"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.