Cincinnati is a "Southern City"

[Annika1980]

And that's why the black guy got killed by the white cops, according to Bill
O'Reilly on FOX News. He explained that Cincinnati borders Kentucky, a
"Southern state."

Somebody buy that asshole a map!
Cincinnati ain't Southern!
Hell, Kentucky ain't Southern!
Montgomery-****in-Alabama is Southern.

[George M. Middius]

Dimmika0003.5 said:

> Montgomery-****in-Alabama is Southern.

I thought you were going to lead Krooger in the Suicide Dance. Coward.

[dave weil]

On 05 Dec 2003 04:55:37 GMT, (Annika1980) wrote:

>And that's why the black guy got killed by the white cops, according to Bill
>O'Reilly on FOX News. He explained that Cincinnati borders Kentucky, a
>"Southern state."
>
>Somebody buy that asshole a map!
>Cincinnati ain't Southern!
>Hell, Kentucky ain't Southern!
>Montgomery-****in-Alabama is Southern.

You mean they actually mentioned this on Fox? I watched for a couple
of hours this morning and nary a mention, even during the "hard news"
segments.

[Shrivel]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message
...
> And that's why the black guy got killed by the white cops, according to
Bill
> O'Reilly on FOX News. He explained that Cincinnati borders Kentucky, a
> "Southern state."
>
> Somebody buy that asshole a map!
> Cincinnati ain't Southern!
> Hell, Kentucky ain't Southern!
> Montgomery-****in-Alabama is Southern.


There's more rednecks and hillbillies in Cincinatti than there are in
Atlanta, Montgomery, and Nashville combined.

[Scott Gardner]

On 05 Dec 2003 04:55:37 GMT, (Annika1980) wrote:

>And that's why the black guy got killed by the white cops, according to Bill
>O'Reilly on FOX News. He explained that Cincinnati borders Kentucky, a
>"Southern state."
>
>Somebody buy that asshole a map!
>Cincinnati ain't Southern!
>Hell, Kentucky ain't Southern!
>Montgomery-****in-Alabama is Southern.


Kind of like all the Harley riders with confederate flags on their
bikes, their leathers, and their biceps. Let's see - Harley-Davidson
motorcycles are made in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which fought on *which*
side of the Civil War? Oh yeah, the UNION!!!

I know, Harley-Davidson motorcycles didn't come about until well after
the Civil War, but these are the same guys that get all bent out of
shape about German, Japanese, and Italian bikes, even though none of
the major bike manufacturers from those countries made motorcycles
until after World War II.

Scott Gardner

[Arny Krueger]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message


> And that's why the black guy got killed by the white cops, according
> to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. He explained that Cincinnati borders
> Kentucky, a "Southern state."

> Somebody buy that asshole a map!

Are you saying that Cincinnati doesn't border Kentucky? I sincerely hope
not! It did the last time I crossed the Ohio River there...

> Cincinnati ain't Southern!

Depends on your viewpoint. In the Detroit area the Northerners joke about
"Ypsi-tucky"/ You can look up where Ypsilanti is, and fill the blanks in
from there.

> Hell, Kentucky ain't Southern!

Depends on your viewpoint. I've got relatives who live a little north of
Dayton, and my kids tell me that their cousins talk like Southerners. My
ears suggest the same thing. Ironically, some of the cousins are
African-American.

> Montgomery-****in-Alabama is Southern.

But Key West, which is even further south, isn't. My point is that you can't
tell how culturally southern an area is with just a map.

[Schizoid Man]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message

> And that's why the black guy got killed by the white cops, according to
Bill
> O'Reilly on FOX News. He explained that Cincinnati borders Kentucky, a
> "Southern state."
>
> Somebody buy that asshole a map!
> Cincinnati ain't Southern!
> Hell, Kentucky ain't Southern!
> Montgomery-****in-Alabama is Southern.

I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous. I mean this is the
same news network that made a mountain out of Howard Dean's Confederate
comments.

If Fox News have any integrity whatsoever, they should call O'Reilly on his
ridiculous statement.

But that measure, Austin should be a hick town just because it's in the
south. So should Atlanta and Miami.

Fox is crock of crap.

[Arny Krueger]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message


> "Annika1980" > wrote in message

>> And that's why the black guy got killed by the white cops, according
>> to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. He explained that Cincinnati borders
>> Kentucky, a "Southern state."
>>
>> Somebody buy that asshole a map!
>> Cincinnati ain't Southern!
>> Hell, Kentucky ain't Southern!
>> Montgomery-****in-Alabama is Southern.

> I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous.

Is it really THAT outrageous?

> I mean this is
> the same news network that made a mountain out of Howard Dean's
> Confederate comments.

Were those comments really THAT innocent?

> If Fox News have any integrity whatsoever, they should call O'Reilly
> on his ridiculous statement.

Fox News have integrity? Surely you jest! You've got to come up with some
other criteria to judge what they do, such as what sells.

> But that measure, Austin should be a hick town just because it's in
> the south. So should Atlanta and Miami.

Which measure?

I hope you realize that there's no close comparison between Atlanta and
Miami, when it comes to cultural make-up.

My recollection Schizoid is that you're not a lifelong US Citizen. I get
this feeling that you're stumbling through a mine field without realizing
it.

> Fox is crock of crap.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:43:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous.
>
>Is it really THAT outrageous?

Actually it is. It's like calling Washington DC (or if you stretch it,
Baltimore) a "southern city".

How anyone could characterize Cincinnati as a "southern city" is
beyond me. Well, the guy *is* from Long Island.

[Schizoid Man]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>
> > "Annika1980" > wrote in message
>
> >> And that's why the black guy got killed by the white cops, according
> >> to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. He explained that Cincinnati borders
> >> Kentucky, a "Southern state."
> >>
> >> Somebody buy that asshole a map!
> >> Cincinnati ain't Southern!
> >> Hell, Kentucky ain't Southern!
> >> Montgomery-****in-Alabama is Southern.
>
> > I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous.
>
> Is it really THAT outrageous?


It is. I never realized 'southern' was a synonym for despicable.


> > I mean this is
> > the same news network that made a mountain out of Howard Dean's
> > Confederate comments.
>
> Were those comments really THAT innocent?


Not they weren't. And neither are these.


> > If Fox News have any integrity whatsoever, they should call O'Reilly
> > on his ridiculous statement.
>
> Fox News have integrity? Surely you jest! You've got to come up with some
> other criteria to judge what they do, such as what sells.

You're right, I do jest.


> > But that measure, Austin should be a hick town just because it's in
> > the south. So should Atlanta and Miami.
>
> Which measure?
>
> I hope you realize that there's no close comparison between Atlanta and
> Miami, when it comes to cultural make-up.


Exactly my point. So what exactly does he mean by calling Cincinnati a
southern city?

Alanta, Dallas and Miami are all in the south and have completely different
and incongruent cultural make-ups.


> My recollection Schizoid is that you're not a lifelong US Citizen. I get
> this feeling that you're stumbling through a mine field without realizing
> it.

I don't think it is a mine field. But that's just my opinion. We're still
entitled to that, aren't we?


> > Fox is crock of crap.
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:43:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous.
>>
>> Is it really THAT outrageous?

> Actually it is. It's like calling Washington DC (or if you stretch it,
> Baltimore) a "southern city".

I don't know much about Baltimore - I've only passed through too many times.
However the DC is way south of where I live, if you catch my drift. If you
had studied the relevant history Weil, you'd know that Maryland didn't miss
becoming part of the Confederacy by that much.

Let's put it this way Weil. You're from a place that is a whole lot further
South than Detroit. Detroit is for example the only major US city that is
actually north of Canada.

> How anyone could characterize Cincinnati as a "southern city" is beyond
me.

Coming from about 250 miles further North than Cincinnati helps. Lots. If
you go north from Detroit there is really nothing but a lot of little
burghs, lakes, trees and ice.

I get this feeling from what you say Weil, you think that Nashville is a lot
further North than it actually is, both geographically and culturally.

>Well, the guy *is* from Long Island.

See what I meant? It's north of Cincinnati. However, Long Island is way
south of Detroit, at least geographically. And there is quite a bit of
civilization further North of it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Annika1980" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> And that's why the black guy got killed by the white cops,
>>>> according to Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. He explained that
>>>> Cincinnati borders Kentucky, a "Southern state."
>>>>
>>>> Somebody buy that asshole a map!
>>>> Cincinnati ain't Southern!
>>>> Hell, Kentucky ain't Southern!
>>>> Montgomery-****in-Alabama is Southern.
>>
>>> I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous.
>>
>> Is it really THAT outrageous?

> It is. I never realized 'southern' was a synonym for despicable.

I don't think it is. But in some people's minds it may be a synonym for
racist. Ironically, I can argue that Northern cities like Detroit might be
more racist than southern cities like Atlanta.

>>> I mean this is
>>> the same news network that made a mountain out of Howard Dean's
>>> Confederate comments.

>> Were those comments really THAT innocent?

> Not they weren't. And neither are these.

I don't see any need to get overwrought about defending the honor of
Cincinnati.

>>> If Fox News have any integrity whatsoever, they should call O'Reilly
>>> on his ridiculous statement.
>>
>> Fox News have integrity? Surely you jest! You've got to come up with
>> some other criteria to judge what they do, such as what sells.
>
> You're right, I do jest.

>>> But that measure, Austin should be a hick town just because it's in
>>> the south. So should Atlanta and Miami.

>> Which measure?

>> I hope you realize that there's no close comparison between Atlanta
>> and Miami, when it comes to cultural make-up.

> Exactly my point. So what exactly does he mean by calling Cincinnati a
> southern city?

Cincinnati is certainly closer to Atlanta in cultural makeup than it is to
Miami. Also geographically.

> Alanta, Dallas and Miami are all in the south and have completely
> different and incongruent cultural make-ups.

Agreed.

>> My recollection Schizoid is that you're not a lifelong US Citizen. I
>> get this feeling that you're stumbling through a mine field without
>> realizing it.

> I don't think it is a mine field. But that's just my opinion. We're
> still entitled to that, aren't we?

Just so that you're thinking about it...

>>> Fox is crock of crap.

Agreed. But so is CNN and all the rest.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:00:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:43:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous.
>>>
>>> Is it really THAT outrageous?
>
>> Actually it is. It's like calling Washington DC (or if you stretch it,
>> Baltimore) a "southern city".
>
>I don't know much about Baltimore - I've only passed through too many times.
>However the DC is way south of where I live, if you catch my drift.

Unfortunately, I do. You're now conflating O'Reilly's comment about
"southern" as simply being a function of geography, and it's obikous
that's not what he meant.

>If you
>had studied the relevant history Weil, you'd know that Maryland didn't miss
>becoming part of the Confederacy by that much.

And if *you* studied the relevant history, Ohio was *never* part of
the Confederacy, and Kentucky never officially seceded into the
Confederacy. It was considered a border state and was as much
sympathetic to the Union as it was to the Confederacy.

>Let's put it this way Weil. You're from a place that is a whole lot further
>South than Detroit. Detroit is for example the only major US city that is
>actually north of Canada.

Let's put it *this* way then, I'm much further North than New Orleans.
Therefore, I should say that Nashville is a northern city?

>> How anyone could characterize Cincinnati as a "southern city" is beyond
>me.
>
>Coming from about 250 miles further North than Cincinnati helps. Lots. If
>you go north from Detroit there is really nothing but a lot of little
>burghs, lakes, trees and ice.

Quit trying to be cute. If you want to use geography, Cincinnati is
far more north than Nashville. And I think that people in Portland,
Minneapolis, and Seatlle might quibble with you.

You're really getting desperate just to argue a point.

>I get this feeling from what you say Weil, you think that Nashville is a lot
>further North than it actually is, both geographically and culturally.

Nashville is further north from Montgomery AL than you are from
Cincinnati. And you are about as far north from Nashville as Nashville
is from New Orleans or Mobile. I would *never* call Nashville
*anything* but a southern city despite claims of relativity. I would
*never* call Cincinnati a southern city. I've lived in the South for
most of my life and I've never heard *anyone* even consider Cincinnati
"southern".

Hey, isn't Detroit in southern Michigan? Guess that makes it a
southern city.

>>Well, the guy *is* from Long Island.
>
>See what I meant? It's north of Cincinnati. However, Long Island is way
>south of Detroit, at least geographically. And there is quite a bit of
>civilization further North of it.

Now you're just being silly. Why do you bother?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:00:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:43:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:

>>>>> I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous.

>>>> Is it really THAT outrageous?

>>> Actually it is. It's like calling Washington DC (or if you stretch
>>> it, Baltimore) a "southern city".

>> I don't know much about Baltimore - I've only passed through too
>> many times. However the DC is way south of where I live, if you
>> catch my drift.

> Unfortunately, I do. You're now conflating O'Reilly's comment about
> "southern" as simply being a function of geography, and it's obikous
> that's not what he meant.

Straw man, I didn't say that I was speaking of south in purely a geographic
sense.

>> If you
>> had studied the relevant history Weil, you'd know that Maryland
>> didn't miss becoming part of the Confederacy by that much.

> And if *you* studied the relevant history, Ohio was *never* part of
> the Confederacy, and Kentucky never officially seceded into the
> Confederacy.

Two straw men - I didn't mention Ohio or Kentucky's relationship to the
Confederacy.

> It was considered a border state and was as much
> sympathetic to the Union as it was to the Confederacy.

Agreed.

>> Let's put it this way Weil. You're from a place that is a whole lot
>> further South than Detroit. Detroit is for example the only major US
>> city that is actually north of Canada.

> Let's put it *this* way then, I'm much further North than New Orleans.
> Therefore, I should say that Nashville is a northern city?

Trying desperately to wrestle you back into relevance Weil, how do New
Orleans and Nashville compare in terms of race relations?

>>> How anyone could characterize Cincinnati as a "southern city" is
>>> beyond me.

>> Coming from about 250 miles further North than Cincinnati helps.
>> Lots. If you go north from Detroit there is really nothing but a lot
>> of little burghs, lakes, trees and ice.

> Quit trying to be cute.

More evidence that Weil thinks he has the right to be absolute ruler of RAO.

>If you want to use geography, Cincinnati is
> far more north than Nashville. And I think that people in Portland,
> Minneapolis, and Seattle might quibble with you.

If you go north from Detroit you don't go near any of those cities. You've
got to go west to reach them.

> You're really getting desperate just to argue a point.

No, I was just building more support for a point that you don't seem to be
able to grasp, Weil.

>> I get this feeling from what you say Weil, you think that Nashville
>> is a lot further North than it actually is, both geographically and
>> culturally.

> Nashville is further north from Montgomery AL than you are from
> Cincinnati.

In terms of purely geography that's true. But I did say "culturally" didn't
I?

> And you are about as far north from Nashville as Nashville
> is from New Orleans or Mobile.

In terms of purely geography that's true. But I did say "culturally" didn't
I?

> I would *never* call Nashville
> *anything* but a southern city despite claims of relativity.

I surely wouldn't argue with that, either in terms of geography or culture.
OTOH Key West is far South of Nashville geographically, but far North of it
culturally.

>I would > *never* call Cincinnati a southern city. I've lived in the South
for
> most of my life and I've never heard *anyone* even consider Cincinnati
> "southern".

When is the last time you were in the Cincinnati area, Weil? For me, that
happened last weekend and it wasn't an isolated incident by far.

> Hey, isn't Detroit in southern Michigan? Guess that makes it a
> southern city.

If you go north from Detroit geographically, there is really nothing but a
lot of little burghs, lakes, trees and ice. Culturally, Detroit is very,
very diverse but also generally quite segmented. It's been called the most
segregated city in the US, and not just by me.

>>> Well, the guy *is* from Long Island.

>> See what I meant? It's north of Cincinnati. However, Long Island is
>> way south of Detroit, at least geographically. And there is quite a
>> bit of civilization further North of it.

> Now you're just being silly.

No, I'm making a point that's obviously flying way over your head. It's like
Sanders trying to understand Rumsfeld or Pogo trying to understand Einstein.

>Why do you bother?

Vain hopes that one day you'll wake up and grow a brain, Weil.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:34:42 -0500, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:00:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:43:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous.
>
>>>>> Is it really THAT outrageous?
>
>>>> Actually it is. It's like calling Washington DC (or if you stretch
>>>> it, Baltimore) a "southern city".
>
>>> I don't know much about Baltimore - I've only passed through too
>>> many times. However the DC is way south of where I live, if you
>>> catch my drift.
>
>> Unfortunately, I do. You're now conflating O'Reilly's comment about
>> "southern" as simply being a function of geography, and it's obvious
>> that's not what he meant.
>
>Straw man, I didn't say that I was speaking of south in purely a geographic
>sense.

Wht other sense did you mean then?

>>> If you
>>> had studied the relevant history Weil, you'd know that Maryland
>>> didn't miss becoming part of the Confederacy by that much.
>
>> And if *you* studied the relevant history, Ohio was *never* part of
>> the Confederacy, and Kentucky never officially seceded into the
>> Confederacy.
>
>Two straw men - I didn't mention Ohio or Kentucky's relationship to the
>Confederacy.

You brought it up in relation to Baltimore, so I thought it was fair
to bring it up in terms of Cincinnati.

>> It was considered a border state and was as much
>> sympathetic to the Union as it was to the Confederacy.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>> Let's put it this way Weil. You're from a place that is a whole lot
>>> further South than Detroit. Detroit is for example the only major US
>>> city that is actually north of Canada.

Due north, of course. Big distinction. Soooo, by using O'Reilly's
logic, you are virtually Canadian.

>> Let's put it *this* way then, I'm much further North than New Orleans.
>> Therefore, I should say that Nashville is a northern city?
>
>Trying desperately to wrestle you back into relevance Weil, how do New
>Orleans and Nashville compare in terms of race relations?

How does Detroit compare to Cincinnati? You've claimed that it might
be worse, and yet, we have O'Reilly drawing old southern stereotypes
as a reason for the current problems.

>>>> How anyone could characterize Cincinnati as a "southern city" is
>>>> beyond me.
>
>>> Coming from about 250 miles further North than Cincinnati helps.
>>> Lots. If you go north from Detroit there is really nothing but a lot
>>> of little burghs, lakes, trees and ice.
>
>> Quit trying to be cute.
>
>More evidence that Weil thinks he has the right to be absolute ruler of RAO.

Well, of those of us discussing this, I think I'm the only one who's
actually lived in one of the states in question, regarding O'Reilly's
report.

>>If you want to use geography, Cincinnati is
>> far more north than Nashville. And I think that people in Portland,
>> Minneapolis, and Seattle might quibble with you.
>
>If you go north from Detroit you don't go near any of those cities. You've
>got to go west to reach them.

And north.

>> You're really getting desperate just to argue a point.
>
>No, I was just building more support for a point that you don't seem to be
>able to grasp, Weil.

Oh please, get to it then.

>>> I get this feeling from what you say Weil, you think that Nashville
>>> is a lot further North than it actually is, both geographically and
>>> culturally.
>
>> Nashville is further north from Montgomery AL than you are from
>> Cincinnati.
>
>In terms of purely geography that's true. But I did say "culturally" didn't
>I?

Well yes. That's the whole point. Cincinnati isn't "culturally" a
southern city. It just isn't. It has nothing to do with the south.

>> And you are about as far north from Nashville as Nashville
>> is from New Orleans or Mobile.
>
>In terms of purely geography that's true. But I did say "culturally" didn't
>I?
>
>> I would *never* call Nashville
>> *anything* but a southern city despite claims of relativity.
>
>I surely wouldn't argue with that, either in terms of geography or culture.
>OTOH Key West is far South of Nashville geographically, but far North of it
>culturally.

Actually, not so much. Key West is quite similar in spirit to
Nashville. Key West is hardly "northern" in terms of culturally. Now
Miami and Palm Beach, that's a different story.

>>I would > *never* call Cincinnati a southern city. I've lived in the South
>for
>> most of my life and I've never heard *anyone* even consider Cincinnati
>> "southern".
>
>When is the last time you were in the Cincinnati area, Weil? For me, that
>happened last weekend and it wasn't an isolated incident by far.

And what made it a "southern city" to you? Or were you actually *in*
Cincinnati? Sounds like you weren't.

But that's a straw man argument anyway, since you aren't "southern".
Whether or not you were "in the area" is irrelevant to the point.

>> Hey, isn't Detroit in southern Michigan? Guess that makes it a
>> southern city.
>
>If you go north from Detroit geographically, there is really nothing but a
>lot of little burghs, lakes, trees and ice. Culturally, Detroit is very,
>very diverse but also generally quite segmented. It's been called the most
>segregated city in the US, and not just by me.

You're quite proud of that, it seems.

>>>> Well, the guy *is* from Long Island.
>
>>> See what I meant? It's north of Cincinnati. However, Long Island is
>>> way south of Detroit, at least geographically. And there is quite a
>>> bit of civilization further North of it.
>
>> Now you're just being silly.
>
>No, I'm making a point that's obviously flying way over your head. It's like
>Sanders trying to understand Rumsfeld or Pogo trying to understand Einstein.
>
>>Why do you bother?
>
>Vain hopes that one day you'll wake up and grow a brain, Weil.

Well then, get to the point. That O'Reilly was simply speaking about
geopraphy? If you believe that, you're nuts.

[Lionel Chapuis]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:00:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>>
>>>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:43:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous.
>>>>
>>>>Is it really THAT outrageous?
>>
>>>Actually it is. It's like calling Washington DC (or if you stretch it,
>>>Baltimore) a "southern city".
>>
>>I don't know much about Baltimore - I've only passed through too many times.
>>However the DC is way south of where I live, if you catch my drift.
>
>
> Unfortunately, I do. You're now conflating O'Reilly's comment about
> "southern" as simply being a function of geography, and it's obikous
> that's not what he meant.
>
>
>>If you
>>had studied the relevant history Weil, you'd know that Maryland didn't miss
>>becoming part of the Confederacy by that much.
>
>
> And if *you* studied the relevant history, Ohio was *never* part of
> the Confederacy, and Kentucky never officially seceded into the
> Confederacy. It was considered a border state and was as much
> sympathetic to the Union as it was to the Confederacy.
>
>
>>Let's put it this way Weil. You're from a place that is a whole lot further
>>South than Detroit. Detroit is for example the only major US city that is
>>actually north of Canada.
>
>
> Let's put it *this* way then, I'm much further North than New Orleans.
> Therefore, I should say that Nashville is a northern city?
>
>
>>>How anyone could characterize Cincinnati as a "southern city" is beyond
>>
>>me.
>>
>>Coming from about 250 miles further North than Cincinnati helps. Lots. If
>>you go north from Detroit there is really nothing but a lot of little
>>burghs, lakes, trees and ice.
>
>
> Quit trying to be cute. If you want to use geography, Cincinnati is
> far more north than Nashville. And I think that people in Portland,
> Minneapolis, and Seatlle might quibble with you.
>
> You're really getting desperate just to argue a point.
>
>
>>I get this feeling from what you say Weil, you think that Nashville is a lot
>>further North than it actually is, both geographically and culturally.
>
>
> Nashville is further north from Montgomery AL than you are from
> Cincinnati. And you are about as far north from Nashville as Nashville
> is from New Orleans or Mobile. I would *never* call Nashville
> *anything* but a southern city despite claims of relativity. I would
> *never* call Cincinnati a southern city. I've lived in the South for
> most of my life and I've never heard *anyone* even consider Cincinnati
> "southern".
>
> Hey, isn't Detroit in southern Michigan? Guess that makes it a
> southern city.
>
>
>>>Well, the guy *is* from Long Island.
>>
>>See what I meant? It's north of Cincinnati. However, Long Island is way
>>south of Detroit, at least geographically. And there is quite a bit of
>>civilization further North of it.
>
>
> Now you're just being silly. Why do you bother?
>

If I was the french version of Middius or Big Cheese I would write :
"What a good idea, you should start a new secession war during this time
the rest of the world will be quite..." :-(

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:34:42 -0500, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:00:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:43:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> I can't believe O'Reilly said something so outrageous.
>>
>>>>>> Is it really THAT outrageous?
>>
>>>>> Actually it is. It's like calling Washington DC (or if you stretch
>>>>> it, Baltimore) a "southern city".
>>
>>>> I don't know much about Baltimore - I've only passed through too
>>>> many times. However the DC is way south of where I live, if you
>>>> catch my drift.
>>
>>> Unfortunately, I do. You're now conflating O'Reilly's comment about
>>> "southern" as simply being a function of geography, and it's obvious
>>> that's not what he meant.
>>
>> Straw man, I didn't say that I was speaking of south in purely a
>> geographic sense.
>
> What other sense did you mean then?

Since you don't seem to be getting it Weil, the point I keep trying to make
is that the cultural sense is what matters most in this situation.

>>>> If you
>>>> had studied the relevant history Weil, you'd know that Maryland
>>>> didn't miss becoming part of the Confederacy by that much.
>>
>>> And if *you* studied the relevant history, Ohio was *never* part of
>>> the Confederacy, and Kentucky never officially seceded into the
>>> Confederacy.
>>
>> Two straw men - I didn't mention Ohio or Kentucky's relationship to
>> the Confederacy.

> You brought it up in relation to Baltimore, so I thought it was fair
> to bring it up in terms of Cincinnati.

You lose since you brought them up in terms of my knowledge of history. It's
clear from your comments that you didn't consider the historical connection
between Maryland and the South.

>>> It was considered a border state and was as much
>>> sympathetic to the Union as it was to the Confederacy.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>> Let's put it this way Weil. You're from a place that is a whole lot
>>>> further South than Detroit. Detroit is for example the only major
>>>> US city that is actually north of Canada.

> Due north, of course. Big distinction. Soooo, by using O'Reilly's
> logic, you are virtually Canadian.

Detroit has a very strong Canadian influence, culturally speaking. I get
accused of having a Canadian accent from time to time. Detroit also has a
very strong Southern (esp Kentucky) and European influence.

>>> Let's put it *this* way then, I'm much further North than New
>>> Orleans. Therefore, I should say that Nashville is a northern city?

>> Trying desperately to wrestle you back into relevance Weil, how do
>> New Orleans and Nashville compare in terms of race relations?

> How does Detroit compare to Cincinnati?

Detroit probably has more de facto segregation than Cincinnati. AFAIK
African-Americans are more politically empowered in Detroit than in
Cincinnati.

>You've claimed that it might
> be worse, and yet, we have O'Reilly drawing old southern stereotypes
> as a reason for the current problems.

Detroit suffers in terms of racial discrimination a number of ways. We have
a lot of blacks and whites from the South that brought up their racial
baggage along with them. We also have a lot of whites from Europe that are
also very prejudiced against African-Americans. Hence, the high levels of
segregation.

>>>>> How anyone could characterize Cincinnati as a "southern city" is
>>>>> beyond me.
>>
>>>> Coming from about 250 miles further North than Cincinnati helps.
>>>> Lots. If you go north from Detroit there is really nothing but a
>>>> lot of little burghs, lakes, trees and ice.
>>
>>> Quit trying to be cute.
>>
>> More evidence that Weil thinks he has the right to be absolute ruler
>> of RAO.

> Well, of those of us discussing this, I think I'm the only one who's
> actually lived in one of the states in question, regarding O'Reilly's
> report.

There's a big difference between the culture in say Cleveland and the
culture in say, Cincinnati. Both are in Ohio, right?

>>> If you want to use geography, Cincinnati is
>>> far more north than Nashville. And I think that people in Portland,
>>> Minneapolis, and Seattle might quibble with you.

>> If you go north from Detroit you don't go near any of those cities.
>> You've got to go west to reach them.

> And north.

Far more west than North.

>>> You're really getting desperate just to argue a point.

>> No, I was just building more support for a point that you don't seem
>> to be able to grasp, Weil.

> Oh please, get to it then.

Simply that the culture of a city is a stronger determiner of racial
attitudes than geographic location.

>>>> I get this feeling from what you say Weil, you think that Nashville
>>>> is a lot further North than it actually is, both geographically and
>>>> culturally.

>>> Nashville is further north from Montgomery AL than you are from
>>> Cincinnati.

>> In terms of purely geography that's true. But I did say "culturally"
>> didn't I?

> Well yes. That's the whole point. Cincinnati isn't "culturally" a
> southern city. It just isn't.

There's some objective proof if I ever saw it: "It just isn't".

> It has nothing to do with the south.

Except that its across a fairly narrow river from Kentucky and the nearest
large city in Kentucky is some distance away and not all that large. So,
Cincinnati is a magnet for people from nearby parts of Kentucky. It's got a
big chunk of Kentucky culture running through it. People in the North think
that Kentucky is part of the South, and been there done that, its more part
of the South than the North.

>>> And you are about as far north from Nashville as Nashville
>>> is from New Orleans or Mobile.
>>
>> In terms of purely geography that's true. But I did say "culturally"
>> didn't I?

>>> I would *never* call Nashville
>>> *anything* but a southern city despite claims of relativity.

>> I surely wouldn't argue with that, either in terms of geography or
>> culture. OTOH Key West is far South of Nashville geographically, but
>> far North of it culturally.

> Actually, not so much. Key West is quite similar in spirit to
> Nashville. Key West is hardly "northern" in terms of culturally. Now
> Miami and Palm Beach, that's a different story.

Key West must have changed since I lived in Homestead.

>>> I would > *never* call Cincinnati a southern city. I've lived in
>>> the South for most of my life and I've never heard *anyone* even
>>> consider Cincinnati "southern".

>> When is the last time you were in the Cincinnati area, Weil? For me,
>> that happened last weekend and it wasn't an isolated incident by far.

> And what made it a "southern city" to you? Or were you actually *in*
> Cincinnati? Sounds like you weren't.

I was just few dozen miles north, right on the edge of Dayton.

> But that's a straw man argument anyway, since you aren't "southern".

I don't have to be southern for my observations and opinions in the matter
to be valid.

> Whether or not you were "in the area" is irrelevant to the point.

>>> Hey, isn't Detroit in southern Michigan? Guess that makes it a
>>> southern city.

>> If you go north from Detroit geographically, there is really nothing
>> but a lot of little burghs, lakes, trees and ice. Culturally,
>> Detroit is very, very diverse but also generally quite segmented.
>> It's been called the most segregated city in the US, and not just by
>> me.

> You're quite proud of that, it seems.

Proud? Surely youjest. How about ashamed?

>>>>> Well, the guy *is* from Long Island.

>>>> See what I meant? It's north of Cincinnati. However, Long Island is
>>>> way south of Detroit, at least geographically. And there is quite a
>>>> bit of civilization further North of it.
>
>>> Now you're just being silly.

>> No, I'm making a point that's obviously flying way over your head.
>> It's like Sanders trying to understand Rumsfeld or Pogo trying to
>> understand Einstein.

>>> Why do you bother?
>>
>> Vain hopes that one day you'll wake up and grow a brain, Weil.

> Well then, get to the point. That O'Reilly was simply speaking about
> geography? If you believe that, you're nuts.

I'm quite sure that O'Reilly was speaking about culture more than geography.

But even the geographic argument isn't as weak as some would like to
pretend. For example, Cincinnati is geographically South of the historic
Mason-Dixon line, a popular dividing line between North and South. How does
the conceptual Mason-Dixon line extend westerly? Microsoft's Encarta is said
to put it on the Ohio River, which is the southern city limits of
Cincinnati. All of a sudden Cincinnati is just barely North of the South.
It's inclusion in the North is just a result of a chance location along a
very wiggly river.

And so we're going to criticize O'Reilly in this regard on what obvious;y
reliable grounds? I see none, not that I have any pleasure in much of his
foolish posturing. This just isn't a good case of it. I'm sure he said
something that was more foolish either a minute before, or a minute after.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:36:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Oh please, get to it then.
>
>Simply that the culture of a city is a stronger determiner of racial
>attitudes than geographic location.

That's not what O'Reilly was insinuating.

You lose.

Again.

[Schizoid Man]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:36:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Oh please, get to it then.
> >
> >Simply that the culture of a city is a stronger determiner of racial
> >attitudes than geographic location.
>
> That's not what O'Reilly was insinuating.
>

Agreed.

There is no doubt that O'Reilly has a racist past.

He has, on numerous occasions, vilified minorites on his show (he called
Latinos 'wetbacks' a few months).

Apparently, he's got the misbegotten idea that he is the custodian of this
country's morality. In fact, I think that trait runs right through Fox.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:36:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> Oh please, get to it then.
>>
>> Simply that the culture of a city is a stronger determiner of racial
>> attitudes than geographic location.
>
> That's not what O'Reilly was insinuating.

Prove it.

> You lose.

Prove it.

> Again.

Prove it.

[George M. Middius]

Schizoid Man said:

[o'Reilly]
> Apparently, he's got the misbegotten idea that he is the custodian of this
> country's morality. In fact, I think that trait runs right through Fox.

Good point. I think it runs through the entire right wing of the
republican party, from Falwell and Coulter on down.

[GeoSynch]

dave weil does an Arny:

> ... and it's obikous

Apprantly.


GeoSynch

[dave weil]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:56:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:36:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Oh please, get to it then.
>>>
>>> Simply that the culture of a city is a stronger determiner of racial
>>> attitudes than geographic location.
>>
>> That's not what O'Reilly was insinuating.
>
>Prove it.

Why bring up southern in the first place? Why say that the reason that
the incident occured because it was right across the river from a
southern state (which even *you* admit isn't really *quite* true)? He
places the geography of the city as the cause of the problem.

>> You lose.
>
>Prove it.

Unless you can address the above point, I'm right.

>> Again.
>
>Prove it.

See above.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:56:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:36:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Oh please, get to it then.
>>>>
>>>> Simply that the culture of a city is a stronger determiner of
>>>> racial attitudes than geographic location.
>>>
>>> That's not what O'Reilly was insinuating.

>> Prove it.

> Why bring up southern in the first place?

This is a good question, but it's hardly addressing the claim you're
supposed to prove.


>Why say that the reason that
> the incident occurred because it was right across the river from a
> southern state (which even *you* admit isn't really *quite* true)?

Who said that? Let me be clear - IMO the reason why the incident happened
was not because Cincinnati is a Southern city but because Cincinnati has the
culture it has, and because the fickle finger of fate pointed a certain way
at a certain time. You can't deny the role that chance also played in this
regrettably, tragic event.

> He places the geography of the city as the cause of the problem.

He was posturing, he was playing off regional biases, he was being a Fox
newsman, he was being a media puppet.

>>> You lose.
>>
>> Prove it.

> Unless you can address the above point, I'm right.

Not at all. But, I did address the point.

>>> Again.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> See above.

Irrelevant straw man argument.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:05:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:56:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:36:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Oh please, get to it then.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simply that the culture of a city is a stronger determiner of
>>>>> racial attitudes than geographic location.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what O'Reilly was insinuating.
>
>>> Prove it.
>
>> Why bring up southern in the first place?
>
>This is a good question, but it's hardly addressing the claim you're
>supposed to prove.

It addresses it *directly*.

>>Why say that the reason that
>> the incident occurred because it was right across the river from a
>> southern state (which even *you* admit isn't really *quite* true)?
>
>Who said that? Let me be clear - IMO the reason why the incident happened
>was not because Cincinnati is a Southern city but because Cincinnati has the
>culture it has, and because the fickle finger of fate pointed a certain way
>at a certain time. You can't deny the role that chance also played in this
>regrettably, tragic event.

See below.

>> He places the geography of the city as the cause of the problem.
>
>He was posturing, he was playing off regional biases, he was being a Fox
>newsman, he was being a media puppet.

THAT'S what I was saying. You're supporting *me* now. Thank you.

>>>> You lose.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>
>> Unless you can address the above point, I'm right.
>
>Not at all. But, I did address the point.

You didn't address it with an actual answer.

>>>> Again.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> See above.
>
>Irrelevant straw man argument.

See above is an irrelevant straw man answer?

Har!

You've got yourself *so* twisted around trying to argue both sides of
an argument simply because you don't like me, you don't know which end
is up.

I win.