More Nonsense from Janet
I noticed this in my referrals again- http://groomlake.net/
I sent her e mail again, since she clearly has a habit of twisting what I say to fit her argument. Below is the e mail I sent her, my words are in bold.
lol. since i only have a min, ill deal with only this part right now-
==========================
I also your silly comment about O'Reilly and his joke, which you suddenly claim is racism- tho there was no racism involved whatsoever.
Wait a minute.
Now you're saying that O'Reilly made a joke? When did you reach this conclusion? You never mentioned this before. Not in your original defense of O'Reilly nor in your response to my first post. In fact, previous to this point your entire defense of O'Reilly was that he was not using the word in a racist manner.
Tell me Josh, if O'Reilly was not using the word in a racist manner, then why would he have needed to make it a joke? If he isn't using the racist quality of the word for humorous purposes, then it defeats the purpose of using it as a joke.
So which is it, Josh? Was O'Reilly using the word as a racist term so he could make a joke out of it, or did he say "wetback" meaning a non-racist definition not found in the dictionary? It can't be both, so which one have you decided to use as your defense this week?
Josh, make this easy on yourself. You've been caught. You purposefully lied and dissembled about the definition of "wetback" and now you're trying to backpedal out of your flawed defense. Admit it. At least attempt to salvage some shred of whatever credibility you have left.
==========================
deception...nice tactic. of course when i mentioned the joke oreilly made, i was speaking of the hub cap joke...you know very well i wasnt speaking about the "wetback" comment. you leave out the part where you mention his hubcap joke, and try to get people to think i was speaking of the wetback issue and changing my story. good try, but its pretty weak.
as for the wetback comment...i did NOT change the meaning of the word. its SLANG. when looking at the PURE DEFINITION of the word, it is indeed the way oreilly used it. since it's SLANG, the word has taken a negative connotation by many. If we're to believe you, then no one on earth would be allowed to use the word "wetback" without the word carrying the racist connotation. But, all thinking people know that there are clearly thousands, tens of thousands, maybe more that use the word in it's simple definition. You claim that O'Reilly is a big racist because of ONE word that CAN EASILY be used both ways (the negative connotation or the pure defintion form?) Wow. One word that clearly has double meaning is enough to make someone racist in your mind. That's insane.
also this-
======================
Now, you're convinced that racism is a huge problem in this country, and you link me calling me dumb and naive...tell Larry Elder who is BLACK that racism is a big problem...he doesn't agree at all. Many black leaders are on his side. I guess they're just a bunch of dumb naive black dudes, huh?
Translation: I found this black guy who says that racism isn't a problem and Fox News agrees with him. Since I haven't grown up yet and don't have any life experience I'll just parrot what they said. I will also ignore things like this because I may have to think which could in turn lead me to an opinion I know I'm not allowed to have.
======================
one black man? there are a number of black "leaders" in this country that think that all people are on level playing ground if they have the same education and the same determination. you say a black "man" yet refuse to acknowledge that there are clearly many black MEN who agree with elder's views. you also neglect to answer my question- i guess you do think there are a bunch of black leaders out there who are "naive sheep," right? hardly janet. as for fox news agreeing with him, you twist my words on purpose there (another bad tactic that'll easily come back on you), because i don't recall ever seeing elder on fox news...so i never made any connection between him and fox news (putting words in my mouth is never a good idea either)...
and finally, this-
===============================
She then goes on to critique my view of drugs. Naive view? I simply stated that addiction, in it's popular usage, doesn't exist...BECAUSE (as I explained in the post she links), YOU- that's right, YOU must do drugs YOURSELF. Drugs are rarely forced into a person's veins or lungs or whatever!...YOU have to CHOICE to pick up a needle or a pipe and put it to YOUR mouth or YOUR vein and use YOUR muscles to suck smoke into YOUR lungs. This all stuff YOU do without the help of others, and you do it with your own free will.
So, in your view, choosing whether or not to do drugs is much like choosing whether you want a Big Mac or a Quarter Pounder at McDonland's. That, dear boy, is why its a naive view. To call it over-simplistic would be generous.
What you fail to grasp is why people choose to use drugs. To you, people can smoke the joint or not smoke the joint, have the chicken or get the fish instead. Whatever. It's a choice like any other. That's stupid and naive, and it shows a real lack of thought or understanding of how the real world works. It's the same ignorant attitude that has lead to the failed Drug War and it's continued uselessness.
===============================
why people choose to drugs? why? its okay because they were forced into doing drugs? and you say it's not a choice like any other? actually, by defintion, it is...i'm sure i said it on my site, but i'll say it again for you- drugs don't jump into your body...you have to actually make a CHOICE to do them...so, since it's drugs, it's a different choice than picking food at mcdonalds? how do you measure the difference? what is the exact difference on the scale of choices? in the real world...you either choose to do drugs or you choose not to. good try again...but once again, you lose.
now...maybe you'd like to stop putting words in my mouth, twisting the words that actually DID come out of my mouth, and making connections between issues that I NEVER made...
Posted by Josh at May 7, 2003 07:17 AM
More Nonsense from Janet
I noticed this in my referrals again- http://groomlake.net/
I sent her e mail again, since she clearly has a habit of twisting what I say to fit her argument. Below is the e mail I sent her, my words are in bold.
lol. since i only have a min, ill deal with only this part right now-
==========================
I also your silly comment about O'Reilly and his joke, which you suddenly claim is racism- tho there was no racism involved whatsoever.
Wait a minute.
Now you're saying that O'Reilly made a joke? When did you reach this conclusion? You never mentioned this before. Not in your original defense of O'Reilly nor in your response to my first post. In fact, previous to this point your entire defense of O'Reilly was that he was not using the word in a racist manner.
Tell me Josh, if O'Reilly was not using the word in a racist manner, then why would he have needed to make it a joke? If he isn't using the racist quality of the word for humorous purposes, then it defeats the purpose of using it as a joke.
So which is it, Josh? Was O'Reilly using the word as a racist term so he could make a joke out of it, or did he say "wetback" meaning a non-racist definition not found in the dictionary? It can't be both, so which one have you decided to use as your defense this week?
Josh, make this easy on yourself. You've been caught. You purposefully lied and dissembled about the definition of "wetback" and now you're trying to backpedal out of your flawed defense. Admit it. At least attempt to salvage some shred of whatever credibility you have left.
==========================
deception...nice tactic. of course when i mentioned the joke oreilly made, i was speaking of the hub cap joke...you know very well i wasnt speaking about the "wetback" comment. you leave out the part where you mention his hubcap joke, and try to get people to think i was speaking of the wetback issue and changing my story. good try, but its pretty weak.
as for the wetback comment...i did NOT change the meaning of the word. its SLANG. when looking at the PURE DEFINITION of the word, it is indeed the way oreilly used it. since it's SLANG, the word has taken a negative connotation by many. If we're to believe you, then no one on earth would be allowed to use the word "wetback" without the word carrying the racist connotation. But, all thinking people know that there are clearly thousands, tens of thousands, maybe more that use the word in it's simple definition. You claim that O'Reilly is a big racist because of ONE word that CAN EASILY be used both ways (the negative connotation or the pure defintion form?) Wow. One word that clearly has double meaning is enough to make someone racist in your mind. That's insane.
also this-
======================
Now, you're convinced that racism is a huge problem in this country, and you link me calling me dumb and naive...tell Larry Elder who is BLACK that racism is a big problem...he doesn't agree at all. Many black leaders are on his side. I guess they're just a bunch of dumb naive black dudes, huh?
Translation: I found this black guy who says that racism isn't a problem and Fox News agrees with him. Since I haven't grown up yet and don't have any life experience I'll just parrot what they said. I will also ignore things like this because I may have to think which could in turn lead me to an opinion I know I'm not allowed to have.
======================
one black man? there are a number of black "leaders" in this country that think that all people are on level playing ground if they have the same education and the same determination. you say a black "man" yet refuse to acknowledge that there are clearly many black MEN who agree with elder's views. you also neglect to answer my question- i guess you do think there are a bunch of black leaders out there who are "naive sheep," right? hardly janet. as for fox news agreeing with him, you twist my words on purpose there (another bad tactic that'll easily come back on you), because i don't recall ever seeing elder on fox news...so i never made any connection between him and fox news (putting words in my mouth is never a good idea either)...
and finally, this-
===============================
She then goes on to critique my view of drugs. Naive view? I simply stated that addiction, in it's popular usage, doesn't exist...BECAUSE (as I explained in the post she links), YOU- that's right, YOU must do drugs YOURSELF. Drugs are rarely forced into a person's veins or lungs or whatever!...YOU have to CHOICE to pick up a needle or a pipe and put it to YOUR mouth or YOUR vein and use YOUR muscles to suck smoke into YOUR lungs. This all stuff YOU do without the help of others, and you do it with your own free will.
So, in your view, choosing whether or not to do drugs is much like choosing whether you want a Big Mac or a Quarter Pounder at McDonland's. That, dear boy, is why its a naive view. To call it over-simplistic would be generous.
What you fail to grasp is why people choose to use drugs. To you, people can smoke the joint or not smoke the joint, have the chicken or get the fish instead. Whatever. It's a choice like any other. That's stupid and naive, and it shows a real lack of thought or understanding of how the real world works. It's the same ignorant attitude that has lead to the failed Drug War and it's continued uselessness.
===============================
why people choose to drugs? why? its okay because they were forced into doing drugs? and you say it's not a choice like any other? actually, by defintion, it is...i'm sure i said it on my site, but i'll say it again for you- drugs don't jump into your body...you have to actually make a CHOICE to do them...so, since it's drugs, it's a different choice than picking food at mcdonalds? how do you measure the difference? what is the exact difference on the scale of choices? in the real world...you either choose to do drugs or you choose not to. good try again...but once again, you lose.
now...maybe you'd like to stop putting words in my mouth, twisting the words that actually DID come out of my mouth, and making connections between issues that I NEVER made...
Posted by Josh at May 7, 2003 07:17 AM