend. not my problem.
>
> I comprehend fully, Clyde. You are more interested in "nailing" my
> alleged double standard than you are in the true underlying issues.
> That's why you can give 2pid a pass on doing the exact same thing as
> those hip-hop lyrics that bug you so much. And I'm "guilty" because
> I'd rather focus on cleaning up my house before casting aspersions on
> a group that the privileged white class has been trying to tell what
> to do for 2-3 hundred years. Yes, I'm very sensitive to how me coming
> down on black artists that primarily serve a white audience can look.
> Why, that could look hypocritical, even!
>
> It's obvious that it isn't that you actually care that hip-hop lyrics
> demean or trivialize women, just as it is that you actually don't care
> if your friend refers to women as "bitches". You don't. As you said,
> you're more interested in "uncovering" any double standards on my part
> than for the conduct of whites or being against the degradation of
> women or blacks. That's exactly what you said.
>
> So have at it, champ. You're mad that a white gets fired for making
> racially-disparaging or demeaning comments towards blacks or toward
> women and that a black person saying those same things doesn't. And
> that I agree with that for reasons given, what, a dozen times or so?
> Too bad. Not my problem.
>
> Double standard? Sure. Affirmative Action a "double standard"?
> "Hypocritical"? If you say so, Clyde. The Civil Rights and the Voting
> Rights Acts double standards? Whatever you say, Clyde. We (as the
> privileged white majority) have earned all of those double standards
> and more. (And even so, there are still ...
>
> citiþi mai multe >>- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afiºare text în citat -- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afiºare text în citat -

Let's see:
hip hop has a 95% white audience
the lyrics often refer to black women as ho's and bitches.
the predominantly black artists who write and sing these lyrics
are presenting to white culture that black women are ho's and bitches.
YOUR CONCLUSION:
it is white people, not black people who should be protesting this.

ok, you finally convinced me.

[Clyde Slick]

On 22 Dec, 00:29, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>
> Yes, I see that as degrading to women and trivializing them as sex
> objects, but I also see the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue the same
> way (unless there is some bikini tie-in to the World Series or the
> Super Bowl I don't understand). Just different points along the same
> path.
>


calling black women bitches and ho's
beating up black women
Just different points along the same
path.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> It's my hypocrisy and double standards showing through. Now that Clyde
> has pointed them out, one has to wonder if he'll ever point out his
> own just as tenaciously.

It's almost a truism that "conservatives" are the leaders in
self-reflection.

> Or if he'll ever get around to calling his
> friend 2pid on 2pid's multiple references to women he doesn't like as
> "bitches". I doubt it.

Witless gets terribly upset when other demeaning terms for women are used,
regardless of context or intent. Funny he should give a pass to that word
while feigning outrage at all the others.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 21, 4:50 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 21 Dec, 22:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 6:54 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 21 Dec, 02:28, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 20, 5:42 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 21 Dec, 01:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > but no problem for you with the black man calling black women ho's and
> > > > > > > bitches.
>
> > > > > > Quit lying. What I said was that unfortunately we white people don't
> > > > > > have much of a leg to stand on regarding telling black people what
> > > > > > they should or should not do. I said we should clean up our own house
> > > > > > first (like 2pid calling women he doesn't like "bitches", which you
> > > > > > STILL remain curiously silent on. Is it only bad in your book when
> > > > > > black people do it?)
>
> > > > > We are humans first, whether black or white, we have the right
> > > > > to call another human on his/her misbehavior, no matter the race of
> > > > > any of the parties
> > > > > involved. You are sliding down a slippery slope
>
> > > > We already slid down that slippery slope, Clyde. You're applying
> > > > different standards either based on friendship or skin color. Not my
> > > > problem.
>
> > > irrelevant
> > > i am not advocating standards, just noting your double standards
>
> > Fine. As I said another time, then I have double standards. So do you.
> > There we are.
>
> > > > No, you stop lying, you DID say that
> > > > > I wouldn't mind if you backtracked, though
>
> > > > Did I use the word "privelege? Yes.
>
> > > > Did you apparently not understand what I said when using that word?
> > > > Yes.
>
> > > > Not my problem.
>
> > > > > The double standard is yours, separate
> > > > > expectations of decent behavior, depending
> > > > > upon race.
>
> > > > Not true. And not my problem. You can make up whatever you'd like to,
> > > > Clyde. I'd like you to cite where I said, "I fully agree with hip-hop
> > > > lyrics denigrating women." Go ahead, if you can find it.
>
> > > you said that blacks had license to call each other ****ty names.
>
> > Um, what I said was that whites cannot call them on it. And yes, that
> > the implications of a white person saying things like that have far
> > different implications than for a black person saying them.
>
> > Double standard? Good.
>
> > > the original discussion was about Imus.
> > > you said a white could not do that,but a black could.
> > > the offending words were "nappy headed ho'".
>
> > Not quite, but Imus got what he deserved.
>
> > > > > My problem is a lot more with your hypocricy than
> > > > > it is with rap lyrics. The original point is your
> > > > > making double standards of toughness on
> > > > > whites and laxity on blacks.
>
> > > > Not true. And not my problem.
>
> > > no the double standard is exa`ctly what you said.
>
> > Clyde, you apparently do not understand the point I made. As I said,
> > that is not my problem.
>
> > > > > my beef is not what blacks
> > > > > might say, it is on your diuble standard.
>
> > > > Look, if you don't understand what I said, then just say so.
>
> > > > Last time, Clyde: I do not agree with hip-hop lyrics denigrating
> > > > women. I do disagree that white America has not a leg to stand on in
> > > > telling blacks what black culture should be, especially since it is
> > > > most often white America that is telling blacks what their culture is.
> > > > You can thank our forefathers for that. Further, since white America
> > > > is guilty of the exact same thing, I suggested we should clean up our
> > > > own house first.
>
> > > we should not pund on whites for saying nthose horrible things, then
> > > excuse blacks for saying the same things. that is a double standard.
>
> > We should not *focus* on black people saying those things while giving
> > whites (such as 2pid) a pass. Don't you agree, Clyde? I have yet to
> > see you say, "2pid, referring to women as "bitches" is not acceptable
> > behavior".
>
> > As I said, we need to clean up our own house first. Double standard?
> > Too bad.
>
> > Here, Clyde. Bitch away:
>
> > Kid Rock - So Hott Lyrics
>
> > You got a body like the devil and you smell like sex
> > I can tell you're trouble but I'm still obsessed
>
> > Because you know you're
> > SO HOT I wanna get you alone
> > SO HOT I wanna get you stoned
> > SO HOT I dont wanna be your friend
> > I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again
>
> > Yeaa
> > Come on
> > Yea
>
> > You're like the kiss of death, like the hand of faith
> > I can tell you're trouble but I still wanna taste
>
> > Because you know you're
> > SO HOT I wanna get you alone
> > SO HOT I wanna get you stoned
> > SO HOT I dont wanna be your friend
> > I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again
>
> > Because you know you're
> > SO HOT I wanna get you alone
> > SO HOT I wanna get you stoned
> > SO HOT I dont wanna be your friend
> > I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again
>
> > You're So Hot, I wanna get you alone
> > I wanna get you stoned
> > I dont wanna be your friend
> > I wanna **** you like I'm never gonna see you again
> > See you again
> > See you again
>
> > Pretty cool, huh? And not demeaning or degrading to women at all!
>
> > Or how about this?
>
> > "My audience has gone from being over 95 percent Black 10 years ago to
> > over 95 percent white today," laments Boots Riley of the Coup, whose
> > 1994 Genocide and Juice responded to Snoop Dogg's 1993 gangsta party
> > anthem "Gin and Juice." "We jokingly refer to our tour as the Cotton
> > Club," he says--a reference to the 1920s and '30s Harlem jazz spot
> > where Black musicians played to whites-only audiences."
>
> >http://www.villagevoice.com/music/0526,kitwana,65332,22.html
>
> > Or this:
>
> > We used to think of hip-hop as just a black thing, but it's not. The
> > largest share of rap music sales in America goes to white listeners.
> > That would be me.
>
> > So I'm not just sounding off when I say this: It's time for a boycott
> > of all rap music that stereotypes African-Americans or insults and
> > degrades women.
>
> > And in particular, the people who need to be doing the boycotting are
> > white fans like myself.
>
> >http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20070919_HIP-HOP_MUSICS_WHITE...
>
> > Not to mention that I've already mentioned this several times to you.
> > So you don't get it. Guess what? That's not my problem. Double
> > standard? Good. Hypocrisy? Fine.
>
> > This is what you are doing under the guise of focusing on my alleged
> > "double standard" and ignoring your own. And you don't get it when I
> > say we need to clean up our own house first. Guess what? Still not my
> > problem.
>
> > > Did the military allow this? Could a male black soldier publicly refer
> > > to female black soldiers as being bitches and ho's?
>
> > The military isn't "entertainment" like Imus is. Nor could someone in
> > any other workplace anywhere that I'm aware of say those things, or
> > grab a woman's boobs, or put a pubic hair on a can of Coke.
>
> > It's all entertainment, Clyde. Lighten up! Go find a "ho" and a
> > "bitch"! 2pid can help you find a "bitch" I'll bet!
>
> > > > You have had a big problem with that, or you do not understand the
> > > > overall point. Not my problem.
>
> > > > > i don't really care ht scott says, i care about
> > > > > whether YOU are applying double standards
>
> > > > There you go. There's your hypocrisy. The word "bitch" drives you up a
> > > > wall (unless it is your white friend saying it). I'd say both were
> > > > equally wrong, but you don't care. Not my problem.
>
> > > you fail to comprehend. not my problem.
>
> > Oh, I get it, Clyde. See above.
>
> > > > > And you apparently
>
> > > > > > have no problem trivializing women through advertising, music and
> > > > > > other methods when whites do it. What up wit dat?
>
> > > > > what white ads call women bitches and ho's
> > > > > i haven't seen any.
>
> > > > Ah, so it's merely the use of a swear word that bothers you. It's not
> > > > the underlying attitude toward women that bothers you. No wonder you
> > > > and 2pid get along so well. No wonder you didn't understand it when I
> > > > said they're all just points along the same contiuum. Not my problem..
>
> > > you fail to comprehend. not my problem.
>
> > Oh, I get it, Clyde. I comprehend completely. See above.
>
> > > > > maybe i am just watching too much fox and not
> > > > > enough network, LOL!!!!!
>
> > > > Garbage in, garbage out. Not my problem.
>
> > > > > > Wow. Silence when confronting issues, hypocrisy, lack of integrity,
> > > > > > agreeing that women should be trivialized and double standards. You
> > > > > > must be 100% liberal!
>
> > > > > i haven'y agreed to any such thing, stop lying,Arny.
>
> > > > Nor have I agreed with anything that you wrote, but that hasn't
> > > > stopped you. You just got a dose of what you've been dishing. Not my
> > > > problem.
> > > you fail to comprehend. not my problem.
>
> > I comprehend fully, Clyde. You are more interested in "nailing" my
> > alleged double standard than you are in the true underlying issues.
> > That's why you can give 2pid a pass on doing the exact same thing as
> > those hip-hop lyrics that bug you so much. And I'm "guilty" because
> > I'd rather focus on cleaning up my house before casting aspersions on
> > a group that the privileged white class has been trying to tell what
> > to do for 2-3 hundred years. Yes, I'm very sensitive to how me coming
> > down on black artists that primarily serve a white audience can look.
> > Why, that could look hypocritical, even!
>
> > It's obvious that it isn't that you actually care that hip-hop lyrics
> > demean or trivialize women, just as it is that you actually don't care
> > if your friend refers to women as "bitches". You don't. As you said,
> > you're more interested in "uncovering" any double standards on my part
> > than for the conduct of whites or being against the degradation of
> > women or blacks. That's exactly what you said.
>
> > So have at it, champ. You're mad that a white gets fired for making
> > racially-disparaging or demeaning comments towards blacks or toward
> > women and that a black person saying those same things doesn't. And
> > that I agree with that for reasons given, what, a dozen times or so?
> > Too bad. Not my problem.
>
> > Double standard? Sure. Affirmative Action a "double standard"?
> > "Hypocritical"? If you say so, Clyde. The Civil Rights and the Voting
> > Rights Acts double standards? Whatever you say, Clyde. We (as the
> > privileged white majority) have earned all of those double standards
> > and more. (And even so, there are still ...
>
> > citiþi mai multe >>- Ascunde citatul -
>
> > - Afiºare text în citat -- Ascunde citatul -
>
> > - Afiºare text în citat -
>
> Let's see:
> hip hop has a 95% white audience
> the lyrics often refer to black women as ho's and bitches.

Um, no. They refer to WOMEN as bitches and hos. You ASSUME they are
talking about black women. That shows your, uh, hate to say it, um...

Look at all of the black women on this page, titled "Pimps and Hos":

http://www.bhphinc.com/?c=47&a=1127

http://www.bhphinc.com/

Capable of dissecting the subject from the inside out and from a
variety of angles, she serves up a string of salient insights in the
process, such as when echoing Imus' self-defense that gansta' rap is
merely a reflection of generally-accepted values. "Hip-hop culture is
no more or less violent and sexist than other American cultural
products," she argues. "However, it is more dubiously highlighted by
the media as the source of violent misogyny in American youth
culture."

http://www.black-collegian.com/extracurricular/kam/kam_pimps_0607.htm

"I see an acceptance among teenagers - both girls and boys, of the
kind of sexual objectification celebrated in this kind of music. There
is this notion that it's okay to be used for sex and that there is not
any emotional commitment necessary."

http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id=720

(What have I been saying all along, Clyde? What? You still don't get
it? Guess what? Not my problem.)

> the predominantly black artists who write and sing these lyrics
> are presenting to white culture that black women are ho's and bitches.

No, presenting that WOMEN are sex objects PERIOD.

"My Humps" doesn't talk about black boobies, Clyde.

> YOUR CONCLUSION:
> it is white people, not black people who should be protesting this.

And you entirely missed the boat on the conclusion as well.

Oh well, not my problem. (You really can be obtuse if you choose to
be.)

> ok, you finally convinced me.

So you're finally going to call 2pid on his misogeny? Good.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 21, 4:55*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 22 Dec, 00:29, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
>
> > Yes, I see that as degrading to women and trivializing them as sex
> > objects, but I also see the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue the same
> > way (unless there is some bikini tie-in to the World Series or the
> > Super Bowl I don't understand). Just different points along the same
> > path.
>
> calling black women bitches and ho's
> beating up black women
> Just different points along the same
> *path.

Actually it is. Along with rape. Sexism is sexism, Clyde. The
underlying issue is objectifying women. The skin color doesn't matter.

You're against demeaning women and for stopping violence on females in
the black community by hip-hoppers. Yay! Goody for you! Would you like
to do more? Here:

http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/pledge.htm

I'm against demeaning women and for stopping violence on females. Do
you see a difference? How clean is our own house? (And how many times
do I have to ask you the same question before your deep introspection
will help you understand that?)

The beatings don't have to be administered to black women either,
Clyde. "Antics" ;-) like that are equal opportunity.

I know, I know, that's just another example of my hypocrisy. I've
learned to live with it. So should you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 21, 5:11*pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > It's my hypocrisy and double standards showing through. Now that Clyde
> > has pointed them out, one has to wonder if he'll ever point out his
> > own just as tenaciously.
>
> It's almost a truism that "conservatives" are the leaders in
> self-reflection.

I would've chosen to put a different word in that sentence in
quotes. :-)

> > Or if he'll ever get around to calling his
> > friend 2pid on 2pid's multiple references to women he doesn't like as
> > "bitches". I doubt it.
>
> Witless gets terribly upset when other demeaning terms for women are used,
> regardless of context or intent. Funny he should give a pass to that word
> while feigning outrage at all the others.

I'm sure 2pid hasn't meant to call women "bitches" on several
occasions. In all those cases they were probably typos.

[Clyde Slick]

On 22 Dec, 01:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>
How clean is our own house? (And how many times
> do I have to ask you the same question before your deep introspection
> will help you understand that?)
>

that's the kind of thinking that leads to Bratzism.
The white race is not my house.

you need to get off your politics of racial identity.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 21, 6:12*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 22 Dec, 01:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
>
> *How clean is our own house? (And how many times
>
> > do I have to ask you the same question before your deep introspection
> > will help you understand that?)
>
> that's the kind of thinking that leads to Bratzism.

Like the assumption that because a black artist calls women "hos" and
"bitches" that he's only referring to black women?

LOL!

> The white race is not my house.
>
> you need to get off your politics of racial identity.

OK, then let's agree: hip-hop lyrics, while bad, are not the causes of
all of these problems. There are massive issues in white culture that
are just as bad if not worse.

And now we agree!

[Clyde Slick]

> And now we agree!

stop putting words in my mouth

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 21, 7:14*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > OK, then let's agree: hip-hop lyrics, while bad, are not the causes of
> > all of these problems. There are massive issues in white culture that
> > are just as bad if not worse.

> > And now we agree!
>
> stop putting words in my mouth

What part don't you agree with? That white people are not as bad as
the darkies? That hip-hop lyrics are not the causes of all these
problems? Or is it just you won't agree with me on anything?

Oh well. It doesn't matter. It's not my problem.;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 21, 11:05*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote
> On Dec 20, 9:47 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> > Maybe AGW will bring about approval of same sex marriages.
>
> : Nah. Too many scared white guys.
>
> *Poor sssshhhhiieeee....he's obviously got a serious
> case of white envy going.

Um, 2pid, your recent one-liners are below par, even for you.

Is everything OK?