Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

A Response From Jill D.

"He (JD Curtis) seems to think bigotry is using racist names or categorizing any entire group (Entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole for him) .
He's not racist because he married a black woman and has links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense."




Jill D., Nov. 14th



I stand by each sentence of it.



Jill D., Nov. 25th



Outstanding Jill, welcome to the party. Better late than never. It's nice that you "stand by" your statements, now please defend them. In case it somehow escaped your notice, I posted my rebuttal to your remarks immediately below yours, yet curiously, you don't address a single point that I raised. I guess if I were a maleducated intellectually vapid fool, I wouldnt try to defend such slop either. In case you have forgotten, I will repost that which I wrote...



#1. Did I ever say that an "entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole for me" or even remotely try and argue as such? If the answer is absolutely never, then why is this not an complete and outright lie? I'm sure that you meant to answer this earlier, so please post your response here. As it stands now, you are accused of lying.



#2. I will go on record and state that it is an absolute, 1000% fact that my wife is black. The above writer (Jill D.) mentions this but then fails to square this with the alleged, yet factually bankrupt notion that I am in any way, a bigot, (or a racist). Please explain why this is so.



#3. "..links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense". As if I use this as mere cover for my latent racism. Jill D. fails to take into consideration that the sidebar of columnists on my blog serves as a resource for me. In a blog that is about a year and a half old I have cited columns and created threads for writers like Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, Ellis Washington (at least 3X), Mychal Massie (at least 5X),Deroy Murdock (at least 5X), and from Thomas Sowell a minimum of SEVENTEEN TIMES. Can you cite any other blog on the internet that you frequent that cites more black columnists then this one? If not, then perhaps you can provide a link to the blog that you comment on in which black columnists are featured at all. If you comment on no such blog at all, then why are you so closed minded to exploring the writings of black columnists? Youre not a racist, are you?



Please answer the above in order that we can get to the bottom of this. Happy Thanksgiving BTW.

23 comments:

Theological Discourse said...

I wouldn't worry about it JD. Labeling is a common tactic employed by illogical people and cowardice is the backup plan when someone sees through their tactics. One only needs to look up the word "bigotry" and "bigot" to see that these people are completely and utterly clueless as to what it is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.


Regarding black people, do you possess a stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from your own? I haven't seen any evidence for it and more importantly I haven't seen anyone attempting to label you as a bigot provide a shred of evidence either. If we look at the 2nd definition we need to look at the word bigot.

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


Regarding black people, do you possess beliefs and prejudices of a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion? regarding black people, have you committed any actions of a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion?

I have not seen any evidence and more importantly I have not seen anyone accusing you of bigotry produce any evidence to back up their accusations.

According to the definition of bigotry and bigot you are not a bigot and the people accusing you of being a bigot or engaging in bigotry have shown they're both ignorant in what the definition of the word and they're complete cowards because they can't even back up their assertions. They're typical internet psuedo intellectuals. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Theological Discourse said...

The very fact you're married to a black woman proves you are not a bigot in anyway shape or form, since one must be It's hilarious how stupid froggie and his group of psuedo intellectual trolls are.

JD Curtis said...

Jill, I will post your response minus the link to the intellectual sewer that you like to play in.

Jill D said...

You edited my comment.
Removed the part that gave my comment it's original context.
And lost (or removed) the formating.

JD Curtis said...

This is Jill's response...

"What is it about the board that makes you call it a cesspool?

I posted my rebuttal to your remarks immediately below yours, yet curiously, you don't address a single point that I raised.

Oh sorry, I didn't notice that that was meant to be a rebuttal because some of what you said actually reinforced what I said.

Since I stand by -every- sentence let's examine -every- sentence.

1)"But back to JD, he has a hot-button for being called a bigot."

Nothing else I've seen on this blog sends you into "melt-down mode" faster than being called a bigot. You started deleting comments and censoring commenters every time I've seen anyone call you a bigot. (This week and March 9th for example)

So do I think you have a "hot-button" in regards to being called a bigot? Yes.
You didn't start banning commenters who called you "lunatic" or "intellectual dishonest". You didn't ban a Christian poster who said the Jews were to blame for the holocaust. But you will ban anyone who thinks some of your ideas are bigoted.

2)"He believes he isn't a bigot because no-one can prove to his satisfaction that he is one."

This should be obvious. Can anyone prove to your satisfaction that you have bigoted ideas? If I gave you a list of ways you have described "The Left" would you say you were "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"?

3)(a)"He seems to think bigotry is using racist names" 3)(b) "or categorizing any entire group (Entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole for him)."

a) When confronted with the dictionary definition of bigotry, you wanted to change the definition from holding these ideas to expressing these ideas.

How about this one? "Bigotry: the expression of hatred or aggression towards those who are different"
http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2010/08/advocating-morality-doesnt-make-people.html?showComment=1281658367087#c6790320520685917504

There's a huge difference.

b)
Example:
"I stated "the vermin in the media", not "all (or even most) of the media are vermin"." (JD, August 27, 2010 5:17 PM)

4)"He's not racist because he married a black woman and has links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense."

That IS your frequent defense. You even used it when repling to this.

5) Links:

http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2010/08/advocating-morality-doesnt-make-people.html

http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2010/08/bigotry-101.html

http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-tobacco-tax-and-radical-islam.html

JD Curtis said...

The very fact you're married to a black woman proves you are not a bigot in anyway shape or form, since one must be It's hilarious how stupid froggie and his group of psuedo intellectual trolls are

First, I would like to thank you for your comments TD. I visited your blog the other dy and I'll have to stop back again soon.

The fact that my wife is black would provide the bomb-throwing leftist who disagrees with me a moment of pause if they were to consider making the accusation of rqcism against me. They would have to explain that away first, but youre right. I havent encountered anything resembling a valid argument from them yet and they would be dumb to try.

Now that wouldn't exclude me from being prejudiced against, say, Jews for example. But they can try to quote mine all they want and they would never find a cross word against either Israel or Jewish people here.

JD Curtis said...

You edited my comment.
Removed the part that gave my comment it's original context.
And lost (or removed) the formating


I'm sorry Jill, but don't you mean to say that your comment is 100% intact and exactly the same, Italics and all, as when you submitted it except that I omitted for the very first sentence when you decided you were going to link up the Liar's Club to which you belong?

Think carefully before answering. You wouldn't want to be caught in another lie now, would you?

As old fashioned as it may seem, I don't particularly want to link a site on my blog that makes baseless accusations against people and then fails to back them up. You'll just have to deal with it.

JD Curtis said...

JD
-Says comment is 100% intact.
-then admits a part has been ommitted (so it isn't 100% intact)
-Accuses me of being caught in a lie.
-then asserts that the censorship will go on basically.
Jill

I'm sorry Jill, but didn't I state that "I'm sorry Jill, but don't you mean to say that your comment is 100% intact and exactly the same, Italics and all, as when you submitted it except that I omitted for the very first sentence when you decided you were going to link up the Liar's Club to which you belong?"

You seem to have left that part out. Please explain why.

Also, how did the context of your post change in the slightest? Failure to explain this would provide further proof that you are a liar. Not that any more is needed of course. The omitted sentence read, "If you posted this on the [name of forum] board, where I actually made the comment, I would have seen it sooner."

That's all.

How does this change affect any of comments that you made in even the slightest way at all?

JD Curtis said...

First. I did not post the comment that you quoted at 7:28 here. You have cut and paste it from a conversation in another forum

So what? Do you deny that these are your words?

The original Nov 14th comment was also from a conversation in another forum. I was talking about you, not to you at the time

What's the matter Jill? You have stated on two seperate occassions that you "stand by every sentence." Was that a lie and you now want to retract your earlier endorsement that you so heartily gave to your own words? Please explain. If I were to talk about somebody in a public forum, I wouldn't blame that person at all if they wished to correct/criticize that what I said. Youre not trying to suppress my free speech concerning statements people make specifically about me in discussion forums, are you?

If you admit the post is edited, it is not "100% intact"

And that isn't what I said at all, is it? For the second time, didn't I state that your entire comment was published except for the first sdntence? (A sentence BTW which read, "If you posted this on the [name of forum] board, where I actually made the comment, I would have seen it sooner.")

I stated that I posted was everything that you wrote from your entry except for that one sentence.

OK, you've called me a lot of names. Do you feel like explaining why? What have I lied about?

Before you continue any further I pointedly asked you Also, how did the context of your post change in the slightest? (By excluding your preliminary sentence which read "If you posted this on the [name of forum] board, where I actually made the comment, I would have seen it sooner.") Failure to explain this would provide further proof that you are a liar. Not that any more is needed of course. The omitted sentence read, "If you posted this on the [name of forum] board, where I actually made the comment, I would have seen it sooner."

That's all.

How does this change affect any of comments that you made in even the slightest way at all?


I am stating that the ommission of your first sentence changed nothing concerning the context your comments, thus your statement "You edited my comment.
Removed the part that gave my comment it's original context" is a lie.

Please explain how the leaving out the sentence with the link that you embedded into it "If you posted this on the [name of forum] board, where I actually made the comment, I would have seen it sooner." changed anything at all concerning the context of your remarks.

Please answer this before we continue.

JD Curtis said...

Off Topic-

Who is this person? Is anyone a bit internet savy?

Shortly after I posted this thread last night, they seemed quite intent on digging through my archive, even to the point of obsession.

First they spent well over an hour searching 20 different page views from my archives. Even stuff from '09.

Next, they were there over an hour again, this time with 15 different page views in the archive.

Next, over 2 hours and 15 minutes with 40 different pages views from my archive.

Still going strong, they then decide thay can't get enough and return for 2 hours more and pour over 24 more entries.

And none of this takes into account the numerous times since last night they have entered and left after only a couple of minutes or a few seconds.

Is such behaviour considered NOT to be unhinged in certain circles?

Jill is this you? If it is, I would like to congratulate you on taking so much time of your time to prove something that should be quite obvious to anyone.

JD Curtis said...

Upon checking my dashboard today, I saw that there were a couple of comments awaiting moderation. Although they are a bit off-topic, as a gesture of good faith I will address a couple of the points that were raised. First, to Reynold.



If you remove the first sentence of her comment, then it is NOT 100% intact and exactly the same now, is it?



I think you would have a valid point if I merely stated that her comment was 100% intact without the qualifier 'except for the first sentence'. This is a point point that I included in my comments and is quite clear to see. Your point is moot and only serves to obfuscate the discussion.



you say that she's a member of the "Liar's Club"? Back up your accusation



Certainly. We are currently awaiting an explanation from Jill as to why the exclusion of a single sentence (that contained an embedded link to a forum that I did not wish to link to on my blog) affected the context of her commentary (which is timestamped 3:45 above) in any way. The excluded sentence basically boiled down to 'I would have responded earlier had you posted your comment to another forum' and thus far I do not see how this affected any of the several points raised by Jill. She is welcome to explain this.






Next, from Froggie..



I thought it quite acrimonious and short sighted to characterize all the folks at [name of intelectually dicey forum] with that list of perjoratives, just as you are making a case for respect of your issues



I did not "characterize all folks" but rather offered criticism of a discussion forum that I found quite lacking when it came to such inconvenient things known as 'facts'.



Since you seem quite content to criticize my remarks, is there an instance in which it was suggested that you were either a racist or bigot in a public forum and you dealt with it in what you perceived to be a more effective manner? If so, please post the link here in order that we may see your response to such a (presumably) false accusation and we can compare the two.



Now that I have answered certain questions raised by commenters, I would like to steer the discussion back to a point I raised earlier, that of certain, shall we say, 'troll like behavior'. In my entry up above that is timestamped 10:29, I provided links to a certain character who seems to be quite curious about the content of my blog. Wouldn't such behavior qualify as, as I described earlier, a bit "obsessive"? Would the spending of so much of one's waking hours, in such a short time frame, combing over a blog with a fine tooth comb, be considered normal or obsessive behavior? Indeed, since I last posted, (according to sitemeter), this person was back again for well over an hour lurking in the anonymous ether of the internet.



I pose this question directly to Reynold and to Froggie. A 'yes' or 'no' type of answer with supporting commentary would be greatly appreciated. Please note that I am asking about the very act itself, not the right or privilege (however you want to term it) of looking into an archive. That I don't question at all. My question refers to the amount of time spent as well as the overall number of page views.

Jill D said...

If there is something I am doing I leave tabs open in my web-browser as sort of "soft-bookmarks".
My browser is configured to re-open the tabs I had open when I closed my browser.
That way I don't have to clutter my bookmarks with links I won't be interested in in the long term.
Every time I open my browser, all the tabs are re-opened.

Another thing, and this part is important, everytime you press "refresh", you chalk up another page-view.

That explains why it looks like I looked at one page for a long time. The tab was open and I pressed refresh every once in a while. As far as I know, this is the only way to see if the page has been updated since you are 'moderating' comments.

The earlier one where I looked at older pages was of course when I was gathering the examples that are in an earlier comment I made.

Jill D said...

Do you deny that these are your words?

What? No, of course not. why would I?

What's the matter Jill? You have stated on two seperate occassions that you "stand by every sentence." Was that a lie and you now want to retract your earlier endorsement that you so heartily gave to your own words?

I backed up every sentence of what I said so why would I want to retract?

Youre not trying to suppress my free speech concerning statements people make specifically about me in discussion forums, are you?

This is particularly ironic. You are free to post on the web-forum I made those comments on. You will not be censored. You, on the other hand, are making statements about me and literally suppressing my speach here.

For the second time, didn't I state that your entire comment was published except for the first sdntence

You did and I quoted you saying that.

Please answer this before we continue.

We have reached the point where you decide to stop responding but you need to blame 'your opponent' for your lack of responses.
Look, posts made in different places have different contexts. How about we change my statement to "removed the part that showed the original comment in its orginal context" because you did cut and paste that original comment from the other web-forum and you won't allow people to see it in it's original context.

JD Curtis said...

How about we change my statement to "removed the part that showed the original comment in its orginal context" because you did cut and paste that original comment from the other web-forum and you won't allow people to see it in it's original context

Sigh.. This lying is becoming a bit tedious Jill. Please let the record show that when asked to back up the assertion that the removal of the first sentence of her entry (that basically stated she would have responded sooner had I posted in another forum) changed the context of her statements, that she never explained why this is so.


I backed up every sentence of what I said so why would I want to retract?

Could this be another lie from Jill? This is beoming pathetic.

In order to show that you, quote "backed up every sentence of what (you) said" please show where, as I started out in the beginning of this thread by stating..

"I will go on record and state that it is an absolute, 1000% fact that my wife is black. The above writer (Jill D.) mentions this but then fails to square this with the alleged, yet factually bankrupt notion that I am in any way, a bigot, (or a racist)."

Please show where you answered this or admit you are lying.

I'll get the ball rolling here. What type of person would marry somebody from a different race, bring them home to mom and have bi-racial children?

Someone who is open minded about race or a racist bigot?

Furthermore, you never addressed this statement either.

""..links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense". As if I use this as mere cover for my latent racism. Jill D. fails to take into consideration that the sidebar of columnists on my blog serves as a resource for me. In a blog that is about a year and a half old I have cited columns and created threads for writers like Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, Ellis Washington (at least 3X), Mychal Massie (at least 5X),Deroy Murdock (at least 5X), and from Thomas Sowell a minimum of SEVENTEEN TIMES. Can you cite any other blog on the internet that you frequent that cites more black columnists then this one? If not, then perhaps you can provide a link to the blog that you comment on in which black columnists are featured at all. If you comment on no such blog at all, then why are you so closed minded to exploring the writings of black columnists? Youre not a racist, are you?"

If you can show where you backed up your statements in reference to these direct questions, you can demonstrate that you arent lying. If you cannot, the accusation stands.

Jill D said...

I suggest you re-read my original comment. It is about how you react to being called a bigot not whether or not you are a bigot.

I backed up my description of how you react. I gave examples of when you behaved the way I described.

Where did I call you a bigot?
Where did I ever call you racist?

JD Curtis said...

I suggest you re-read my original comment. It is about how you react to being called a bigot not whether or not you are a bigot

I suggest you re-read your above comment Jill. You stated that you "backed up every sentence of what (you) said" and this is not true.

Please note that this is the fourth time that I am posting "I will go on record and state that it is an absolute, 1000% fact that my wife is black. The above writer (Jill D.) mentions this but then fails to square this with the alleged, yet factually bankrupt notion that I am in any way, a bigot, (or a racist). Please explain why this is so." You have yet to back up this statement and explain what you meant by this.

Where did I call you a bigot?
Where did I ever call you racist?


Irrelevant. Please answer the question "What type of person would marry somebody from a different race, bring them home to mom and have bi-racial children? Someone who is open minded about race or a racist bigot?"

Please note that this is the second time that I posted this direct question to you. If one is going to lie, then why not be evasive as well?

Jill D said...

You stated that you "backed up every sentence of what (you) said" and this is not true.

I did backup every sentence of my statement I made on another web-forum at Sun Nov 14 at 10:27 pm.

This statement was about how you react to being accused of bigotry.

In my comment at 8:47 pm on Thu Nov 25 on the other web-forum, I examined each and every sentence in my original statement and gave examples.
An example of one of the examples given was; when you are accused of bigotry, you mention you are married to a black lady. Which I never said was untrue.

Now I haven't even accused you of bigotry or racism and you still want to parade your wife in front of me. That demonstrates my original point.

"I will go on record and state that it is an absolute, 1000% fact that my wife is black. The above writer (Jill D.) mentions this but then fails to square this with the alleged, yet factually bankrupt notion that I am in any way, a bigot, (or a racist). Please explain why this is so."

I never called you a bigot or a racist. You are asking me to justify arguments I never advanced. I said that when accused of being a bigot you state you have a black wife. I believe your wife exists. It doesn't change how you react when people accuse you of bigotry.

"What type of person would marry somebody from a different race, bring them home to mom and have bi-racial children? Someone who is open minded about race or a racist bigot?"

Since I've never called you a bigot or a racist, how can this be relevent? You still react the way I said you react. I don't even want to mention that there is other types of bigotry besides racial bigotry.

If one is going to lie, then why not be evasive as well?

By the way, when "one" is used as a pronoun, it is a replacement for the pronoun "I". "The substitution of one for I, a typically British use, is usually regarded as an affectation in the United States." according to dictionary.reference.com.
I shouldn't talk, my English is not always the best.
Now, I haven't lied and I think you are being evasive and heavy-handed with the censorship.

If you want to be pedantic, remember you said you only censored one sentence of one of my comments? Go back and count how many sentences you actually removed.

JD Curtis said...

I never called you a bigot or a racist. You are asking me to justify arguments I never advanced

Jill, for the third time "What type of person would marry somebody from a different race, bring them home to mom and have bi-racial children?

Someone who is open minded about race or a racist bigot?"

If it helps you understand the question better, just think in terms that we are only talking in general here. The only person here that is accusing you of making a statement you did not make is you.

Will the third time be the charm? If you like, please answer the question in terms of of an accusation of racism against someone. Then we will move on to the subject of bigotry.

I realize that to answer this question honestly may put you at odds with someone in your discussion forum, but that is no reason to continue your established pattern of evasion.

Jill D said...

Jill, for the third time "What type of person would marry somebody from a different race, bring them home to mom and have bi-racial children?

Someone who is open minded about race or a racist bigot?
"

'Open minded about race' or 'racist bigot' are not the only two options when presented with this data.
It doesn't prove you are open-minded about race, it provides evidence towards your open-mindedness about the race of the person you are going to marry. That is, that you are liberal about inter-racial marriage (and, as far as this piece of data leads, only one inter-racial marriage - yours).
Now I haven't put forward any argument that you are racist so I didn't want to get into this.
Remember, there are more types of bigotry than just racial bigotry.

JD Curtis said...

It doesn't prove you are open-minded about race, it provides evidence towards your open-mindedness about the race of the person you are going to marry. That is, that you are liberal about inter-racial marriage (and, as far as this piece of data leads, only one inter-racial marriage - yours)

I must say Jill, that after several days and numerous attempts at having you answer a direct question, that I was expecting something a little bit better than this. You seem to have misunderstood the question that was put to you several times on a very fundamental level and in a couple of different ways.

First you personalize your response by applying it specifically to me when I asked nothing of the sort. I asked "What type of person would marry somebody from a different race, bring them home to mom and have bi-racial children?

Someone who is open minded about race or a racist bigot?"

I wasn't speaking directly to my situation but in general, of the type of person (or better yet, people) who would perform such acts. Not of myself.

Secondly, you make a common mistake of introducing the word proof to your argument.

For all we know, Froggie could have the most vile and seething hatred of people of other races whenever the thought enters his mind. Yet science has yet to develop a sort of "racist litmus paper" that if applied properly, would yield clearly visible and reliable results, positive or negative, when it comes to him being a racist bigot or not.

Instead, the best that we can have in this plane of existance would be evidence. In this case, I speak specifically to the definition of evidence that reads, "1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment".


In an accusation of racism, the best that can be done to show that one is a racist or not would be to present the best relevant evidence, pro and con, and then a reasonable, rational person could then make up their mind based upon it.

Wouldn't you agree? If not, then how else could one disprove an accusation of racism?

Yes, we will be moving on to general bigotry later, but please answer this question first.

Jill D said...

"First you personalise your response by applying it specifically to me when I asked nothing of the sort"

You'll have to forgive me. The first time you asked it was after you stated it was a 1000% fact your wife is black.

"of the type of person (or better yet, people) who would perform such acts."

You're muddying the water between expression of bigotry (or non-bigotry) and actually holding these ideas.
And I don't like to characterise any group of people.
I try hard to use the concepts - Bigoted ideas not Bigots.
People can have bigoted ideas in one area of their life and more open ideas in another area. They might reject the title "bigot" because of the openness of another area of their lives. So I think it's better to describe held opinions as bigoted or not instead of the person.

"Secondly, you make a common mistake of introducing the word proof to your argument."

I said it doesn't prove but provide evidence.
I notice you didn't tell this to Theological Discourse when he said "The very fact you're married to a black woman proves you are not a bigot in anyway shape or form"
And you yourself use the concept of "proof" in regards to racism in the comment I am replying to!

"Instead, the best that we can have in this plane of existence would be evidence."

Evidence is more about the expression of bigotry not bigotry.

"If not, then how else could one disprove an accusation of racism?"

You can look at patterns of behaviour, opinions expressed, hypocrisy in these opinions, etc but(and this is a tautology) but if other people think a person is racist then other people think that person is racist. Some people may sprout an opinion on another's racism after one event or saying, other people may grow an opinion on another's racism after examining patterns.

I noticed your use of the word "disprove".

JD Curtis said...

The first time you asked it was after you stated it was a 1000% fact your wife is black

Ahh yes. I cut and pasted my original remark from my Nov. 16th post. You didn't even begin to address the relevant points I raised until Nov. 29th, two weeks later.

You're muddying the water between expression of bigotry (or non-bigotry) and actually holding these ideas

Could you please explain how one might know that somebody holds such ideas unless that person actually expresses them and they are made known?

I don't like to characterise any group of people

Great. Neither do I. Given your many hours of research, would you care to disagree? If you do disagree, then please paste the relevant quote here where I characterized an entire group. This of course would lend support to an accusation of bigotry.

if other people think a person is racist then other people think that person is racist

I don't disagree.

Now, if somebody were to accused of being a "racist prick" in a discussion forum, then mentioning the fact that their spouse is black could be considered one piece of evidence that the accused is not a racist. Couldn't it?

Not that this bit of information in and of itself would entirely dispell the notion, but this particular information could indeed be considered "evidence" in that it is something that could be "helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment". (Unless you would like to somehow argue otherwise)

Especially if that someone is defamed by a loose, off the cuff, accusation of being a racist by someone who did not provide any evidence that one could see that would meet a common dictionary definition of a racism which in this case is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races".

For illustration purposes, the person making the accusation is offended by a criticism made about a certain subset within the black community, not an entire race. "Black" happened to be the race of the accused's spouse. Couldn't this be considered "evidence" to the contrary concerning the charge of racism?

Jill D said...

I feel like I'm a proxy for someone you'd rather be talking to.
Let's just say I don't think you're racist in your personal relationships.
Happy? Want to move on?