koshersalaami

koshersalaami
Birthday
October 01
Bio
Male, Jewish, in my extremely early sixties, married with kids (well, at this point I guess that should be "kid"). Thanks to Lezlie for avatar artwork - sort of a translation of my screen name. "Salaam" is peace in Arabic, hence the peace sign. (No, my name doesn't mean "hunk of meat" and yes, the pun is intentional.)

MY RECENT POSTS

Koshersalaami's Links

Salon.com
NOVEMBER 17, 2013 6:20PM

Racism on Open Salon: What are we tolerating here?

Rate: 24 Flag

A blogger states that a Black friend of mine voted for the President in the last election specifically because my friend is Black, like his race predetermined his vote and he had no choice. An argument ensues. In the course of the argument, about racism, this blogger decides to introduce a reference from Brer Rabbit, thinking this is perfectly OK. 

My friend, quite reasonably under the circumstances, objects. A second blogger writes a post in defense of the first blogger, attacking my friend for having the unmitigated gall to defend himself.
 
The second blogger recently described my friend's speech/writing as "patois." My friend's writing style is, if anything, pedantically professorial. Trust me when I tell you that "patois" is not the first adjective that comes to mind when you read him. Or, quite frankly, the fifteenth.

My friend has a female friend who frequently argues on his behalf. When she changes her avatar to a photograph of herself, this second blogger asks why she changed her avatar to a photograph of a White woman. 
 
A third blogger writes a post comparing the President, unfavorably, to Jackie Robinson. Interesting choice. When challenged on this by my friend, this blogger claims that race is basically irrelevant to this discussion, and that my friend is being oversensitive. (I'm expressing his reply in far more polite terms than he did.)  This particular blogger likes to "push the envelope." When you do that with racism, you risk crossing some boundaries. Some things are not cute. 

A fourth blogger, in a conversation with my friend, accuses him of "shucking and jiving." Again, interesting choice. There is nothing remotely jive-like about my friend's syntax.

A fifth blogger, in the course of a conversation, tells my friend that he is "no Chauncey DeVega." Mr. DeVega, for those of you who are unfamiliar with him, is a blogger here who writes a lot about racial issues. He is, like my friend, Black, and, like my friend, his avatar is a photograph of himself, so this is obvious. What exactly inspired that particular comparison? These two men are nothing alike. They don't generally post about the same subjects. 

My friend told me quite some time ago that the fact that his avatar shows that he is Black has a profound effect on how he is treated here on Open Salon. I thought he was exaggerating. The longer I watch, the more I understand that he is not. 

My objection is not that some people dislike him. ("Hate" would actually be a more accurate term, at least in a few cases.) That is their right. My objection is not that they criticize him. Again, that is their right. 

My objection is that they allow race into their attacks.
 
That is not their right.

That is not their right, regardless of their ostensible civil rights history.

That is not their right, regardless of the identity of their target. Even if their target is a political figure, racism is racism. It is inappropriate by definition. Lest anyone read me sloppily enough to need this disclaimer:
I am not claiming that any given target is off limits because of his/her race;
I am claiming that targeting anyone on the basis of race is off limits.  

Allowing race into their attacks also raises the suspicion that their hostility emanates at least in part from racism. All would of course deny this, and have. Deniability would be far more plausible without evidence, particularly evidence that is reinforced by a universal lack of remorse when the nature of the attacks is brought to their attention. If I said something that could be construed as racist to someone, I'd back off in a hurry, even if I hated their guts, because that's not an impression I'd want to leave anyone with under any circumstances.

Nor is it appropriate for observers to tolerate the introduction of race into these attacks when it occurs. We who blog here ultimately define our community, and ignoring this sort of behavior defines it in a way that I suspect most of us would find abhorrent.

Blatant racism should be off limits. If you agree, act it, or take responsibility for what this community's norms become.
 
If I ever say anything bigoted to anyone here, I apologize. If I dislike you enough to insult you intentionally (and seriously as opposed to flippantly), I can assure you that my dislike is not based on your race, religion, gender, orientation, or political affiliation.  

My dislike is strictly personal. 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I wish I could hug you, Kosher. Thank you for saying it. It needed to be said.
/r.
Right on and write on, Kosh! The behavior of the people involved in these scenarios is disgusting on its face, but the fact that they deny their motivating feelings is infuriating. No matter how well-written, racsim is racism.

Lezlie
As I put it in my post I Am A Racist, I make a distinction between racism and bigotry. In a sense, we are all racists, in that try as we might to do otherwise, most of us hold certain preconceptions about all sorts of people -- the Irish hold certain negative views about the English and vice versa, the same goes for Arabs and Jews, and for Swedes and Norwegians, so I'm told. Cubans look down on Puerto Ricans, and a lot of Americans look down on everybody else.

Blacks have a special problem in this country because of our godawful history -- and that holds true for Native Americans as well. Both of those groups -- and Latinos, to a lesser extent -- have the added problem of color identifying them.

But as this abbreviated list attests, the problem isn't just one of racial animosity -- it's a problem of bigotry. A fine distinction, to be sure, but if we kept it in mind, we might find if more helpful in lodging our criticism without being accused of playing the race card.
Lezlie, Thank you

Tom,
I see your distinction and this is bigotry.
The "race card" is like "class warfare":
something that people who practice it complain about when targets have the temerity to notice.
I think there is a place to consider the difference in continents in this, I really do, as far as one blogger goes, anyway.
And I had no idea before now either that The Tar Baby story is now verboten due to racial sensitivity *although since this debacle I have read many articles arguing different points and so I understand more.*
I find that a shame as far as the Uncle Remus stories themselves.
I loved them as a kid, Brer Fox and Brer Rabbit always tricking, still do, and think of them like Aesop's Fables.
What I always understood the lessons of The Tar Baby to be: being tricked into letting anger and misunderstanding drive one into an inescapable mess, as happens with Brer Rabbit when Brer Fox makes a tar baby and sets it by the road where he knows Brer Rabbit will come along. Brer Fox also knows Brer Rabbit's weakness, his temper. Sure enough, Brer Rabbit comes along and gets mad that the tar baby won't say hello, thinks him rude and 'uppity' and he works himself up into a temper and soon enough punches him, once, then twice, then ending up with all four limbs trapped in the tar, all because he couldn't control his temper OR let go of a slight.

All of this tale echoes in the whole ongoing issue here, in my humble opinion.

As far as the blogger who has never been to this continent and just doesn't have the same cultural references or history or nuance the rest of us do, I do think these considerations ought to enter in, especially as he's only shown kindness, for years, to almost every single one of us here.
The others, can't say.
JT,
Toward a lot of people, yes.
Toward my friend, anything but. I won't go into too much detail because the story is too involved, and also I'm only concerned with one aspect of it here.

The Brer Rabbit remark would not have been interpreted that way automatically in a different context. It occurred in the middle of an argument that began with an event that had zero ambiguity, cultural or otherwise. The voting remark was made. I happened to have been there at the time and told who I refer to as the first blogger that the remark was way off base for several reasons, could be construed as racist, and I'd really advise retracting. I was polite. His response was to double down, which frankly surprised the crap out of me. That was the context. The guy you're defending came in in the middle of that and decided to defend the guy who fired the first shot, and that shot was blatantly racial in nature. As I said, I'm only concerned with one aspect of an involved conflict here, and that's anything racial. I can't think of an innocent way to account for asking the woman who started using a photograph for an avatar why she was using a White woman as an avatar. The term "patois" applies typically to certain populations, and the obvious way to make this link is to look at my friend's avatar, certainly not to read his writing. Regarding cultural differences: If I were to make a cultural mistake like that, I'd apologize for it, even if I hated the person I'd offended. I wouldn't want anyone to think that my animosity was based on bigotry. Maybe this guy is a nice guy to most of the people here and, if so, I think that's great. He's generally fine to me. If there had been one incident with these overtones I'd have written it off to culture and been done with it, but I can count three. Trends make me nervous. He doesn't seem worried about how he might be perceived on this, showing no interest in retracting anything. That makes me more nervous. Let me be clear that the only issues on the table here are anything with racial overtones, not the conflict in general. If my friend behaved like an absolute bastard, there would still be no excuse for race to be a part of this conflict in any way, shape, manner, or form.
you should watch the movie "The Lathe of Heaven".....there are no solutions......
I have not kept up with all of the exchanges by a long shot, Kosh, I will say that.
I do know they - the exchanges - have been a drag on the community here in a major way and I do wish everyone would just go back to being writers and storytellers, artists and photographers, or what have you, on their own blogs.
Just that alone would make OS better.
The blogs have been vacated for the comment thread far too often by so many, whether involved in this particular nastiness or not.

To me, this particular nastiness is part of the problem with this site these days, certainly, but even outside of this, it's hard to understand any of those former bloggers who now only show up to comment negatively - especially about how bad it is here these days - yet are they here otherwise, contributing anything positive?
anything??
no?
Go away then.
Blog something interesting here (you, OS world, not you specifically Kosh) - contribute - and make it a better place here again or be quiet, is my personal thought.
Snide remarks - verbal drive bys - aren't helping.
Yes, too simplistic a thought, but enough already.
SB, I'll look it up

JT,
Yes, they've been a drag. I've tried to stop this set, unsuccessfully. Myriad put in a really good effort at one point. I'm not capable of stopping this particular conflict, but I'd at least like to get the racist stuff out. Providing, of course, that racist stuff isn't actually driving it, in which case that would be impossible. I'd love to establish that it isn't, but so far I haven't been successful at that either.
Seems as though I accidentally stumbled into a movie I saw before. Long before. Some of the stuff you are recycling here hasn't appeared or been revisited in months, years even. Kosh, you are SUCH a shit-disturber.

Let me give you a definition of racism, straight out of my warped mind: A racist is someone who says, more or less in so many words, "My race is superior to your race, therefore I am better than you. I deserve more privileges and rights, and in fact your race doesn't seem to deserve any at all." If someone said that, I would surely label him a racist. However, neither I nor any of the other mysterious, anonymous people you cite has ever said any such thing, so far as I know.

On the other hand, your "friend," who by the way has contended to me that he is NOT your friend, does seem to think that his race is superior to mine, evidently because Thomas Jefferson, whom he does not admire, owned slaves. Between you and me, I think Thomas Jefferson was worth more to this country than a stadium full of Bill Becks, but that is just a racist conceit of mine.

So why are you kicking shit, Kosh? Not much else doing on a Sunday night? Trying to make Bill Beck acknowledge you as a friend? How about changing gears and finding more anti-Semites to expose?
Yay Kosh, but how do you really feel?
Really: patois?

This whole awful mess is beyond my understanding. I used to like a couple of the antagonists. But their behaviour puts them, haha, beyond the pale. As for the target person - I wish he would stop engaging/responding, but he apparently feels he cannot.

Awful thing is, Mr. Other Continent and Mr. Target Person came to truce a couple of times, but it doesn't hold.

Having this ridiculous and mean-spirited shouting match continually going on in the reduced OS arena is really...sad and horrid. It seems to me that all the parties concerned have said *everything* and there is no point in continuing.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD..........

Whole scene is dispiriting...
"Having this ridiculous and mean-spirited shouting match continually going on in the reduced OS arena is really...sad and horrid."

So why then, Myriad, did you rate this post? It comes out of nowhere.
Arthur,
It got kicked by a post critical of my friend hitting the cover yet again and a conversation that took place over there. Within the last two days.

And if you want this thing put to bed, stop rating old posts critical of my friend to keep them on the cover. I'd have left this crap alone a long time ago. I have advised both parties to knock it off within the last two days. I think that it's still going is sick. I can't do anything about the fact that it is still going and believe me, I've tried, but, failing that, I can at least try to keep it clean, which it isn't.

I guess you don't keep up with writing about racism. These days it's less blatant and more covert because it's harder to justify but it's still practiced.

And, by the way, this isn't about friendship. Friend or not, he doesn't deserve to hear crap about his race in any form. If this were about friendship, I'd be talking about the whole conflict. You'll notice I'm not; I'm restricting this to one issue.

Finding anti-semites? I'm not looking. I wasn't looking for this. What can I tell you - bigotry bugs me. Sorry it doesn't bug you.

Fred,
A lot of that's missing, but it's not my place.

Thanks, Z.

Myriad,
"As for the target person - I wish he would stop engaging/responding, but he apparently feels he cannot." Don't think I haven't asked. I think he's doing himself more harm than good by responding but ultimately, as the target, stopping isn't on him, even if it would be wise tactically to stop unilaterally.

But that's ultimately beside my point. Regardless of how the conflict goes, there is no reason he should have to put up with bigotry as any part of that conflict and no reason for the peers of all of these combatants to tolerate it in our midst. We shouldn't. That's my point. Even if we like these guys, we shouldn't.
Let's talk about Thomas Jefferson. (Arthur, I'll thank you to never, ever speak for me.) I admire Thomas Jefferson for many things. I approve of much about Thomas Jefferson. I disapprove of much about Thomas Jefferson. I do not admire the fact that he was a slave owner. I do admire that he was a talented writer, statesman, and that he had complexity. As all people do, and as all great people tend to, Jefferson had great flaws. As a character from history, I admire that complexity. If he were to live now, and I could advise him, I would advise him against many of the things that I find fascinating about him. I do admire that complexity, while I don't find some of it necessarily admirable. This is probably well beyond you Arthur.

Now race. Within your definition of racism, Arthur, is your understanding of race. Your understanding of race is not the same as mine. In my definition, you are I are of the same race. Yes, Arthur. I subscribe to the modern anthropological notion of race. Do you follow me so far? That said, one can not be supoerior to the other. They are one and the same. Your definition of race is different from mine. In the biological, or taxonomical aspect I see no separation. It does not serve my purposes, nor does it comport with my understanding of anthropology. Supremacy is not possible.

Race as a social construction is a different matter. The superficial criteria that you consider to be meaningful definitions of race are not meaningful to me. Those are archaic, ignorant definitions, Arthur. This is likely a bit too complex for you. I would suggest that you speak for yourself, and if you want to know my view, ask. Don't tell me how I feel about race. You clearly do not know the first thing about it.
Myriad, recently I saw someone write about healthcare in Canada. I dont recall who it was, but he or she talked about how Canadians feel about Canadian national healthcare. You chimed in with, "fuck you, you don't know anything about Canada…" Something like that. You probably recall. Now, this was someone talking about a health program in your country, and not having the expertise to say. It was ok for you to address them. But if some lunatic, or a group of three or four defames me personally, I can't? Is this a do as I say, not as I do? They were not discussing my healthcare, Myriad. They are discussing me. We are you allowed to respond, and I am not?
I agree with Tom Cordle, as long as "race" is used euphemistically for ethnicity, the confusion resulting from that conflation wil render remedy impotent.
There is one "race"; the human one.
Racism is anything that seeks to divide us humans into separate sub-species.
Also, are you counting the times that I am not responding? How much patois, shuck and jive, oreo, miscegenation, nagger, know your place, get out of my neighborhood bullshit am I supposed to take? Open Salon has no editor. They wont do a thing. Where exactly is my right to peace less than yours?

It's funny. A lot of you liberals faulted Obama for being conciliatory and somewhat moderate. He's always supposed to fight more for this or that. Ok, fine. As long as it is distant and theoretical. If I have a drunk, or a dry drunk attack me endlessly for several years, state his purpose is to have me be seen as a liar or a problem, etc, and I fight for the truth, I am doing the wrong thing. Please, let's not forget, I have asked the abusive assailant to settle this dispute privately. Why does that get left out of the criticism? He chooses a public fight. His two or three friends rotate this mischief. Wouldn't a little ethnic cleansing be nice? It would make the problem go away, right? Right? To hell with whether or not anyone should do that.
Poor Bill,

Maybe if he stopped calling everybody racists, they would stop thinking that he is animated by racism.
Arthur,
Bill asks: "How much patois, shuck and jive, oreo, miscegenation, nagger, know your place, get out of my neighborhood bullshit am I supposed to take?"

None of the stuff he's asking about comes from him. Are you going to hold him responsible for noticing it? Is it his fault for not tolerating this crap? He is not doing the defining here. Those terms prove that this isn't on him.

And understand that every time one of those terms is used, that's not an attack on Bill personally, it's an attack on his race.

How do you justify that?

I can't. That's why I wrote this post.
Arthur, I don't call people racist, generally. I have addressed this previously. I have even advised people against it. I focus on bigoted acts and statements. Racism can't be proved, nor is it my concern.

You do an interesting thing, Arthur. Your three friends do the same thing. You make one statement, then shift. You can't defend your racial superiority accuration, so it goes to racism, etc. Ring around the accusation rosey. It's all false, Arthur. Have I said bigot? Absolutely. If you say something like, since you were LAPD, you are dishonest, or would backshoot a feeeing suspect, or whatever, that person saying that is a bigot. I call that out. The other things have already been listed. You can hold all the racist ideas you wish. That does not concern me in the slightest. But if you seek to attack from those with bigoted statements or acts, that is a diferent matter. The same goes for alcohol or drug dependency. The illness is one thing. Attacking from it is another.
Kosh, when you go stirring shit I'd sooo appreciate it if you'd include all kinds of links and real names and stuff. I'm pretty sure I know who and what you're talking about (the comments make it all pretty clear, don't they?) but if I want to go and try to catch up I'm going to have to put all this time into reading annoying things ... oh sigh.

Doesn't he understand they're so beneath him?
-------------------------------------------

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― George Carlin

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig" - who knows any more
Kosh, I am still puzzling over why Bill, whom you call your "friend," insists that you are not friends. ("Kosh and I are not even friends." -- Bill Beck, 11/5/13.)

Could it be related to his apparent admiration for the Nazis? This quirk of Bill's came out in his comments on my last post, now more than a month old. He said he didn't think the Nazis would have accepted me as a recruit. "I don't get the impression that you were ever fit to wear a uniform, lead, and carry a gun." Is that what being a Nazi signifies to Bill?

The comment was more than a little absurd, especially addressed to me, because in the post I stated that I was directly descended from a woman who was murdered by the Nazis during the war.

I guess that if you work for the LAPD long enough, you begin to see the allure of Nazism.
Nicely written Kosh.

In these particular incidents, I do have a bit of concern about coming to the conclusion that the racial slurs being thrown about are indicative of the writer(s) using them as being "true" racists in the real sense of the word. That would be an assumption that can not be readily determined without being privy to the party's offline behavior or views. Bill has invited those that have slam-bashed him to sit down and have coffee with him before falling in judgement of his views, beliefs and general person. I admire that in him and would love to challenge those that view this writer, or any other, in a negative light to do just that.

There is not one racial slur made towards Bill I'd condone any more than I would toward any ethnic group. But without full knowledge of the writers offline persona I have to be led to believe the intent behind the use of the racial slurs, by these writers, are to instigate/antagonize Bill which, in turn,results in a reaction from him. A well warranted reaction. I find this type of racial antagonism to be appalling, vicious and intentionally malicious.

I'm not a fan or armchair evaluations in this instance any more than the often used practice on OS of diagnosing someone to have a presumed mental illness based their writings without self admission. With that being said, I can't agree with a theory that presumes words used online are conclusive in determining one's true persona but I do agree that lines are crossed that I'm sure a good deal of us would like to see eliminated. Will it happen? Perhaps when the tooth fairy flys.
"So, with repsect to anti semitism, like I said I don't recall seeing you say something specifically anti-semitic, but from seeing how you handle yourself with just about every other thing, all it would take is the right gentle wind, and you would be on it."
-- Bill Beck to Arthur Louis, 10/7/13, in the comment thread of Kosh's latest post on Open Salon
MY REPLY, ALSO IN THAT COMMENT THREAD:

"Let me tell you a story, Bill…."---Arthur Louis

This is the portion that you are referring to, Arthur. Here is the link.

http://open.salon.com/blog/artlouis/2013/10/07/bill_beck_is_a_piece_of_shit_an_example

Then in this comment this morning, you said this.

"The comment was more than a little absurd, especially addressed to me, because in the post I stated that I was directly descended from a woman who was murdered by the Nazis during the war. I was directly descended from a woman who was murdered by the Nazis during the war. " ---Arthur Louis

Arthur, the post was written/posted October 5, 2013. Your comment was posted in the comment thread on October 7, 2013. Next to my comment, which did appear in the comment thread as you stated, you refer to it as coming from the comment thread. Next to your comment, you refer to it as, " because in the post I stated that…"

Arthur, your own words above indicate that Kosher wrote the post. You indicate that I made the comment in a comment thread. Then you say that your statement about your great grandmother was "in the post." Your comment was in the comment thread, and it was after my comment. Is this confusion on your part, or outright lying? You had the clarity of mind to indicate that my comment was in the "comment thread", but referred to yours as "in the post.." Is that an accident? Either way, it is inaccurate. Your claim that you stated this "in the post" makes your accusation more eye popping, but it loses a lot of steam when the actual order of events is revealed.
NC,
To answer your question: Not well enough

ThroughMyEyes,
"I can't agree with a theory that presumes words used online are conclusive in determining one's true persona"
That isn't my theory. I am very, very careful about drawing conclusions. I can, however, point it out when I notice patterns. In most, but not all, of the examples listed above, I commented following the event, never saying "you are a racist" but more typically "what you're saying or doing could be construed as racist. Be careful," or something along those lines, like "If you say stuff like that, be prepared for the consequences, because you are creating a perception." In no case do I hear anything like "good point;" in no case do I see any indication whatsoever that whichever person says this stuff is remotely concerned about having their remark construed as racism. Ever. And, in many of these cases, this sort of thing is repeated, establishing a pattern. If anyone ever backed off, I'd be inclined to attribute their behavior to carelessness, but they don't, so I can't. Now, I can't comment as to which is the cart and which is the horse in that I don't know if racism is in any of these cases a primary motivator or if the antipathy involved is extreme enough for the actors to believe that racist remarks are an appropriate tool under the circumstances. It doesn't matter: the issue is that anyone ever believes that racist remarks are an appropriate tool under ANY circumstances, and I'm afraid the evidence for that is becoming overwhelming. That is a legitimate trigger for a post, specifically, this one.

Arthur,
This post is about a particular phenomenon. Friendship has nothing to do with it. If you looked earlier in the comment thread, I told you that. If I disliked Bill, this treatment of him would still be wrong. When I write issue posts like this one, they are not based on relationships, they are based on principles. You will notice that there are no names in the post; that is why.

I notice that you're not addressing the issue per se. Instead, you're relating an attempt to goad Bill into accusing you of being antisemitic so that you can affix the Bigot label to him. Bill, unfortunately, didn't need to goad anyone into going racist. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about attacks in general, I am specifically talking about attacks with racist content. As far as I can see, these are primarily generated by his picture. I have moral problems with that, and so I'm writing about it. What part of this don't you understand? Bill may consent to changing the subject to fend off an accusation, but I do not. I'm not distracted.

If Bill were guilty of this, it wouldn't make any difference, because the post is not about the identity of the perpetrators and victims but about the activity. If Bill were guilty of this, he would belong in both columns (not that I think he is under the circumstances - he stopped short of taking your bait, even though you like to pretend he took it), but the post would still need to be written. You think this post is about Bill. It's not. He's not the subject. He's the example.
Kosh, than I misinterpreted the following comment in your post. If a suspicion is raised, in my opinion, that would constitute a potential drawing of a conclusion that the person making the remarks is a racist.
I fully understand the premise of your post but this statement is where my concern arose. No need to explain as you have already stated it was not your intent to draw a conclusion.

"Allowing race into their attacks also raises the suspicion that their hostility emanates at least in part from racism. All would of course deny this, and have. "
TME, in the phrase "racist attacks", which concept do you think is the biggest problem? I would guess that you would think that the word "racist" represents the biggest problem here. That is not my view. Attack represents the biggest problem. You could place any modifier on it, and it would still be a problem. If someone murders another with a knife, or with a gun, the crime ultimately is the murder. The weapon, while significant, is of lesser significance.

Racial attacks are convenient for a number of unsavory types of characters. One thing that many have discovered is that it comes with a built-in defense. If the victim or witness complains about "racism", the assailant can make a defense based upon what is the true nature of a person's heart, so to speak. This defense sidetracks the issue entirely.

Take Arthur's ploy as an example. Kosher astutely caught it. Arthur actually asked, "are you calling me an anti semite?" Arthur introduced the possibility. This is to divert attention from whatever was actually being discussed. The answer was, "no…" Arthur continued with his diversion. In this thread he said something about, Bill shouldn't call people racist… As I have said numerous times, I don't. Racism is not the issue. I am not concerned about the condition of a person's soul. I am focused on certain statements or acts. Do I speak with a "patois", no. That is bigotry borne of a bigoted colonial system. Am I a "race pimp?" No. "Shucking and jiving?" No. "Oreo?" No. Who cares if the condition of their souls is racist or not? These acts of bigotry are wrong because they are acts of bigotry. "Racism" as to who is a "racist" or not, is the diversion.

And Arthur, your repeated question about who is friends with whom lacks the full context. If you want to discuss that, why have you left out the context created by your question, which prompted my answer? You use such careful editing of a conversation to create false implressions of what happened. How about the full context here? In other words, Arthur, tell the truth.
Bill, I think Nerd Cred has it right:

Doesn't he understand they're so beneath him?
-------------------------------------------

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― George Carlin

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig" -

......except in this case, the pig(s) enjoy it.

As for my health-care fuck-you comment, I didn't bother to try to explain to that particular person and she is now on my no-fly list (never read, never comment, who needs it). I acknowledge that this isn't personal as the situation with you is, but I still think the principle applies - you are giving your antagonists pleasure, not defending yourself.

I repeat: You are giving your antagonists pleasure.
ThroughMyEyes,
Bill hit the nail on the head when he said
"These acts of bigotry are wrong because they are acts of bigotry."

I used Racism in my title because the bigotry I've noticed most is bigotry having to do with race. That may have been a mistake in terms of precision of terminology.

Maybe I should elaborate on conclusions. I can't draw the conclusion that Bill has been attacked because of his race. I can conclude that he has been attacked with his race, repeatedly. The evidence I have strongly suggests that most of the bloggers in my posted example are at the very least unconcerned with the ethics of attacking with race. Three of them have done so more than once and none of them has ever expressed second thoughts about having done so, even when confronted with the nature of their racial attacks. That's as far as the evidence takes me. I object to the lack of concern, and I object to the repetition. I have enough evidence to conclude that both are happening.
Plus you will never convince them of anything. They are intellectually and emotionally SET. All your logic and pain only reinforces that.

Stop beating your head against the wall. There's a handful of THEM and lots and lots of US. Write for US.
Morning Bill,

In regard to this post Bill, I can't take the two words and separate them because I see you attacked by the use of racial slurs far too often and the title of the post was in regard to the tolerance of racism on OS. I wanted to stay within that parameter.

I absolutely agree with you that no matter the modifier attacks are attacks, period. I fully respect, and understand, your feelings as well as your perspective on the problems as a whole. If I may..you do me proud.
Myriad,
Seconded. Thirded. Fourthed.

What should be added to your statement is:

Bill,
If you don't respond to THEM at all, ever, no matter what they say, their chances of turning any members of US into members of THEM is slim to none, and I can pretty much guarantee that we would all say Good Riddance to anyone who made that transition.

If one of them writes a post entitled "Bill Beck is an Asshole" and they manage to keep it on the cover for six months, all that will happen is everyone who belongs to the group Myriad has dubbed US will think they are juvenile obsessive bigoted idiots who have gone off the deep end, a conclusion that will be reinforced every time we see that title on the cover. Anyone with sense will look at that title and their reaction to you will be a sympathetic one - My God, what does that poor guy have to put up with - and not "Gee, I wonder if Bill really is an asshole."

You don't have to worry about anyone thinking, at least anyone you respect, to use the example from this thread, that you called Arthur an antisemite. You don't have to answer Arthur for us to understand that you didn't. Frankly, even his quote of you shows that you didn't, and we can all read. You don't have to answer any of them at all. Ever. Ignoring them completely will help you, and help your image, more than responding to them does.
Racism unrelated but I had to say it.

Alright people, I just sat back down to read over the post and the comments and I'm smiling. (Hi Mom) This is exactly how I would expect adults to interact. I interpreted Kosh's words one way and instead of calling me out by saying I was putting words in his mouth etc. he explained what he meant by clarifying his usage of his words and their intent. Perfect. I made a comment that Bill referred to and then he went on to explain his way of viewing things that varied from my perspective in my comment. No pissing and moaning or damn you's for not getting it. Perfect. Myraid chimed in with her level headed get on with it we love ya so post dammit for US comment which was great,

So tell me,was it all that hard to do? Didn't make a hole in my wall. Is there some special code that restricts this from being done all over this darn site?
ThroughMyEyes,
Welcome to USWorld, Dear.
These guys should drop the vendetta and the insults. They should leave Bill alone and stop the nonsense. Its making Open Salon a very unpleasant place for Bill, for them, and for everybody else here.

This stuff has in it the makings of the destruction of community. What we want is stronger community, not its dissolution.

This is why we should be opposed to it.

We all say stupid shit from time to time. Stuff we probably don't mean. But here, we have a pattern. Stuff that's gone on for weeks, months, years even. It never ends. It never stops. Its an obsessive, unending barrage of attacks aimed at one person. There's a clique that's organizing it, too.

Its getting old.

Sometimes, personal attacks happen on OS. Its inevitable, such as when one person never responds to a debate topic in a debate. And one guy is like, "hey, moron, answer the damn question."

But this isn't what's going on here. This is vendetta. This is a campaign of personal destruction. Its very nasty and, to tell you the truth, Bill may very well want to check with an attorney and want to consider his options in the state of his domicile. Depending on where he's residing, these attacks may have very well crossed a certain threshold and may now be in the realm of online harassment.

I don't know. Each state is different.

But this goes for everybody online, too. Folks need to be careful about what they say and how they say it. Defamation, slander, etc... These are no less real on the internet than they are in the real world. Manners matter.

And if somebody learns private information about another person, even if true, that's stuff that shouldn't be revealed either. In many states, there's a tort called "public disclosure of private information." For example, if somebody has AIDS or something and a blogger is friends with them in the real world, learns about it, and then reveals it on Open Salon., that could be actionable.

There are consequences to our actions.

These harassers need to stop and Bill may want to contact a local attorney if they don't.

I suspect its very easy to file a case in a local court for purposes of a temporary or final restraining order, and pursuant to this, subpoena the ISP address of certain bloggers and in so doing, get their home address, names and additional information.

Many companies obey subpoenas in this regard. If this stuff continues, this may be something worth investigating.
More effective, RW, would be to threaten to sue Salon, I think. They needn't step into every little fuss, but this is, as you say, a long-time vendetta, and it is big enough (and our current numbers small enough) that it stinks up the whole place. The equivalent to what's been going on, or less, has been grounds for being ejected before. Prob is, we don't seem to have an editor or moderator, despite 'promises' of same.

Well, I am sending a message about personal and racist attacks to the last names we had for those positions, and daily reminders. (Nyah-hah, I'm telling teacher about the schoolyard bullies.)
Kosh,

I've always preferred the US world habitat and it's residents. My sudden epiphany was akin to reading about the dwarves evil status in the Book Of Lost Tales to the more tolerable dwarf of the Hobibit in less than 5 minutes

Why is it that the more I age the more people that are younger than I call me dear? Is this a sign of impending nursing home care? Sorry..off topic..again. Must be time for coffee.
Am I younger than you? I have no idea of your age.
Oh cripe ... get a life all.

Bill Beck ain't gonna stop (nor should he, if he feels the urge to act/respond) and Gamble has his heels dug-in. Arthur is tryin' to stay relevant and MarkinJackassJapan is just an ass.

Big f--ing deal.

Now I see suggestions of callin' the authorities/subpoenas (yeah, that'll happen).

Kosh, let me (again) give you a pointer. There will be some on OS who you will never reach, convince, or otherwise change their minds, regardless of how logically you present a position. I've been here for 4+ years (yes, longer than you) and it ain't gonna happen.

Move on.

(not rated)
Stirring the pot without emptying it of crap doesn't impress me.

Time to move on, Kosh.
JS,
I have no idea who I'm going to reach, if anyone. Of course, that's true of absolutely everything I write, but I write anyway.

I very much doubt I am going to reach any of the combatants, including my friend. However, there are other things I can accomplish.

One is to make people focus on stuff they think anyway. No one nominally likes bigotry. People tolerate it when they either don't notice it or persuade themselves that it doesn't apply to people they know. Making them notice it could change how they react because they in some way redefine what they see. Example:

Me. When Bill first told me that the fact that his avatar showed he was Black made a significant difference in how he was treated on OS, I thought he might have been off base. If you asked most people on OS if an avatar that shows race makes a difference in how the blogger is treated, you'd probably get a negative answer, particularly among Whites. I don't believe that any more, not because my priorities have changed but because the evidence added up. (Incidentally, I don't have to be shown evidence by its target, sometimes I just notice it on my own.) It's not something we want to believe about our community but the fact is it's here, and it's here among people we talk to every day, and we ignore it when we see it, if we notice it.

If we're forced to notice it, we're faced with a new choice: React to it or ignore it deliberately, being aware that we've chosen to ignore it deliberately, and that involved thinking less of ourselves.

Reacting to it can take many forms. It can mean commenting to someone when they exhibit this behavior. It can mean PMing them to criticize while avoiding embarrassing them, which I sometimes do for my friends when I think they've done something off base. It can mean looking at a bigotry practitioner with a little more suspicion and a little less faith when it comes to certain subjects.

Big changes? No. Small ones? Sure.

What do you think brought me to this post?
My priorities were no different a year or two ago, but evidence added up. And now I'm presenting it to others.
Belinda,
How do you suggest I empty it?

What exactly is wrong with suggesting we take responsibility for what we witness?

I'm sorry, this isn't OK. And it isn't about the people, it's about the conduct. If they continue, at least with the racial comments, it will become about the people. That's not the outcome I want.
OMG JOISEY!

Wait a second there big guy!!!!!! I have a life! Or maybe not..ok not every day but mostly every day and more so on some days than others....

Agree with you on Bill taking his own steps as to any decisions he makes in resolving or not resolving whatever he deems necessary . He's mature and wise enough to know the direction he wants to go, the repercussions and what may or may not end the fracas. His choice

But..but..what about racism Sir Shore!

Movie on where? I live in a small town..no taxis..no buses. Where do you expect me to go?
Kosh,

If your profile remains accurate then..ummm...yes I am...ahem..cough..gag...older than you. By a foot or so I imagine.
I like this a lot , KOSH:
"there are other things I can accomplish.
One is to make people focus on stuff they think anyway"
that
is a controversial thing to do, put a mirror up.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness."
Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad ...
these days one can travel far and wide without ever
leaving their computer, and this is perhaps
part of the answer, I hope...
I guess you don't get me. Lemme clarify a few things here. Firstly, you don't own this website. Second. If OS has a moderator, it's that moderator's call to make. Not yours. Not mine. Nobody's. Simple enough.

I've wasted enough time on OS. Seriously. Get a life. If you want to decry foul, that's your decision. As is mine to ignore posts like yours and others whose goals are in garnering a garrison of people with pitchforks all gussied up and ready to commit character assassination or ruin their reputation. What good is this? For you. For anybody. hmmm Sorry, I'm not into trollish games.
Belinda,
If this were about reputations there would have been names in the post. My point isn't Let's go after these bastards! My point is

This stuff is happening here, some of it isn't simple interpersonal animosity but actual manifestations of racism, and if you happen to see it, have the decency to say something so maybe people get the idea that this isn't OK.
Having grown up in Indiana, Florida and Texas in a family of racists, to be honest, I have to say that despite my best efforts to overcome it, there remains a trace of nearly unconscious racism in the dark shadows of my psyche. My problem with racism is not with open racists, whether their skin color is white, black, brown, red or yellow; rather my problem is with people who either don't know or deny their innate racism.

Racist remarks aside, I find many comments on Open Salon objectionable because they exhibit willful ignorance and/or blatant rudeness. In this I find myself in agreement with Hannible Lecter's culinary preferences when he said, "I prefer to eat the rude."

R&R ;-)
James (E),
Thank you

JMac,
I'll warn HRdR

Belinda,
To add something:
If I've learned one thing from my time on OS, it's never to rely on moderators. When some of us thought EP's were really capricious, we organized our own and called them Readers' Picks. When the site was in bad shape and we couldn't get straight answers, I was instrumental in organizing a temporary exodus because I was afraid people would leave but not stay together as a community and I wanted to avoid the scattering. If you want something done here, do it yourself. So I do.
@Belinda - Kosh is pointing out pot-stirring and asking the participants to stop, not stirring himself. Also, while most childishness and nastiness can be ignored, when racist stuff gets into it I think it goes beyond the participants themselves and onto the rest of us. People want to be stupid and horrid, fine - ignore them. People want to be RACIST stupid and horrid, that needs to be addressed. Is this a place where the rest of us stand back and say so-what? Esp. when this whole thing has escalated to near-persecution.

(Tho I still think Bill should step aside and let the other people involved just talk to themselves, and solve PART of the problem.)
TME,
Is my profile truthful? Still, but barely.
"TME,
Is my profile truthful? Still, but barely."

Ahh than I shall be gentle and reduce my foot to perhaps a couple of inches and graciously acknowledge the " deat" knowing you are right behind me.
So why are you arguing with me, Kosh? That doesn't make a bit of sense. Seriously. I don't tolerate any "isms" with the tactics you use and though the innocuous remarks made here are exactly the epitome of hypocrisy.

If you're happy with what you create here, have at it. Don't let me interfere with your freedoms of expression or speech. Just know that if or when I get called out on anything that I remotely consider arbitrary or capricious, especially my integrity, I will retaliate in kind. Or not. :)
Beautifully rendered, Kosh.
I've been away, so this really surprised me. I just wish any such post hadn't been needful. I know you would never have written this had it not.
One thing, tho': racism can generalize, but it has ever been received in personal terms.
Also discrimination can be deadly or insidiously mean, even underhanded. If it's overt, we like to point it up. There could be much hidden racism here on Open. There most likely has been all along.
R
Belinda,
Am I calling you out? I don't think I am. I'm just answering your comments as best I can. If this helps, most of the time I prefer to attack behaviors rather than people. This is a bad behavior.

Myriad,
I always appreciate it when someone can synopsize me more succinctly than I can. That generally means you or Lezlie.
Yes; as ought homophobia be skewered routinely here and it isn't. No one's calling for censorship...calling out bigotry for what it is isn't banning racist and homophobic idiocy. And it sure as hell is idiocy and never, ever, chic even when defended by eqully idiotic phrases proudly written, such as "politically-incorrect".
Belinda, Will you marry me? Belinda, wait, why are you running? (She must be into fitness.)
Arthur shoots and scores

Jon,
Yup. Bigotry is bigotry.

Regardless of the target.
Meh. Nobody here is worth the time nor the effort. Too much condescendence for me.

Adios. I'm busy working on saving a kid from becoming the juvenile court's next statistic.
How can we tell we're right without good examples of how wrong some can be?
If idiocy gets banned there will be very little left to read.
Good luck, Belinda. I wish you success with that.
AKA,
I'll do my best not to write idiotic posts.
You know, in this imperfect world, and in a very reductive way, one might see two different types of solutions to this sort of thing. Let's simply name them segregation and intergration. Perhaps apartheid and intergration. Whichever helps you to understand. Now just follow along.

Taking this from a U.S. context, some are of the view that separation brings peace, etc, etc. Most of us know the names of the cases which are the building blocks of the U.S. view of this sort of notion. My view was established in a Northern 'burb with essentially no racial strife. Many of my friends and I (of a variety of races) look back and trace our births at the most fortunate time in American history. Born in 1963, our childhoods were wrapped in the greatest idealism and cooperation in our country's history. (There is some socialogical evidence to bear this out.) We estimate that the U.S. peaked in its style of American social democracy somewhere in the late 1970's. The retreat began with the election of Reagan in 1980, just before we all left our town and went to college.

In the time since we left town, the economic disparity has widened. The likelihood of a person living next to a person of a different party has decreased. The participation in the uniform services has become less broad. The tax system has become less progressive. And in the more immediate, and relevant factors, people stopped getting their news from the same place. News divisions became subsumed into the entertainment divisions of large corporations, and news became a product, and less informative all along the spectrum. This has been a long Great Division of the American culture that began just as we were becoming adults. (Again, our births in this process was merely coincidental, not causal.) The point I am making is, coming from a rather progressive perspective to begin with, this particular aspect has diminished in America.

Now, from within that perspective, I am handed this set of options. (Yes, I am aware that I used passive voice there.) 1. Accept that I can't go where the others go. That is just a fact of life in the world. Or, 2. Just separate yourself from where those people are, and they can have peace undisturbed by some bad actors who are triggered into action by the awareness of who or what you are.

Those views may be perfectly acceptable to some, but not to me. That was not my expectation when I was a teen, it has not been how I have conducted my life as an adult, and bearing no malice, and taking no malicious acts, it is not how I proceed now.

This process started more than 4 years ago when someone made a post about me which cited arrogance. The beef was nothing but what I thought of myself. In this grand American experiment, which continues to this day, some see a black man unafraid, articulate, accomplished, and comfortable as a threat to themselves. That's a pity, but it is not my concern. The first attack was based upon this. why is this relavant now? Because this is an unbroken stream. Markinjapan saved this post and reposted it. Open Salon, to their inconsistent credit, removed the post when MIJ reposted it. Why would MIJ repost that? Who knows. Why does MIJ do anything? What we do know is that MIJ goes on campaigns to harass and ridicule. MIJ did this for an extended period of time to Frank Apisa. He called him "aPISASH*T" time and time again. My contact with MIJ was initially friendly, as long as we agreed. MIJ became one of the many loud detractors of the current president. Once MIJ and I hooked up on certain economic issues, and his logic and precitions could not hold water, his attacks became personal. (This is an important point.) My discussion/difference with MIJ centered on inflation, the stimulus, and an economist from Hilldale University who MIJ did not bother to look up while he ranted about the president. Once I pointed out who the economist was, why he said what he said, and pointed out that there was no massive inflation after 4 years, MIJ went on his attack. My addressing him was only issue oriented. His response is now the lurking that you see of putting Arthur's post in the thread daily.

Arthur: Same story, different issues. Arthur was confronted on things like the prospect of Rubio's candidacy, some of his ad hominem attacks against the president, etc. Arthur found a kinship with MIJ, although they differ on politics, and set about the personal "mischief" as Arthur calls it. each has flounced at least once, and either returns or refuses to leave only to cause trouble. That is a fairly charitable way to describe it. Much of the racist references discussed here have happened in that time. There are others not discussed here which precede them, but sticking to this, that explains that. (At least one other person not mentioned here used a racial analysis in a political discussion in this long convoluted process.) Now from a philosophical, moral, and maybe even legal basis, I stand where I stand, and assume my free speech right. I could do one of the aforementioned two options, I reject them. If that America is completely dead, I'll die with it before conducting myself as if it is pre-civil rights America, or South Africa Apartheid era, or whatever. I get that united we stand is an anachronism. Maybe it is just for heartier folk. Who knows. That remains to be seen. But I have done nothing to these people but discussed issues. For that I have received this. What a country, huh? I am keeping mine with my principles intact. If that makes a noisy, smelly place, that's a shame. I'd like peace. But I do not deserve personal attacks. I have not initiated this sort of thing. I have been attacked for my former professions, race, and what narrow minded, dishonest individuals publicly claim to be my thoughts and motivations. I am happy for you all that this is not your reality, but I am not going to kowtow to a consortium of cyber creeps.
Wow, that nearly endless whine ranks right up there on the Paranoia Meter with Capt. Queeg's testimony in the Caine Mutiny. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Bill Beck. (You can keep him.)
Bill,
No one is asking you to stay away from anywhere. Except, perhaps, because they're unpleasant, the blogs of those who harass you, though I don't know why you'd want to go there.

It's really simple. You're on a comment stream. You see a comment by someone who habitually harasses you. You don't read it. If you read it before you see who wrote it, when you figure out who wrote it, you ignore it. Reply to everyone else, and do so by name so there is no ambiguity. They can jump up and down, shout obscenities, whatever they want, doesn't matter. Think of it as portable excommunication. You thought it was a comment but, to you, it just became background noise.

Now, in what respect have you been restricted? You can converse with anyone anywhere on the site.

Are you afraid that if you ignore them you'll miss a significant viewpoint on the comment stream? Or are you more afraid they'll say something that someone else will buy? Run that risk. It's OK. If there's intellectual fallout that you need to correct with someone, do it later.

No one will fault you for doing this. You know why not? Because we can be pretty damned sure that nothing any of these guys say to you will be civil, and as long as it's not, you have an obvious reason for ignoring it. And everyone around you will understand that you are being attacked and that you aren't going to play.

No neighborhood restrictions. No restrictions at all.

If they actually act civil, it's up to you if you want to answer them, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Chauncey DeVega's avatar is not of himself but of Redd Foxx. I used to read his blog and went to check.
If you download it it comes up as reddfoxx.
Just to clear that up.. not all avatar photos are who they claim to be.. hrumph.
Yeah, like Scanner's being Jeff Bridges.

Or Arthur's being William Shatner and friend.
All kidding aside, Arthur, don't you recall me saying that you should be favorable to progressive social justice because your demo is declining in percentage. You read that as me advocating for a race war. I'm afraid you retired the cup on paranoid rhetoric. I advocate for you to be covered by social justice protections that I embrace. You saw a threat in that.
By the way, in looking at my avatar, I really do have a pointed head. God's honest truth.
Kosher, asked to stay away is exactly what has happened. Gamble has repeated endlessly that I should leave. Most recently he said that my "being free in America" causes him fear. Granted, that was a bit random, but his context was already set. He said that about me. He said that about some dude previously in his now deleted Red Alert post, and he said that about Frank Apisa.
Bill,
Perhaps I'm intellectually challenged here,
But why is what Kim says important to you at all?

He Hath Pronounced that Thou Shalt Be BANISHED!

That's nice.
And you're, uh, listening?

Why?
That's not my eye. Although there was a time on here when someone took my real pic. and the eye, compared them with some kind of program and insisted it was, indeed, my eye. Does that mean the ayes have it?

Art, if you keep giving the "good" stuff away you're going to be down to a cardboard box and a couple of picture hangers. I'd reconsider. Winter is approaching.
Why do you listen when SBA goes on an anti semitic rant? Why is it not ok for her to make certain false claims about Kabala, or whatever? we all mostly ignore her. I have seen you address her. Why?

I post with my name and my face. I have been attacked for those very things, among others. You keep yours concealed for your reasons. Can you intuit that maybe my face and name deserve a defense? Gamble has claimed falsely that his name was attacked. Lots of people supported that. Now he has stated that he continues this so that when anyone interacts with me, this is part of the context. Art Louis puts posts on the thread with my name in the title. Isn't this against TOS? I never did that.

Back when OS had an editor, I did not address this as much. I let it go, mostly. I wrote a post about my dog dying, and Yagoda came on to talk about interracial porn, and the "nigger children of Chicago." People told me I should delete it. I left it alone. If I deleted it, I get attacked for deleting. If I leave it in place, I am turning my nice post into an ugly stream.

How about we focus on those who do the attacking?
To me, all of this is so painful to watch. I have respect for most of the folks involved, even Kim, despite any differences of opinion I may have with his viewpoint. I haven't always seen eye to eye with Bill, here, either, but I have allowed that we would differ and let him know when I've agreed with his viewpoint.
I don't pretend to understand what motivates this group to carry on so. I guess we all are just different, leading different lives in different places. I can't see everybody's view as the same as my own, but what a mixed bag this world has always been, anyway!
The thing that bothers me is how it's escalated beyond repair, and with less of a forgiving tone than I know we could all at least try and muster.
I don't tend to join in dustups anymore, but this was different. I don't agree with racism/bigotry at all. I don't always see eye to eye with Kim's or Bill's or even Kosh's view, but that doesn't make me bigoted, only differing.
I guess I just would like this to end peaceably.
This is our shared time together. How do we want to remember it one day? With rancor? Bitterly, as though anyone else involved has had no feelings of their own?
Bigotry is a form of trying to delineate the inherent worth in a human being based upon innate differences which cannot be helped or which occur naturally via genetics or for one's choices 9i.e. religiosity, etc.). I myself face it nearly every day in U.S. political terms. Nobody likes a poor woman with no means to earn her bread herself. Nobody likes to spend toward her care or upkeep. But I refuse to take it so personally as to become nasty, spiteful or injurious to others. There are standards.
Teaching is better than ranting.
Patiently trying to teach others where they might have got off on the wrong track is better than taking umbrage or engaging in arguments which can only end with huffy feelings rampant.
I feel like asking everybody here to back off into their perspective corners and try and rethink, quietly, what's actually required toward peace.
Maybe I'm dreaming....

peace, all
I have to leave the computer for a while, but I'll give two short answers here:

Bill,
I reacted when Amy attacked Jews. I care a great deal less when she attacks me personally.

PW,
Anyone who reads me with any frequency will tell you that I spend one Hell of a lot more time teaching than ranting.
PW, I would love for it to end peacefully as well. I offer it all the time. Several have said that they do not want it to end. Is that a clear distinction?
There's a Cherokee tale that I used to tell my kids when I felt they needed a reminder in life. It goes something like this:

An old Cherokee man told his grandson, " My son, there is a battle between two wolves inside us all. One is evil. It is anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego. The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness, empathy and truth."

The young boy thought about it a while and then asked, "Grandfather, which wolf wins?"

The old Cherokee man quietly replied,

"The one you feed."
Bill - you can end it....for YOU. If _they_ continue, so what? You don't have to engage any further. What benefit do you get out of continuing? If you ignore them, they'll just be talking to the air. Nobody else gives a damn what they say about you.
Wow. what unadulterated horse shit.

First off all, Beck is far, Far, FAR from an innocent party here. HE has kept this crap going as much or MORE than anyone else.

Secondly, the reason people respond crudely to Beck is because he is an asshole. It has nothing to do with his race and EVERYTHING to do with him being a malicious, hateful douchesplat.

Lastly, the hipocracy, attempts at character assassination and blatant lies here are truly astounding. Instead of calling Beck and yes you two Koshersalaami on YOUR own crap, y'all pat poor "Billy" on the head and blame the evil "racists" for everything. You give them a complete pass on their lies (where the FUCK have I ever said jack shit about Kabalism for example?) NO! Y'all would rather act the fools and pat each other on the back and make ignorant statements.

This place has now officially gone from incestuous to full blown moronic spawn, based on this post.
Thanks for cutting through it all, Amy. They almost had even me believing that they were angels. Anyone who has been on the receiving end must recognize Beck for the abusive, twisted soul he is.
Kosh: You are no ranter, and teach well enough to where it is most pleasing to the sensible.

Bill: Myriad and I have our view. You are welcome to take it or leave it.
Just sayin'.
About keeping the crap going, Amy, I say to you and the rest of the anti-Bill people the same thing I said to him: You can stop it for you instantly now. There is no need for you people to respond any further to him than there is a need for him to respond to you.

And Kosh's point is about the identifiable racist component of the attacks on Bill.

And while you may not have said anything about Kabala, there is some weird thing you frequently accuse Jews of when commenting to Kosh, so it's disingenuous to play innocent on this point.
Wasn't Kabbalah. It was Talmud. Bill doesn't know the difference so he said Kabbalah or whatever. I wasn't about to correct him because Amy had nothing to do with my subject and exactly which holy book was maligned is beside the point.

Bill's innocence is also beside the point. This post isn't about Bill. That's why Bill's name isn't in it. It's about people feeling too free to throw racist crap around when they feel like it. I guess it's time to quote the post itself because Amy's here; she never actually reads my posts before she criticizes them, even when they're only one sentence long. But OK, what the Hell:

"My objection is not that some people dislike him. ("Hate" would actually be a more accurate term, at least in a few cases.) That is their right. My objection is not that they criticize him. Again, that is their right.

"My objection is that they allow race into their attacks."

I don't know why I bother. Bill mentioned Amy's name in a capacity I had to answer, which meant she'd show up, which meant out of fairness I'd have to let her comment because her name came up in the stream and I answered Bill about her.
I get it, and I appreciate what you're doing here.
I just wish this hadn't needed to be said and that, now it had to be, people are giving further validity to it ever requiring to be said.
Does that make sense?
Anyway, this will be my last suggestion here: Let's not forget that, personal differences aside, this is not a venue intended for the spouting of venom and vitriol.
It's time for a truce.
that's it.
Take care, all.
Poor Woman,
If I could have brokered a truce, I would not have gotten to this post. Myriad and I gave it a very real shot.
94% of black people who vote, voted for Obama, as opposed to the 70% that voted for Clinton.

Condaleeza fucking Rice voted for Obama, I'm pretty sure, based on comments she's made.

I don't like racism either, but the thing that started this argument was true...in the VAST majority of circumstances.
Malcolm,
You didn't read the initial comment. Unfortunately, the blogger deleted the post. It wasn't made as a statistical argument. And it was made about a guy who supported another candidate in the Democratic primaries.
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbXsZlPbN90‎
"Not that I think it will do much good, Gamble, but that "patois" crap is a bigoted reference. I flagged this post as racist harassment."
Bill Beck on I'm New Here, Show Me Around ?

Like I said, Kosher, I didn't expect you to provide a definition here, and sure enough, you didn't. For the benefit of anyone without a dictionary :

pa·tois noun ˈpa-ˌtwä, ˈpä-
: a form of a language that is spoken only in a particular area and that is different from the main form of the same language

eg. the medical patois that the hospital staffers used among themselves was incomprehensible to me


Source : Merriam Webster
The ( Australian ) Macquarie Dictionary and the Oxford ED offer the same definition, but Hey, don't let that stop you from labelling me a racist.
"Kosher, 'patois' is an incomplete grasp of the language.
Get racial all you like about it.

What I'd like to accomplish here is no-one falls foul of Beck again, and I can return to a favourite haunt without having to deal with vicious crap in my mailbox."

Kim Gamble
NOVEMBER 16, 2013 03:48 PM
*******************

It seems to be changing from "incomplete grasp" to merely some dialect that no one has any reason to believe that I would have. Fascinating.
People who haven't the wit to defend their views any other way resort to accusations of racism. Thus, to take a prime example, we have a U.S. president whose woeful ineptitude becomes increasingly apparent every moment, yet to say this about him is to automatically invite charges of racism from people who have no other defense to offer. The charge is thrown around with irresponsible abandon, nowhere more so than here at Open Salon.

Kim, in his comments above, has given an excellent illustration of just how silly this can get. Kim's nemesis, who is absolutely the worst troll on Open Salon, gets hailed in this topsy-turvy world as a beleaguered victim. To the extent that this delusion has taken hold among sensible people on Open Salon, I blame the fork-tongued Kosh, who has abused his ill-deserved reputation for credibility. Bill the Troll could never delude anyone on his own.
I'd think that anyone ought to be awfully sensitive in using any words, phrases, or sentence constructions that are apt to come across as race-baiting. We can all make mistakes (I've learned to be careful about ever using "tar baby", and, alas, "niggardly") but if called on them, why not retract and apologize? Unless of course you actually want to goad.
Abra, Who are you suggesting should apologize for what?
The word patois originated from the French and referred to the dialect that was spoken by slaves which sounded like French but was combined with African languages. The distortion of that language structure, used by the slaves, was considered to be substandard. id est; inferioir.

Debrouille-toi mon ami ... le decouvrir ...

Bonne nuit
Then I'll ignore Cockney, Pidgin, Khosa, Finnish-Swede, and the vernacular spoken in Sydney, Broome or any other city here or anywhere else in the world and go with your definition, TME.
It supports Kosher & Bill's thesis, after all.

To hell with Merriam Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary and the Macquarie, right ?

Because Bill Beck perceived a slight in my use of a word, we can let the use of words and their definitions go to hell, okay ?

ps. Old French : to use clumsily.
Arthur, I haven't followed it closely enough to be able to say with authority who should apologize to whom. However, if I had phrased something that someone else regarded as racially offensive either in general or to them in particular, I'd be inclined to apologize for inadvertently causing offense. And I'd restate the phrase in question. That's all I meant. What's the problem with that approach?
I understand why, given the historical context in which we in the US might interpret the term, you might find the term patois offensive kosher and why you'd want to call out racism. But in this instance, my understanding is similar to Kim's. I don't happen to think Kim is a racist nor do I personally think there's a racist element to his disagreement with Beck, although I wish for all involved there could be some happy resolution. I know these conflicts have a long history, but in this instance, I think perhaps a miscommunication field by this past history might be the issue.
I hope this won't seem racist, but whatever language it is that Bill Beck uses on Open Salon strikes me as inferior. There are too many words, the phrasing is alternately pedantic and awkward, the choice of words is vulgar, the overall effect is hostile and malicious, and it is filled with lies, half-truths, slanders and statistics.
Interesting. And I suppose that by "Oreo", you meant to say that I am a cookie.
just had a steak,kikin bak wit a glass of cheap whiskey,wife and grown kids are healthy and reasonably happy,i'm 65 wit no health problems,coastin to the end of this road,content,sorry for ruinin the mood......
Abra, Too much is conceded these days to the thought police. It's nice having a mind of one's own. Everyone should try it.
Since Kosher is away, I thought it might be fun for an educational break. Here is a very good power point presentation on the origins of patios.
From the link:
"The debate surrounding the use of Patois as opposed to Standard English dates back to the times of slavery"

It's actually a pretty cool slide show...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cog.jhu.edu%2Fcourses%2F205%2Fpresentations%2F10-24a.ppt&ei=i9eKUt6BB6Ko2wWbjYHQBg&usg=AFQjCNEGRCmUzVdor8JCqq9kuelcv3He7g
TME,
That's certainly the context I knew it in.

Arthur,
Defending views? Sure. You're the guy who wrote a post poking fun at the first Black President by comparing him to the first Black major league baseball player and then claiming that Black didn't have anything to do with it. Excuse me, that race didn't have anything to do with it. Of course it didn't. It was all about pushing envelopes.

Of course, what I really find the most interesting is why everyone is ignoring Abrawang's point. When in doubt, there are plenty of ways to insult someone. If there's a chance you picked one that is racial rather than personal, it's a good idea to back off it because, if you do, people can believe that your beef is personal rather than racial. But when there's a pattern and no one is interested in backing off, I think you're daring us to play the race card.

Consider it played. You earned it. And, until awfully late in the stream, most of the commenters seemed to agree with my choice. I didn't make anything up. There are all sorts of people who could have told me that my examples didn't add up to my conclusion, which is that you guys are playing fast and loose with racial terms in ways that aren't justifiable. Very few have. Why? Because I'm such an incredibly intimidating presence? Because I bite peoples' heads off who disagree with me?
Okay Kosher, you 'knew' a certain Old French word in a certain context.
Great, I hear you.
Not the context that any major English dictionary would support, but if it gets you over the line into calling me a racist ~ cool, right ?
Sorry, Kosher. I didn't know you were around.
As to your question: It must be considered gauche on a certain other Continent, and hey, in Finlad, too, to acknowledge using racially charged language towards your target of abuse. Even when it is pointed out. THAT would be the height of gauche.
With apologies to Kosher, here is a big picture examination of this narrowly focused issue here on OS. The elements, perceptions, and disagreements about what is to be perceived all relate to this issue. Taking some distance can help to remove some of the emotional heat here.

Three days ago, Charles Blow of the NY Times posted this column titles "Disrespect, Race, and Obama."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/opinion/blow-disrespect-race-and-obama.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Many of the borders between disagreeing parties are similar in this discussion.

Here are a few select quotes.

"What some see as slights, others see as innocent opposition. But there are some objective truths here. Racism is a virus that is growing clever at avoiding detection. Race consciousness is real. Racial assumptions and prejudices are real. And racism is real. But these realities can operate without articulation and beneath awareness."

"For those reasons, some can see racism where it is absent, and others can willfully ignore any possibility that it could ever be present."

"And finally, affinity and racial animosity can dwell together in the same soul. You can like and even admire a person of another race while simultaneously disparaging the race as a whole. One can even be attracted to persons of different races and still harbor racial animus toward their group. Generations of sexual predation and miscegenation during and after slavery in this country have taught us that…"

"Cohen wrote:

“Today’s G.O.P. is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the Tea Party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.”

What exactly are “conventional views” in this context? They appear to refer specifically to opinions about the color of people’s skin…"

"To be sure, the Internet is rife with examples of derogatory, overtly racial comments and imagery referring to the president and his family. But the question remains: Are we seeing an increase in racial hostility or simply an elevation — or uncovering — of it? And are those racist attitudes isolated or do they represent a serious problem?"

If you don't already know, Charles Blow is Black.
Kosh, I don't need you to tell me whether I am a racist. I'm not. But it's your blog, and if accusing me and others of racism helps you score with Bill, then I wish you the best of luck. I do have a sentimental side.
I am seriously confused by 'patois' being considered racist, as well. I'd always understood using patois to mean someone is Creole - but have never heard being Creole as considered inferior, ever.
To me all these differences in understanding of terms show how easy it is to misunderstand one another more than anything else.
Arthur, it's not so much "political correctness", which by labeling it as such you seem to think it gives you a pass to ignore and scorn. It's more a matter of being courteous to the sensibilities of others. As older white guys I'm sure that neither of us have the experience of having racially charged statements and sometimes actions directed our way most days of our lives. So it's no surprise that those who do are more attuned to slights, disparagements and insinuations, even though we who might inadvertently utter them are oblivious to their effect.

There are many ways of stating a point and you with your reporting and editing background would know that better than most. So if one way gives offense, why not consider another? Unless, as I stated earlier, you really prefer to goad or are looking for a dust-up.
Arthur,
I'm not telling you that you're a racist. I don't think you hate Bill because he's Black though I suppose the possibility exists that you think he's inferior because he's Black. What I think is that you hate Bill enough to throw anything at him that's handy and if that includes attacks that might be construed as racist, you think that's OK because you think he's a bad enough person to warrant that. I also think that your idea of an ideal attack is one that Bill thinks is racist but no one else does. You keep looking for that sweet spot but, unfortunately, I won't play. You thought you'd found it with Jackie Robinson. Here's the thing: I think deliberate attempts to get Bill's goat on race aren't justifiable because I think deliberate attempts to get anyone's goat on race aren't justifiable. I wish I thought you were above that. I really don't.

Is that racist? I don't know where it falls on any given spectrum. If it isn't racist, it's certainly - to coin a new term - racially cynical. Whether or not you're racist, you're using racism as a tool.
Kim,
Your audience here is mostly American and Canadian. We've heard the word in a given context. The trouble is, Patois doesn't work in your context because it doesn't describe Bill's speech and you're not generally that clumsy with English. Bill's speech doesn't come across as if influenced by a foreign language. So I have to ask myself about context. Again, alone, it wouldn't make all that much of a difference. But when you add it to ardently defending a guy who mounted a blatantly racist attack on Bill and essentially asking Onislandtime the equivalent of "What's a White woman doing in a place like this (defending a Black guy)?" or, alternatively, "You're defending him and you're White?" I'm a little slower with the benefit of the doubt. You've never said why you commented on OIT's race when she changed her avatar, I can't make anything else fit, and your explanations ignore your surprise at the race of her avatar altogether. So yes, I think something racial is going on here, but I don't base that mainly on Patois.
JT, patois is considered an inferior language spoken instead of proper English by Jamaicans, for instance, or instead of proper French by those people who were subject to colonialism. Language not approved in school and considered only for lower classes.
It was pointed out at the time it was used about Bill that it was racially charged.
Context, you want context Kosher ?

'What concerns me about Beck and others like him is their blindness or disregard in the face of overwhelming information to the contrary that they have behaved dishonestly, and continue with a patois that betrays nothing of their past.'

This, my comment toward the end of a post ( I'm New Here, Show Me Around ? ) which had nothing, zilch, zero to do with race but everything to do with dishonesty and false accusations none of which were addressed.

That's the context.
You can misconstrue this any way you like ; whatever suits your agenda.
I wanted a simple answer.
Six months later I'm still waiting.

Sure I find Beck's language turgid, dense, ridiculous, but what has that got to do with the colour of his skin ?

Forgive me for doubting onislandtime's veracity but given her/his role in the initial attack I'm reluctant to believe anything he/she or it has to say.

re. 'patois,' onislandtime, take it up with Merriam Webster or OED.
And on why you commented on OIT's race when you saw her avatar? I get her gender - a non-gendered name with a palm tree for an avatar is confusing, in fact I may have had the same issue - but not her race. Particularly not in the context of arguing with Bill.
Given that three white men are doing the speaking, why is the discussion not about a white man? I'll say it another way. If these are accidents, and coicidentally racist, why are they consistently in one direction, from one direction? Plausible deniability diminishes over time, and through the course of repeated events. Accidents become modus operandi.

Another aspect. Why is there a discussion of speech at all? Who is speaking? These are printed words. If I grad random sentences from texts without giving you any clues, could you tell me what state they were from, or their ethnic heritage?

Better yet, decribe my accent, Gamble. Give me examples of how I pronounce certain words. How is my speech similar to one area of this country, and different from another. Explain to me how a kid from San Diego says "mom", as opposed to a kid from Milwaukee. Tell me what a person from Cincinnati says when they want you to repeat themselves. Where in the U.S. do you find a two syllable word in common usage which indicates direction, and which direction does it indicate? How does someone from the Berkshires speak differently from the nearest large city, and which city is that? Which region of the U.S. is modeled by most network newscasters as the least discernible, and most desirable accent for reading the news….in the U.S. Since you are such an expert on language, and dialects, answer these for me…if you can. I bet you don't have the slightest clue what I sound like.
Give me the three most common terms for a carbonated soft drink, and which regions use which terms? Which one do I use?
There are two public figures whose speech sounds almost exactly like mine. Both of these public figures are known world wide. One of them is not likely to be discussed in these pages, while another one has been quite frequently. One of them was mentioned in this thread…I think. I am not going back to search because it is the middle of the night. That is a big clue. Come on, linguistics expert. Tell me what my speech sounds like.
That's easy. It sounds like............................................patois
Yep, at least one was discussed in this thread, and neither of the two are within 500 miles or 3 states of where I grew up. Both are from different regions from me, and from one another.
Zsa Zsa Gabor and Arnold Schwarzenegger? Wait, was one of them mentioned.....I'll have to go look
You are actually close in two senses, neither of them having to do with language. But you are warm…in a way.
Barack Obama and Maria Shriver?
Since you have such insight into my dark, under educated, provincial soul, tell me, Gamble, why do I know so much about American regional dialects? How did this base of information begin?

I'll tell you what. If you sent out an all points bulletin for a man of my description, and I was described as speaking with a "patois", I'd be eliminated in about 5 seconds. I'll hazard a guess that Ricky Gervais, or Bill Clinton sound closer to what one might call a patois than I do. Pretty safe bet there.
What the hell does the sound of yours or anyone else's voice have to do with the definition of 'patois' ? What are you talking about ?

Can you read, Beck ?

This is exactly it, Kosher : put up a simple question and you get 700 words of obfuscation ; nothing approaching an answer ; just this stuff, and you wonder why I doubt this guy is speaking English.
Was that two swings or one, Kosher?

This is a bit of a thinker. (I know some folk think I'm inferior but…) First, ask yourself, do Barack Obama and Maria Shriver sound like one another? For the three of us to sound alike, two of them must sound alike.
Gamble, look around. If you see comprehension elsewhere, and you are not getting it…it's you. That's pretty simple logic.

Wiki:

Jamaican pronunciation and vocabulary are significantly different from English, despite heavy use of English words or derivatives. Jamaican Patois displays similarities to the pidgin and creole languages of West Africa, due to their common descent from the blending of African substrate languages with European languages.[citation needed]
*******************

Do you see the SECOND WORD in the first line, Gamble? That word is pronunciation. That refers to speech. Is that clear enough?
Wiki:

Jamaican Patois, known locally as Patois (Patwa or Patwah) or Jamaican, and called Jamaican Creole by linguists, is an English-lexified creole language with West African influences SPOKENprimarily in Jamaica and the Jamaican diaspora.
Sorry.

I thought Merriam Webster, the Oxford English and the Macquarie Dictionary might have more authority than Wiki.

What a cretinous fool I've been all these years.
Kosh, I hate to speak harshly to you on your very own blog, but I don't see where you get the fucking nerve to accuse me, or any of the people you have alluded to, of being racists, or quasi-racists, or whatever else you might insinuate. You know bupkes about me, Bubala.

Without qualm or scruple, you sling vicious, damaging epithets left and right. Racists, anti-Semites, they are all around you and out to get you and your boyfriend. Your ADHD is getting the better of you, Kosh, and I find myself among the victims of this deplorable state of affairs.

Crying racism where there is no racism is not kosher, Kosher, and extremely harmful when there are gullible people around who believe it. There are all too many weakminded dotards like Myriad to pick up the cry. To prey on their weakness is contemptible. You are fucking contemptible.
Wiki:

JAMAICAN PATOIS EXISTS MOSTLY AS A SPOKEN LANGUAGE. Although standard British English is used for most writing in Jamaica, Jamaican Patois has been gaining ground as a literary language for almost a hundred years. Claude McKay published his book of Jamaican poems Songs of Jamaica in 1912. Patois and English are frequently used for stylistic contrast (codeswitching) in new forms of internet writing.[6]
****************

Can you read that, Gamble?
That anyone on this 'writer's site' would base an accusation of racism on a ( citation needed ) page from Wiki over MW, OED or Macquarie tells me fairly clearly what it is we're dealing with here.
Oh, sorry Beck.

Did I say Jamaican patois ?

I thought I said patois. You know, the Old French word that's been in use around the world since the 1600s.
Gamble, patois, in the elitist, disparaging way that you meant it, refers to an oral tradition used by colonials. Your statement was of the substandard nature of my language. You used "patois" to indicate this. This refers to oral tradition.

Latin melted into Italian by means of the same process. Latin was the language of the educated. Oral traditions bend rules, ease certain usages, and languages evolve by that means. Some Enlgish fetishists have taken to using Latin as a means to keep English from going through this process which is why there are controversies about things like split infinitives. Technically, a split infinitive is not grammatically incorrect, but a certain school of thought, which sought to apply this Latin structure to English, made this particular rule. I'm not certain when, but I think it was in the 19th century. John Roberts of the USSC is one of these fetishists. He famously, or imfamously changed the Oath of Office to remove a split infinitive on the fly, while giving the oath in 2009, and started a small controversy. This was all over this Latin structure fetish.

Wiki:

"In 2009, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, while administering the oath to Barack Obama, incorrectly recited part of the oath. Roberts prompted, "That I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully." Obama stopped at "execute," and waited for Roberts to correct himself. Roberts, after a false start, then followed Obama's "execute" with "faithfully", which results in "execute faithfully," which is also incorrect. Obama then repeated Roberts' initial, incorrect prompt, with the word "faithfully" after "United States."[16][17] The oath was re-administered the next day by Roberts at the White House.[18][19]"
*******************
Sorry. I hope my ignorance about language did not overwhelm you there, Gamble. Patois refers to language transfered by means of oral tradition. They can standardize themselves and become written…but it is an oral process.
Gamble, patois is French. Who do you think brought that concept to Jamaica? Bob Marley? It refers to Jamaica and a variety of other colonies. It is not limited to Jamaica. Now, I can find a reference from Wiki that says orange juice comes from oranges. Just because it is from Wiki does not mean that it is not. You are trying to bigfoot a simple point as if the 500 year old tradition is not about the social strata in the colonies. Your statement meant to indicate superiority versus inferiority. The origin is colonial racism.
Now, as for patois, I have always understood this to mean an irregular dialect, similar to but clearly distinct from some other language from which it draws its roots.

To me, this describes Bill Beck's language pretty well. Alas, as Bill will tell you, I don't know what his voice sounds like, but if I had to guess I would say Pee Wee Herman.

In its written form, the only form of it I know, it resembles English, but there is a lot that is un-English about it. As my distinguished colleague Professor Gamble has pointed out before, it seems robotic, detached from any human qualities.

Indeed -- sorry about this, Professor Gamble -- I am inclined to think that perhaps the academic community may be mistaken in assigning the description patois to Mr. Beck's language. Patois would imply that there must be others who communicate in the same dialect, and I have yet to see or hear anything that resembles what Mr. Beck posts on this Web site. He is unique (praise be to God).
Merriam Webster:

pa·tois noun \ˈpa-ˌtwä, ˈpä-\
: a form of a language that is spoken only in a particular area and that is different from the main form of the same language
plural pa·tois

Full Definition of PATOIS

1
a : a dialect other than the standard or literary dialect
b : uneducated or provincial speech
2
: the characteristic special language of an occupational or social group : jargon
For a Wiki-educated person, Beck, you come across as very ...

You know what I think now ?
You know intuitively how I mean to use the words I choose, do you ?
I choose my words as carefully as I can, Beck.
I choose them as carefully as a surgeon chooses his scalpel.

Don't you ever freaking presume to tell me what I mean by the words I choose.
You have no idea, that much is clear.
OED:

Definition of patois in English
patois
Syllabification: (pat·ois)
Pronunciation: /ˈpaˌtwä, ˈpä-/
noun (plural same )
the dialect of the common people of a region, differing in various respects from the standard language of the rest of the country:
the nurse talked to me in a patois that even Italians would have had difficulty in understanding
the jargon or informal speech used by a particular social group:
the raunchy patois of inner-city kids
*******************

Any more dodges, Gamble?
Gamble, I am not educated by Wiki. It is merely a reference. Below those are the OED and Merriam Webster. They all agree.
What is a Wiki educated person, Gamble? What is your education? Do you know when Wiki was created? Do you know how old I am? Do you realize that I got my education before Wiki existed?

Does anyone buy your snob routine? Wiki educated? What is your education? What qualifies you to judge mine….besides being able to choose a word like a scalpel?
Professor Louis, I'd agree but for the fact that are those on OS who seem to understand the subject and his sentence structures.
At least they appear to.
Possibly they are as devoid of emotion or personality as Beck himself.
This then would comprise a group ~ all that's needed, really, for patois to take effect, according to the lexicographers.

Professor Louis you come across as remarkably erudite, for a Republican.
Professor Gamble, I got educated first, then changed political parties. Also, I keep Wiki onscreen at all times. (Hi, Bill.)
Goodnight gen….uh. Goodnight.
Kim,

Don't ignore any of the examples you gave at all. They are all a type of patois.The root of the word and it's origin is what would have been upsetting if it was believed that reference to the origin was the intent in your usage of it. I'm not going suggest it was or wasn't. Just letting you know there is a reason for Kosh's questioning the usage considering the topic being tossed about,
I has thought that my guess that Bill sounded like Zsa Zsa Gabor or Arnold Schwarzenegger would remain the most asinine comment on this thread, particularly given that I was kidding. (The hint that I was close in some respect is why I subsequently guessed Maria Shriver. Also kidding.) Arthur's contention that Myriad is weak minded managed to pass it.
Ok, the guess was close in the sense that one aspect of it involves Northern California. Both public figures were educated at Stanford. Condoleeza Rice is one who shares my dialect to a suprising degree, although she is from 3 states away. The other public figure was also educated at Stanford, but grew up in Southern California. The two sound very much like one another, and both like me. Neither has what anyone would describe as patois.
The origins of the word Patois come from France and refer to the regions of France that never spoke standard French. This is the standard academic reference for the term.

The French Revolution's reign of terror partly focused on eliminating Patois from the French vocabulary, particularly Occitan, Breton, Provencal, Catalan and the like.

Until this debate, I was never aware that it had an Afro-Carribean context.

That said, the primary use of the word in academia in history is in regard to the Reign of Terror

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France#French_Revolution
http://books.google.com/books?id=s4x9_2uIoroC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=Patois,+French+Revolution&source=bl&ots=QzTKWVAmTb&sig=k-RiKhJE0jXnSAeEtWmyxr-VmGU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=a2qLUq7AOLer4APCvIGQCg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Patois%2C%20French%20Revolution&f=false
The Jacobin Left-Wing radicals tried to force standard French on all the regional dialects. And they killed tens of thousands of people who resisted.

The Bourbon kings liked the linguistic division, because it enabled the provinces to be mutually incomprehensible to eachother. This allowed the king to divide et imperium.

Throughout European history, Patois was a word that refered to this situation in France.

It may have other uses in the Carribean. I was not aware of these until I saw this debate. But the original use, in France, was to describe these regional dialects. Again, this is the primary utilization of the term.

Depending on the context, the use of the word could be racist, though. I definately see Bill Beck's point. And I do not think he speaks in a Patois, nor does anybody on Open Salon.

Patois is pretty much dead in the English language world, especially in written form. There are no real dialects of English anymore. They are spoken, but not really formally written as Patois was and is in Basque regions, Catalan, Provence, Brittany, etc...
Basically, there was a guy in the French Revolution named Henri Gregoire. He was a radical Jacobin. He wrote a report to the Committe of Public Safety called "Report on the necessity and means to annihilate the patois and to universalise the use of the French language"

This was how I learned of the word in my historical studies.
Now, when Frenchmen colonized the Carribbean, they brought their language. When they saw people speaking French in a way they thought was not "standard French" they would have used this word, "Patois" to describe it. They were not being racist, per se, by using the word. Of course they were racist, and classist and oppressive by enslaving these folks, as a matter of course.

But, using the word "patois" was merely their using a pre-existing French word. One that connoted improper use of the French language.

That said, it overlapped in a way with racism. This is because the ability to use "standard French" was a mark of power, privilege, class and prestige within Bourbon, pre-revolutionary, Ancien Regime France.

The inability to use standard French was a mark of provinciality, of ignorance, of peasant origins, of barbarism.

The French treated their own white, Catholic countrymen in this manner. They discriminated and oppressed those who spoke Patois, those who came from the countryside.

And when they colonized the Carribbean, they mocked black slaves for not mastering the nuances of proper standard French, too.

Here, they were still using language as an instrument of oppression and class privilege, as most Marxian analysts have written a great deal about.

That said, the term is more general and transcendent than you guys realize. It is broader than the Afro-Carribean context. Of course, it is no less disparaging, biased and perhaps even racist to use, depending on the context.

Now, the French Revolution sought to eliminate the Patois first, because they wanted to unify the Patrie, to make France a solid, unified nation. They wanted to make the provinces more alike, than disalike. Second, they wanted to prevent foreign kings from using linguistic similarity from causing the provinces from rebeling. This happened during the Revolution, when Britain caused Brittany to rebel, when the Spanish caused southern France (whose French was similar to Spanish) to rebel, and the like. Third, they wanted to increase equal opportunity for all regions of France and prevent linguistic barriers from isolating and dividing all Frenchmen.

This is why they wanted to eliminate Patois throughout France as well as in the overseas provicnes.
More specifically, this sort of subject was raised during the Trayvon Martin trial regarding Rachel Jeantel. The defense attorney went after Jeantel regarding her Creole heritage, her ability to read cursive writing, and was demonstrated in the trial as the attorney asked Jeantel if she could understand what he was saying. The purpose was to deamean the witness in front of the mostly white jury in a particularly insidious and divisive manner. The effort to reduce Jeantel to an other, and inferior, had the desired effect of splitting the small jury along racial lines. This is how this sort of racial wedge is used. This is no accident. This is a very deliberate, and old tactic.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0629/Trayvon-Martin-case-How-Rachel-Jeantel-went-from-star-witness-to-train-wreck-video

Here is one description.

"Reaction to Rachel Jeantel on the stand “has been in terms of aesthetics, of disregarding a witness on the basis of how she talks, how good she is at reading and writing,” says George Ciccariello-Maher, a history and politics professor at Drexel University, in Philadelphia. “These are subtle things that echo literacy testing at the polls, echo the question of whether black Americans can testify against white people, of being always suspect in their testimony. It’s the same old dynamics emerging in a very different guise.”
*************

This so closely mirrors our issue that it is stunning. Even the "can you read"phrase has been included.
Bill: You are correct.

Interestingly, Dr. Sun Yat Sen, during the Chinese Revolution and later, Mao Tze Tung and the Communist Party of China complained, during the Chinese Civil War and later, Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, that language was one of the major tools of the Aristocracy when they sought to oppress and discriminate against the working-classes or proletariat.

Mandarin Chinese is very hard to learn in terms of reading and writing. Mao pointed out that Western alphabets, which were phonetic, allowed for faster literacy among the poor, because they only needed to master 24 sounds.

In Chinese, you needed to master hundreds if not thousands of nuanced pictograms. Furthermore, one's vocabulary and caligraphy was often a signal of one's class position. Mao wanted to simplify the Chinese language in such a way that it enabled and quickened the pace of literacy in China.

In France, the French Aristocracy, over time, made standard French one of the most complex languages in Western Europe, mostly due to esoteric "keeping up with the Joneses" competitions between the aristocracy who kept using scholars and clergy to invent new and fashionable rules for writing. Its one of the reasons why the language is so full of silent letters. Many Marxist scholars point out that this was done in order to prevent middle class and working class people from teaching themselves how to read and write. Only if somebody was formally taught (and paid for) literacy lessons, would they know that there was an "s" at the end of "vous" or "Bois". Otherwise, folks would spell things phonetically.

If one goes to Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland or England, none of them have the same degree of silent letters. Marxians believe there is a reason for this.


http://www.sacu.org/pinyinissues.html

"The letter from Guo Moruo, President of the Academy of Sciences, to the editor of Hongqi (Red Flag) recently, on the reform of the written language (a translation of which appeared in the August/September issue of China Now, and which also received comment from the press) highlighted a problem which has in fact been under scrutiny, intermittently, for hundreds of years, starting from the 3rd century BC when the script variants were systematised and a uniform style of characters, known as the 'small seal', was introduced. But this particular reform was for the convenience of the scholar-gentry who unconsciously or deliberately used the complications of their written language as a sort of class protection."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters
Radical Marxians would say that there should be uniform standards of education in a single language, so everybody is on the same page in terms of communication. This is not for purposes of cultural imperialism, but exactly in order to prevent class-exploitation, which is the primary instrument by which racial, ethnic and cultural oppression take place.

But I am getting off-topic, as I frequently do. 8)
The letter from Guo Moruo, President of the Academy of Sciences, to the editor of Hongqi (Red Flag) recently, on the reform of the written language (a translation of which appeared in the August/September issue of China Now, and which also received comment from the press) highlighted a problem which has in fact been under scrutiny, intermittently, for hundreds of years, starting from the 3rd century BC when the script variants were systematised and a uniform style of characters, known as the 'small seal', was introduced. But this particular reform was for the convenience of the scholar-gentry who unconsciously or deliberately used the complications of their written language as a sort of class protection.

With the invention of paper and writing brushes, the Han scribes in the new 'cursive' writing made random abbreviations and many simplified characters crept in which have remained to this day, but again this had nothing to do with the spread of literacy: the urge to simplification was constantly countered by the inevitable tendency of the language to grow with time and the determination of the governing classes to preserve their status. Book learning being the only road to office. The fact that a great many simplified characters have been found in printed copies of popular tales and ballads from the Ming dynasty, while we are told that the imperial examiners at that time would fail candidates for using a single abbreviation, underlines the basis conflict: the wish of the people for a simpler form of writing and the jealous preservation of their own interests by the scholars and officials.

The processes of history pushed this conflict into the open. Unwillingly, Imperial China was forced towards modernisation by the intrusion of the West. It brought the need for change to a different and much wider education, to science and technology: it involved wireless telegraphy, typewriters, modern printing. How was the cumbersome and essentially 'literary' Chinese language to express these new ideas and use these new machines? China's ineffectual rulers and politicians in the last years of the Empire did not appear greatly to care.

The first serious language reforms, including an attempt to represent the characters phonetically in the Latin alphabet (sometimes called romanisation) came after the founding of the First Republic in 1911, but their effects remained limited or regional. Much of the work was marred by considerations of nationalism or personal prestige, by lack of central direction, by confusion in aims, and no doubt because the directives came from committees and failed to touch the real needs of the masses. For instance, the Gwoyeu Romatzyh (National Language Romanisation) put out by some language experts in 1926, a system of romanisation in which the four tones are included in the spelling, proved to be of value to foreigners only. The Chinese themselves found the spelling entirely baffling. The tale is told that a certain British firm in Hong Kong planned to send its cables in GR as a safeguard against industrial espionage, in the belief that no Chinese would be able to decipher it, but the plan was abandoned on the grounds that no Chinese cable-office would be able to transmit the message accurately!

Another system was the Latinxua Sin Wenz (new latinised writing), devised in the early 1930s by a group of Chinese revolutionaries under the Communist writer Qu Qiubai and inspired by the successful use of such scripts in combating illiteracy among some of the Soviet Far Eastern minorities. During the War of Resistance it was widely used in the Yanan area and also caught on in the areas of resistance behind the Japanese lines, but was ignored by the Guomintang. After the defeat of Japan, the use of Latinxua lapsed, but its principle as well as much of the spelling remained and re-emerged as pin-yin, the system of romanisation officially adopted by the People's Republic since 1958.

Since 1949, China's leaders well realised that to remove power from the hands of a privileged élite and entrust it to the people, a massive educational effort was the first priority. The overwhelming success of the campaign against illiteracy between Liberation and the present day - 80 per cent of the population was reckoned to be unable to write or read in 1949; today nobody under 40 is in that position - testifies to the thoroughgoing and enlightened nature of the language reforms and simplifications under Mao Zedong. These are tackled from many different angles but under an overall plan, alternating and interacting, in constant consultation with the people and with a two-fold objective: to make the written language more accessible to the whole people. and to bring Chinese into relations with the other world languages. As Chairman Mao says : 'Our script must be reformed. it must move in the same direction as the other languages of the world - romanisation.'

To deal with the first of these objectives first: in 1952 a committee was set up to work out a comprehensive plan of language reform; its draft report came out in 1955. The first stages of its recommendations, which were later ratified by the State Council, involved the discarding of some 400 characters which were rarely used or were unnecessary variants, and the simplification of another 798 characters by reducing, in some cases drastically, the number of strokes. These are the 'simplified characters' which one sees all over China today - in newspapers, textbooks, dazebao and so on; quicker to write, easier to remember because less complicated, with a boldness and freshness very much in keeping with the new world they are helping to build. They are being steadily added to in subsequent stages, and will no doubt continue to be augmented until the final change-over to romanisation.

Here there is a double or rather interacting problem. Pinyin, the chosen form of phonetic spelling, which has already been put to work in primary schools, on street signs, railway platforms and elsewhere, can only ultimately succeed if it is based on a uniform pronunciation. This means that it relies on a widespread acceptance of putonghua, 'the common speech'. China, as is well known, has a number of dialects; people from different areas often had difficulty in communicating with one another until putonghua, the pronunciation of the area round Beijing, was promoted as the standard pronunciation for the whole of China - at least in the Han area and excluding the national minorities. Thus putonghua and pin-yin are linked and interdependent, helping one another. Together they can forge a very strong instrument of social unity.

Guo Moruo speaks of 'the gradual fading out of characters'. It may take several generations for this to happen. The pace is not being forced; the characters will continue to exist alongside pinyin until the need for them is no longer felt. This does not mean, as many people conclude, that the great classical Chinese writings will be relegated to specialists and will be lost to the masses. In fact the classics are already very widely translated into putonghua and are enthusiastically read. At a later stage, the putonghua will be transliterated into pinyin. Thus China's ancient culture will not be buried on the contrary, it is being brought within reach of the whole people for the first time in history.

© Copyright Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding (SACU) 2006 reprinted from SACU's magazine China Now 24, August 1972, Page 10 and China Now 27, December 1972, Page 7
RW, I see you cited Wiki as a reference. You must be "Wikipedia educated." For shame!
I'm flagellating my back with a leather whip, kneeling on broken glass, and praying to Christ, asking him for forgiveness.

PATER noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
Folks can attack me for this, Bill. The thing is, I'm a lawyer. I don't quote wikipedia in legal memoranda, appellate briefs, motions, etc..

When I do a real "research paper" I use hard-core substances. Right now, I'm eating a danish, bagel and drinking coffee. I'm having some fun. In about 30 minutes I'm going to log-off and go hard core with my work tasks and I'll be busy until 9pm.

Now, if they want me to be truly "scholarly," that's fine. My going rate is $350 an hour. However, I require an upfront retainer of $5,000.

Without that, all they get is wikipedia while I eat my danish.

8)
I just logged on to my Wikipedia account and altered the entire history of the word patois just to mess with you both Rw. ;-) I do admit the history is quite interesting even though the simplified version of the origin of patois is adequate. I would need an entire new pot off coffee in order to adequately peruse, and retain, the last 8 or so comments and potentially.......some uppers on the side.
One aspect of this that fascinates me is that distance from some colonial standard is deemed to be some failing, but separation from truth or accountability is held to be entirely irrelevant. No step has been made by the presumptive colonial speech expert to acknowledge the nefarious and dubious aspect of the insertion of this term, in a conversation that has no business being undertaken, on a subject which the presumptive colonial speech expert has no credential. The pose is that the description is accurate, which it is not, and right to judge is legitimate, which it is not. It can't satisfy the test which asks, what business is it of yours, and who designated you the judge? It is entirely inappropriate as public discourse. It is harassment.
Through My Eyes:

I focused on Napoleon and the French Revolution while in college. I am going to wikipedia now, because its a quick, easy reference.

However, I assure you, I can easily go into my storage unit and retrieve scholarly books from Harvard, Yale and Cambridge and pin-point cite pages that say the same thing.

I didn't just look this stuff up on wiki for this debate. I'm pretty knowledgeable about this period of European history, in general.

In fact, I plan on taking a Grand European tour to visit Austerlitz, Ulm, Castiglione, Marengo, Lodi, Borodino, Eylau, Wagram, Jena, Leipzig/Dresden and Waterloo.
Very interesting, RW! Who'd-a thunk one of these cantankerous threads would be educational? (In other than the psychology of disturbed people, that is.)

HOWEVER, in North America, the term "patois" is generally used to refer to the non-standard (sometimes deliberately obscure) language of the descendants of slaves - Haitian French or Caribbean or American black English. Creole is a less down-putting term. There was a push at one time (for all I know, still is) to recognize and elevate the status of American black English as Ebonics. Point is, the language of a despised demographic is considered lesser, crude, dumb and is used (as developed into a fine art in England) to classify people and stratify society. (Tho of course these despised dialects or accents are copied by other classes, first for fun and then to be cool&hip, and eventually are absorbed into regular speech - as with, say, Cockney, and in a big way in America with black speech.)

Educated and got-into-the-mainstream blacks are regarded as not quite entitled, or something, to speak as such. There have been jokes about Obama...and how he "reverts" to black rhythms and such when he addresses all-black audiences (tho I would think his original way of speaking would make him sound like an Hawaiian...)

So, bottom line, "patois" may be used innocently, I suppose, as just referring to a person's or a region's peculiarities in speaking, but it can be and often is a dog-whistle.
You know, when you write a post, you never know where the thread is going to go. If I'd gone to a bookie and bet on this, I'd be rich now. Frankly, I'd deserve to be.
RW I was teasing you. And that's free of charge!.If I didn't love this stuff I'd not have put the origin in the comment area.. Keep writing guy!

Interestingly in England the kids are speaking what is called Amerifaican. It's linguistic affectation where the final syllable in each sentence plunges off an international cliff. And another called some hideous dialect known as Jafaican seems to be spreading rapidly. It seems hip-hop and rap took on a life of their own ad linguists are hard bent to wonder where it will go.


According to Professor Paul Kerswill, of Lancaster University, has studied MYE — and says it is no passing fad.
"
'There is evidence that this new type of English is spreading outside London around the big urban centres of England — some young people in Birmingham and Manchester use local versions of it, for example.

‘Because of the slang and its association with hip-hop, it’s considered cool and fashionable. This leads young people — and some older people too — to pick up the slang and the style in their everyday talk, even though they may be middle-class and not from the inner city.’
Yes but Kosh, dear, you would be rich and I think it may be time for the rest of us to speak to RW about our contribution percentages. After all, behind every good man are a few commenter's.
Of course it's a dog whistle. The standard here is deniability, and that's my problem. I don't see any effort to avoid being in a position to need to invoke deniability.

Does anyone believe that guys in Australia throw around words like Patois when they have trouble understanding each other? That's the contention here.

Still, though I'm grateful to learn so much about patois, I'm still more curious as to what Kim meant when he expressed surprise at the race of Onislandtime's avatar. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't come up with an innocent interpretation of that. My case isn't built on patois, only augmented by it. Frankly, my post isn't even about Kim. It's about a conduct standard. And the question about the standard is:

Why is anyone playing so close to the line that racism becomes so plausible, particularly multiple times?

If I were there, I'd be wondering where I was going wrong, not why my deniability wasn't effective enough. And there it is.

It's not just the tenor of the actions, it's the tenor of the arguments. I didn't start any phase of this by calling anyone a racist, including my reactions to the events in my post. In all cases, it's always "this could be construed as racist. Be careful or, better yet, back off. This is not where you want to be." And where we go from there is to deniability. Never anywhere else.

That, more than anything, tells me there's a problem.
TME,
I am very aware of the value of my commenters, present company included. If I want an intelligent conversation, really the reason I blog, I'm not going to do better than the last few commenters.
There's also this article about a unique form of Patois in Australia, called "Strine." It seems like it may have alot of racist, sexist and homophobic terms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/australiaandpacific/australia/other/721823/Australia-Strine-for-beginners.html

There's also the fact that in Australia, a large portion of blacks in certain regions (and I'm not talking about Aborigines) speak something called Australian Kriol. Its similar to, but very much unlike English. Its practically its own language.

As such, any educated person from any part of the world, while understanding the history of the word "patois" would also know that these issues are inextricably intertwined with race, due to colonization and the movement of peoples. Even folks in Australia know this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9QcSc47Rw
Bill, perhaps because the usage of patois, worldwide, has evolved into a less condescending and more acceptable form of speech, in some respect, outside of the intellectual community. And of what, if any, importance does the word hold in their eyes. You can't avoid the historical origin and meaning despite that.

Kosh, it has been a delightful string, for the most part, hasn't it? I was hoping you'd have thought twice and run out and placed that bet with a bookie. I was beginning to think a trip to Jamaica would be worth the 2 week packing effort.
RW gets an A for his input and so does Myriad. :)

On languages, the labels "Creole" in the State of Louisiana are not derogatory. It's use is an implication or inference of French and African and Native tongues/dialects that've evolved throughout the ages. I adore these people and their diverse ethnicities as well as the multiple cultures derived from ancestral roots, some languages are disappearing in regions where American English is predominantly taught as the first language.

There are several well-written articles found in National Geographic on how Native American languages are disappearing and I find the reasons why fascinating and saddening where their first languages are not taught by their tribal leaders whose future lineages are also dependent on communication that's slowly becoming extinct.

Oreo may be an adjective and even though I have used it as a description for kitty cats, if its use by another is intentionally misleading, it's possible that the readers could find it offensive even though it could also be an innocent remark. People take things out of context every day everywhere. Which leads me to believe that certain parties here are doing the same damn thing for their own personal gratification.

Stopping dustups is easy. Just don't be there in the first place.
CORRECTION: Its use...

uckfay emay. Pig Latin. :)
Jeez, forgot about the affects on England English due to influx of immigrants (even tho I was struck on a visit a few years ago by all those non-WASP faces in The Tube). Not just American black influences (mostly thru music), but all those in-person Caribbeans and Africans. (And not to forget the people who have made eating in England a decent thing - the Indians.)

I think Creole is not always (and has not always been) a neutral term. If it is now, great.

As for "oreo" - it's a specifically racially-charged word and its use in the 'discussions' under discussion is not innocent. IMO IMO
Originally, the word "Creole" merely meant a French person born in the New World.

Napoleon's wife, Josephine de Beauharnais, was as white as ivory. However, she was called "creole" because she was born on the island of Martinique, in the Carribbean, where her family owned a sugar plantation and hundreds of slaves. The word creole back then (and even today) means "French of the New World."

In my history class in college, somebody raised their hand and asked how could Josephine be Creole, because she looked white. There was a popular misconception about the word "creole," because many thought it was synonomous with Afro-Creole culture from the Carribean. But that's why the term Afro-Creole is linked with Creole. It means a linkage of French new world culture with African culture, as we see in Haiti or Martinique. This, as opposed to Afro-Hispanic culture, as we see in Cuba or the Dominican Republic.

The Francophone whites, though, would just be considered plain old Creole, as in Quebec, Louisiana, or the white planter families of the Carribbean.

However, even in Haiti, the term creole denotes a certain percentage of European background. The word creole is used to distinguish Haitians from Sacatras or Brin. Creole in Haiti, when used in regard to Black Haitians, from what I understand, was similar to the American usage of the word "Mulatto." It was a means of categorizing the islanders after the revolution according to % of European blood.

All that said and done, all that Creole really means is that one is of French extraction. In the most extreme, it could even just mean of European extraction (I understand the same word exists in Spanish, as "Criollo", which means "pure blooded white Spaniard." These were the folks who ruled over the colonies in the wake of the Conquistadores).

Back to Napoleon. The French Revolution abolished slavery. However, Napoleon married Josephine, whose family had alot of slaves. As such, he brought back slavery. This was not popular. During the Napoleonic Wars, Britain abolished the international slave trade. After the Napoleonic Wars, Britain forced France to abolish slavery, which France didn't want to do, because they felt it would hurt French commerce and economic power. Britain wanted France to abolish slavery partly for moral, but also for this economic reason, too. Britain had just industrialized and wanted to use their colonies in India and Africa for labor-intensive sugar production. They wanted to deny France New-World, slave based sugar production. So, there was that.

Anyway, I'm off subject again. Back to work.

bye
That's the hairy fine points of being a writer I suppose. If I write "Oreo" in context that's not offensive, it IS NOT A RACIAL SLUR. Period. How I convey it to readers and how they perceive it are conveyances of syntax errors.

If I created a narrative that states "the boy" it shouldn't be interpreted as racial in any circumstances.

I do understand, though, there are supersensitive people with very, very thin skin.
The technical meanings of words, as found in authoritative sources, is not always the meaning on the ground. As with Creole, and, haha, oreo. Unless you're specifically speaking about a cookie, literally and not symbolically, and not a person, better to leave it alone.
Or to put it another way: YOU may be innocent, but the word isn't. It has acquired accretions.
Thank you Belinda, appreciate your addition - I grew up in the south and could not believe I was the only person who didn't think the term Creole to be derogatory. I've never heard it used that way.
I still don't see the term patois as derogatory, either, but I've not been aware of the racial charge to the term before and I even grew up in the south. No, I'm not black and I have lived in a white area for the last decade...so it's definitely possible I missed understanding of other terms others would/might deem racist *and I live in the US.*
Isn't just possible someone in Australia might be missing some of these references?
To me, if you're looking for racism in the person who has never been to North America or dealt with any of its many, many differing cultures other than whatever glimpses are found on OS or been stepped in our own colonialism issues for two hundred years, I'd suggest looking for the Australian terms that are racist and see where they are used on Mr. Gamble's threads.
From anything I've read over there for years now, from any time spent chatting with Kim online and in messages for years now, those terms aren't there. An awareness of past and current Australian racial issues is there in posts, none of it written from a racist point of view to me, far from it. The opposite, actually.

Whatever the issues with Kim and Bill, specifically, I wish the previous detente had stuck.
Belinda,
If I go to the supermarket and buy Oreos instead of Hydrox, nothing racist about that. But if I call a Black guy an Oreo, different implications. Arthur certainly wasn't talking about cookies.

Your solution to not being in dust ups makes sense but Bill hasn't been given that choice, unless he seriously limits his commenting, even avoiding this blog, and we're friends. He is not looking for dustups. No one issues an apology like Bill did because he's interested in further dustup participation. This is not the two-way street it's being portrayed as.
I'm a mutt so it doesn't bother me. To the contrary. I take pride in knowing my ancestral heritage is richly diverse and any new family members are continually expanding the gene pool. :)

Grew up knowing that we're all of the human race. We're also animals, mammals and I'd venture to say a few of us have some African blood. That's where life began. Mitochondrial Eve proves that point as fact. Anything else is proof of evolution. Some of us have obviously evolved quicker due to migration patterns which where most people feel more comfortable staying in groups with similar traits.

One day we'll all be gone. Until that day arrives, the least we could do is stop incessant bickering that only leads to negative outcomes where furtherance of passive-aggressive-regressive behaviors interferes with any hopes of providing mutual respect that's desperately amiss in today's autocracy.
Maybe he's just an asshole, Kosh. Perhaps quite a few of your commenters like him/it/them have been. I can be one as well. Calling somebody a name doesn't make them a racist. It's a bigot who thinks everybody else is inferior. It's the racist who actually believes he is superior to all others because of his race. Which rather stupefies some.
JT,
Regarding wishing the detente had stuck: so does Bill.
Patois by itself isn't the issue. It's a minor piece of a larger picture. By itself, I'd never have mentioned it. I think both the other examples are far more significant. I mentioned it because it fit an established pattern.

This post isn't about patois. It's about guys who aren't careful about using racially charged language, particularly when they already have reason to understand that their use of such language is an issue, and it's about the rest of us allowing it to pass without comment. Read any of the above comments by Abrawang. He's expressing this viewpoint particularly well.

I'm not going into serious detail about the feud itself because that's not my topic. The non-racial aspects are considerably more inflammatory than these, but that's not my concern here. Myriad's post is more about that and even she doesn't get into detail.

My mission here is not to indict Kim. If that were my mission, I'd handle it differently, but I'm not after him. Do I want him to knock off anything that could be interpreted as racism? Absolutely. Same with Arthur. But, really, that's it, at least as far as this post is concerned. This isn't a feud post.

Bill said earlier that an attack is an attack. He's right, and I support him, but this particular post is about one phenomenon. Again, there's a reason the post contains no names. It's not about the actors. It's about the actions, though there is an element of what actions say about actors. The way around that is to disassociate oneself with certain actions. That's my goal.
I really don't give a hoot as to what some people may think about me when they judge my character premised on their very own inherent biases. People don't know me or who I am. I think the ambiguity is why so many are easily manipulated. I'm also acutely aware of human nature whereby a few others' expositions lean towards browbeating others into submission. Everybody is entitled to freely exercise an opinion. Opinions are opinions. Any fact-finding missions and supporting evidence considered in substantiating a conclusion drawn from summaries can also exclude opposing arguments that don't follow the same rules of engagement. Presenting one's opinions premised upon personal observation or experiential circumstances are probably more likely than not to cast judgment with prejudice.
Kosh, Bill says that you and he are not friends. Deal with it.
I'll refrain from reading, rating or commenting any further on your posts, Kosh. Same for your brothers whose dustups are, in my humblest opinion, boorish.
Belinda,
Sorry, I was writing when you commented.
The post is not about racists. It's about using racism as a weapon. As I said to Arthur, I don't know if these guys are racists, but some of them are certainly using racial weapons. Call it racial cynicism. I frankly doubt that these guys think Black people are inferior, but I don't doubt that they'll grab a racial weapon in an argument, and that they'll justify it by the nature of the target, its possible deniability (if there's a question, there's a problem), or both. So, to alter an expression: Not a racist, but plays one on TV.

If you choose weapons like that, you invite speculation. I have a serious problem with their choice of weapons.
Arthur,
It doesn't matter for the purposes of this post whether Bill is my friend or not. I told you that earlier and I'll say it again. This post is about a phenomenon using you, Bill, and others as examples. All you are is examples. You're using race to annoy people and you think it's OK to do that. That doesn't mean you think race makes them inferior or even, say, inherently noxious. I think using race to annoy people is dangerous and a bad idea, so I wrote this post. It's an illegitimate weapon and it can give people the impression that those who use it really are racist, particularly if they are cavalier about it and/or use that weapon repeatedly. I am making the case that we tolerate its use too readily when we're ostensibly anti-racism.

This post is not even about your feud. If you want to read about that, go to Myriad's blog. My topic is more limited.
I understand the entire point isn't the use of the term patois - I included the comment with my understanding of it as illustration that what is deemed racist just isn't that clear always from side of the country to another, much less one side of the world to another.

I haven't seen anyone willing to make amends and actually move on, while acknowledging that I haven't read every festering thread.
Even the detente was less making amends rather than grudging willingness to be quiet...for a couple weeks.
It all stinks.
No one has been their best and all have lobbed stones.
I'm not seeing the racist component from Kim, that's all, so I spoke up about it.
Belinda,
You are of course entitled to both your opinion and your tastes. I'm afraid I stand by my views, but I appreciate your input and you are certainly welcome here.
JT,
Unfortunately, I've witnessed a whole lot of the festering threads. Not my idea of a pleasant experience.

I am certain that Kim is not universally racist. He certainly treats Lezlie with respect. I can't tell you why racial elements have tainted his relationship with Bill (adversarial as that relationship may be). What I really can't tell you is why he has allowed racial elements to taint his relationship with Bill. It would have been so easy to say: "I wasn't aware that Patois had those implications to Americans. If I had, I'd have said it differently." Defused. Two sentences. If Bill had pushed it past that, the dictionary definition is introduced and it's conclusively over.

Do you see what's missing here? The concern is missing. Not that he should care about Bill's feelings, but he should care about the perception of himself. There are a million ways to attack Bill that don't involve race. Why get careless?
Kosher said it nicely. An attack is an attack. Whether it is racial or not is irrelevant. That aside, consider the following as a writing exercise.

Describe for everyone a friend of yours who is a big racist. I don't mean the "theoretically we are all racist" umbrella which obscures the issue. I mean the type of person who actively, openly says things to make people uncomfortable, at work or at play, on purpose. I mean the type of person who does this, is unapologetic when it is pointed out, and keeps repeating the process with a bunch of near miss excuses. This covers a large group of people, since this is posted on the internet. Granted, some will only read this and not be able to respond, but for those of you who can respond, describe this racist.

Now, what if you can't think of any? You may say, I don't have any friends as racists because I would not be friends with a racist, because racism is wrong. Someone must be mistaken because racism is quite prevalent. Do you believe that their racism would prevent you from being friends with them, or perhaps your friendship would prevent you from seeing their racism? It is likely one or the other because…there is racism. Trust me on that.
" Do you believe that their racism would prevent you from being friends with them, or perhaps your friendship would prevent you from seeing their racism?"

That question is brilliant.

In case it's ambiguous: "universally racist" - it is, for example, conceivable that someone could have a problem with Black males, which would not be universal
Kosh, I knew nothing of your nonfriend Bill until he came on one of my posts a year or two ago and vented his spleen in his usual wordy way. Eventually, he let me know that he considered me a racist. He has no qualms about fighting dirty, which is how I would describe the indiscriminate use of the term racist. Hell, fighting dirty is what they teach one in the Corps. He has practically nothing to say here other than to attack other OSers as racists. He is a sad case, with a huge chip on his shoulder, and I would feel sorry for him if he didn't choose to attack me personally. I know that I am not a racist, so I have been led to conclude that he, by dint of his behavior here, is one himself.

There is one thought that you keep worrying at here, like a pooch with a favorite slipper or bone. This is that when someone gives someone else the impression of being racist, he should pull back, apologize, negate the remarks, whatever, if in fact he is not intending to be racist.

Kosh, I reject the notion that you or anyone else has the authority to pass such a judgment on me, and to insist that I cave in to your thought policing. I know what I think and what I mean, and if you disagree that is your problem, not mine. I am not under any obligation to let your decisions rule my actions. You are nothing to me other than a dangerous nuisance who has no compunctions about defaming other people if they fail to conform to your godlike edicts. (Wave of the hat to Amy.) To such people, like you and the busybody Myriad, the appropriate response is Fuck You.
"Kosh, I don't need you to tell me whether I am a racist. I'm not. But it's your blog, and if accusing me and others of racism helps you score with Bill, then I wish you the best of luck. I do have a sentimental side."

Arthur Louis
NOVEMBER 18, 2013 11:36 PM
**************

Just over 26 hours ago. This is the exact same message. Interesting though, the one from yesterday has well wishes. Today it ends with an F-bomb. Fascinating.

I'd understand the swirl of emotions if the thrust of the message had changed. But this is the same message with a kick instead of a kiss. It's like, Merry Christmas one day, and fuckity fuck Christmas, and fuck you, the next.
Arthur,
I don't know what Bill said on your post or why he said it. Doesn't matter. This post is not entitled In Defense Of Bill Beck. Nor is it entitled In Condemnation Of Arthur Louis Et Al.

If you want to say that racially charged speech is a free speech issue, feel free. I agree. So, however, is its condemnation. I am equally free to draw my own conclusions and make a case for those conclusions. If you want to argue that you should not be held responsible for what you say, argue away. I will argue the opposite position. I know something about the sensitivities of vulnerable minorities. You are free to ignore them, and I am free to point out that you're the sort of person who ignores them. I will continue to make the case that such sensitivities should not be ignored. The systematic ignoring of such sensitivities can lead to disenfranchisement, and I think that's a highly negative outcome.
Arthur, consider how this discussion is going. One can point to what they believe is a racist, and it creates more defenses than a point can take. I will not do that.

Now, the post of yours that most egregiously deals with race is your Jackie Robinson comparison, in my view. I did not call you a racist. I have not seen the post in weeks, but I can tell you that I said that the "comparison is not apt." What I did was pull a block out of the foundation. I did not call the writer a racist. That achieves no purpose. Comparing an idea in a post, to a person who persistently, over time, dribbles negative comments about you when peace is asked and offered, is not the same as whether or not Obama is not living up to your view of Robinson as a second basemen for the Dodgers. Just typing that out, I probably also said that the comparison/post is silly. It is reductive. That may have been an oversight on your part, but baseball is relatively trivial. I think the slight measure of disrespect was meant to be provocative. Whether it was or was not meant to be, it was reductive. I said the comparison was not apt.

Now Arthur, I fully respect your right to self determination. I do for all people. I am beginning to think that I tend to give people like you too much credit because I entertain your bullshit arguments entirely too much. The one benefit of doing so, however, is that I amass your argument data. Here is an example. I was stated that you were pro death penalty. I made the assumption based upon your party, and where you live. You corrected me, and I apologized at that time. The only time is has been raised since is to show you that, I do not seek to tell you what you are or how you think. That is not my method. I am not invested in you being pro death penalty, and I am CERTAINLY not invested in anyone being a racist. I would love for both to disappear from this Earth. Claiming the accusation only to reject it and try to smear the accuser who did not accuse you…it's nonsense. You said that you are not a racist. Good enough for me. You said that Obama is not up to the standards set by the second baseman for the Dodgers in the 1940's and 50's, I said…the comparison is not apt.
Oh, it was pointed out to me once that you did some post about how white men are discriminated against in the NBA. (Fascinating repetition on a theme there.) I did not know about that post until well after it was written, but it never really interested me. The one about Robinson did because it involved the President. The provocative notion about white men being discriminated against in the NBA has virtually no value. It is rather blatant, to use your term, race pimping.
I apologize for distracting everybody with my discussion of Patois and Creole.

However, I will write about these things in a new post in the future.

These things pertain to a branch of linguistics called "semiotics." Basically, different words/symbols mean different things to different people. This school asks why. When do meanings converge? When do they differ? When does conflict emerge when meanings differ? If one knows meanings differ and one uses a symbol/word inappropriately, was said usage an intentional weapon? The writer Umberto Eco deals alot with these issues in his books.

We are seeing such issues here.

In sum, Kosh and Bill discussed why, even if these words have alternate simultaneous meanings, they can still be racist and hurtful, when used in certain contexts.
I used to write about "privilege." This involves perspectives and perceptions based upon unexplored systems and environments. Some take that sort of exploration and say, he means racism, or he means me. You draw inferences. That may be good, or it may be bad, but an inference is your doing, not mine. I have ZERO interest conceptually in some person's racism status. On the other hand, language like "tarred and feathered", or some of the other things mentined here can be perceived as benign by some just like they are threatening to others. This is how this sort of bigotry works.

In the 2008 campaign, people stood up with signs and shouted things at Hillary Clinton like, "iron my shirts.." There is nothing wrong with that, right? Wrong! This was meant to intimidate Hillary Clinton from running and taking her place due to her gender, right? Wrong! This coded message was to intimidate everyone else, most especially other women. That sort of thing is not going to stop Hillary Clinton, but it may frighten the heck out of some of her supporters.

Privilege can change how one sees or is effected by these messages. People can go on all day and night about abortion, and I need not be concerned. I am privileged in the respect that I do not have a uterus. So, if some Senator from Missouri or talk show host from Florida spouts off about how "even in cases of rape, the creation of a lie is an act of God, and therefore …whatever" This is a perspective from privilege, and also designed to intimidate and control. Not my issue, not my concern is how civilizations fall. Privilege can lead to a blindness to important social maladies. Ignoring them is bad, exploiting them with blatant, or questionable words and phrases is worse. As has been said, if it is not your intent, say so. I typed a regrettable expletive to Markinjapan yesterday, and I apologized. It was a typo, which I will not repeat, but it resulted from typing the word "like" incorrectly. I was up in the middle of the night, unable to sleep last night because of that incident. It does not bither me at all to humbly apologize for that, to someone I am not on good terms with, even though it was not my intention.

Coded speech matters. We are adults here. You all know better.
*Bother. Thank goodness, "bither" is not a racist expletive.
Bill, I don't know whether anyone actually reads any of your long comments from beginning to end, or if they care what you said once they do. However, in case anyone does read you, I would like to correct something you wrote. You said I wrote a piece complaining that white players are discriminated against in the NBA. That would be a ridiculous premise. Black players are simply better at that game. What I wrote is that the black community in Minnesota complained because the Timberwolves did not have a majority of black players, and I pointed out, using the laws of probability, that there pretty much had to be at least one team in the NBA whose roster was not more than half black.

You distort things quite a lot, Bill, citing articles I have written and then misstating their contents. You can get away with it because almost nobody who reads what you say is likely to have read what I wrote! So that means you are either deliberately misrepresenting me, or that you have difficulty comprehending my articles. Neither is something of which to be proud.

Bill, the best one can say about you is that you are mischievous. I will leave it to you to find the racism in that.
What Rwoo5g just said!

Also, just woke up, who' winning?
Bill, Do I deduce correctly from one of your comments here that you called Markinjapan a kike? You say it was a typo, but if you know Freud you know that there are no accidents. Somewhere inside you was the desire to call Mark, your longtime foe, a kike. But that is OK, Bill, because it was you.
Like I said, Arthur, I did not read your NBA piece because I found no value in it. It was related to me in a comment. Another blogger said, read these posts…etc. If your post is not about that, then it isn't. If I sought to be of mischief, that is not how I would go about it.

Also, Arthur, in searching for your Jackie Robinson comparison, I came across that post you made about Ben Sen…well, posts. One places his name in the title and calls him a racist. And you are seeking to accuse others of calling people racists?

When that issue arose, I confronted Ben Sen. NO, I was not the first to confront him. That is not what I mean. What I mean is, I asked him, are you making a statement about the Chinese? How did you mean that, was what I said. Incidentally, I asked the same question about Patois. How did you mean that. The difference in the situations is that Ben Sen explained his. He was referring to the government, or whatever. It is covered in the comments. Asked and answered. What was your response? You put his name in a title and called him a racist. And you call me mischievous?

Arthur, do you have any capacity for self awareness at all?
No, Arthur, it is not ok. My apology states my position on nuse of the word, whether intentional or accidental. If someone wants to say that 1. it was intentional or 2. it was the result of some latent psychological wish, I do not have the ground to stand on to say otherwise, except to say that I oppose such things, and would never do it intentionally.

Now, your argument is interesting though. A typographical error bears responsibility, but an overt statement does not? What does Freud call that, Arthur? I'm going to hazard a guess here and say that he'd call that bullshit.
Oh, and about that foul word, I did not call Markinjapan that word. That never happened. The word appeared as a typo talking about the island that he lives on…that I used to live on. I lived on Okinawa from August 6th, 1985 to August 6th, 1986. What I intended to ask him was "was it still like that?" The island. As the typo is written, it is not directed at Markinjapan. If my intent were to refer to him that way, that would not how I would have worded it. Be that as it may, I still apologized for the error, even though it was a typing error….not intent. It's not like "k" and "l" are clear across the keyboard from one another.
The "K" word offends me no matter who uses it, as does the "N" word, the "C" word, etc.

Hate speech is just that.

Hateful, that is.

Y'all know who you are!
Tell me this, Arthur. Back when George H.W. Bush was Reagan's V.P., he was giving a speech and he meant to say that he and Reagan had some setbacks. He stubled and said, "we've had somne sex.." Then he corrected himself. Now, given your vast understanding of Freud, does this error represent George H.W. Bush latent desire to have sex with Ronald Reagan? You can view it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyxfaftD7KU
Actually, Bill, I wouldn't be surprised. Stranger things have happened. That's funny. However, sex between two presidents somehow seems more appropriate than sex between a president and an intern.
So, earlier when you said, "fuck you", you were expressing your latent desire to have sex with men as well….Arthur? Here is the quote, if you have forgotten.

"...You are nothing to me other than a dangerous nuisance who has no compunctions about defaming other people if they fail to conform to your godlike edicts. (Wave of the hat to Amy.) To such people, like you and the busybody Myriad, the appropriate response is Fuck You." ---Arthur Louis.

Were you really wearing a hat?
Bill, In my patois, fuck you doesn't necessarily have to be taken literally. Yes, a 10-gallon Stetson.
According to you? We are not asking you. Your statement is that Freud has uniformly determined these things. If psychoanalysis is determinitive for me or George H.W. Bush, it is for you. You actually do not have a say in the matter, according to you. Freud has determined this.
Just mind your fingers, Bill. We don't want you calling Freud a kike. The 99 percent of OSers who are in therapy might get huffy.
Like you just did?

I have typed the word once in my life. You just did twice. You're on a roll, Arthur.

Look, that point is made. You seek to have fun with a regrettable, ugly incident, for which I am profoundly sorry. I don't deny that was the word used accidentally, but I wont use it. Since it was not funny then, is not funny now, and your disingenuous pose has been exposed for what it is, you're free to stop using it now.
Bill, I am always hesitant to speak ill of you, but that just sounds cuckoo.
"Coded speech matters. We are adults here. You all know better."
Bill Beck
NOVEMBER 19, 2013 02:57 PM


Oh you mean "coded speech" like when you did you damnest to intimidate me by attempting to disclose the town in which my children and I live? You mean like THAT, Beck???

At the time you used a lame ass excuse to the effect of, "I'd NEVER do anything like THAT!"? (which was then fully accepted as the pure truth by your asshole buddy hasbarabologna and sounds WAY similar to your other denials)

Why don't we ask old Siggy about that one too? To use your own phrase, "I'm going to hazard a guess here and say that he'd call that bullshit."
Myriad: Hmmm... maybe that's why my last Oreo cookie tasted kinda weird. All those accretions....
haven't eaten another one in years, either.
Accretions.
Who knew?
.
;)
Great post. What a shame it needed to be said.
You caught me, Amy. I was releasing a bunch of ninja assassins to come and find you. Have you seen any yet? Check under the bed.
Not all of that good of a job at trying to defect the fact that you are a hypocrite, Beck.

You and your lapdogs gleefully point fingers at everybody and accuse them of unfounded BS, but when you yourselves get caught out for your real actions, you laugh and make a joke of it.

Must be interesting to live by the double standards you hypocrites live by, but some of us can't stomach it.
Hmmm, that's very interesting Amy. I'll give it some thought. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
An accretion is someone formerly known as minoan.

It's greek to me.
I thought that was a Cretin
The expression is, "Hear, hear", which I will refrain from using, ah, here.
I hear you on that, Kosh. A thoughtful, 'didn't know patois was racially charged in your country' would be kind to respond with, I agree. Thoughtful responses on both sides would help, in my opinion - ten thousand words bolstering one's own side only isn't helping, either.
a thoughtful 'possibly the continental differences are muddying our understanding of each other, because on my continent those words are charged' might have helped (long ago, maybe) as well. Who knows, maybe it wouldn't have helped, maybe nothing will help - as I said before, it has sucked for everyone and it drags down the site.
I don't see one side in the wrong, here, though.
Bill and Kim, you both seem stubborn as all get out.
I could go on into my guesses why that thoughtful response on Kim's part hasn't happened, but they are only guesses. He's feeling personally and professionally attacked, online, as Bill feels personally and racially attacked, online.
Just bad news, all around and I wish you all would take the high road (again), both apologize, if not to each other, then for all the crap spewed in general - and stop. My two cents on that, for what it's worth...and I know, two cents' ain't worth much : )

Bill, you wrote:
"Describe for everyone a friend of yours who is a big racist. I don't mean the "theoretically we are all racist" umbrella which obscures the issue. I mean the type of person who actively, openly says things to make people uncomfortable, at work or at play, on purpose. I mean the type of person who does this, is unapologetic when it is pointed out, and keeps repeating the process with a bunch of near miss excuses. This covers a large group of people, since this is posted on the internet. Granted, some will only read this and not be able to respond, but for those of you who can respond, describe this racist.

Now, what if you can't think of any? You may say, I don't have any friends as racists because I would not be friends with a racist, because racism is wrong. Someone must be mistaken because racism is quite prevalent. Do you believe that their racism would prevent you from being friends with them, or perhaps your friendship would prevent you from seeing their racism? It is likely one or the other because…there is racism. Trust me on that."

Was that a suggestion for me?
I'll bite, regardless.
First of all, I don't play games. When someone's acting racist, I don't not notice.
One tiny bit of background: I am a white person who has been aware with every single home I've ever rented (bought the first house only 4 years ago, I am 53) that my whiteness helped get me in the door in most places I've lived. Possibly my whiteness (hopefully my skills counted more) helped me get many jobs I've had...although that has been less clear to me (because of my excellent professional skills : )) than when renting a home.
I also have noticed that when I tell certain people that I grew up in Georgia (usually older, white men), within minutes some 'tell' words will come out, fishing to see if I'm racist as well, looking for similar views...
So, as much as I can, I do try to be aware.

Since you asked:
I do know a few full-on racists, my neighbor here in Oregon for one, but only a couple of racists do I call my friends - both of them live in the south. The one man I've known since I was 7, his wife I met as an adult.
I'm not interested in sharing most of the particulars of how they are racist, online, but suffice to say to you that they are my friends and they are racists. The examples I will share is that they sold their house when their neighborhood grew more diverse and moved to an area with no bus lines in their city.
"The blacks" ride buses.
They say also 'foreigners' a lot when complaining about the world changing, going to hell in a handbasket. They don't use the N word around me, but they likely do elsewhere. They're friendly one on one to any blacks I've seen them interact with, but when a black isn't around, 'the blacks' get lumped in as if the entire race is one united amoeba of thought and brain capability and laziness. Enough?

One thing staying friends with them has brought to the mix is that *they* have two friends (my husband and I) who look at the world through mostly opposite views, from politics to race to how money ought to be spent to what food to eat to whether men ought to have long hair to whether two women or men ought be able to legally marry.
We agree on none of these things with our friends.
But - we stay engaged as friends. We talk it out, we argue, we call each other idiots (well, we have before, anyway). We've shaken our heads at those friends and thought, I can't do this any more (thinking of racist behavior). They've shaken their heads at us and thought the very same thing (thinking of how my husband and I have sided with the devil in this gay marriage issue).
But, we haven't let our differences win on either side for the same reasons, I'm guessing.
First, we love them, they love us. We're bonded.
That man is my champion, my oldest friend, and is the only human who stood up to my husband and questioned all his motives about me, shouting at my husband to be worthy of me if he thought he was going to spend his life with me. His wife held my hand in the hospital every day when my mother was dying, she also put her life on hold for weeks to be there for me when my life had fallen into thousands of tiny shards. Hopefully, they feel I've had their back many times as well.
I care about those humans and they care about me.
I do think they can be idiots about race.
And politics.
And the eating of meat.
And nuclear power.
And the loveliness of long hair cascading down a man's back.
And how they think they have right to judge someone else's love life is beyond me.
However, I'm proud of that relationship, very proud, as I seriously believe the only way forward for us humans is to stay engaged.
I've made these people think.
They've made me think.
They've helped me define more clearly why I have my views, they've helped me understand how some people 'get' racist, get homophobic, get so narrow-minded.
They've shown me that even those who feel so oppositely will listen,
*if there is a bond in place already.*
We've taught them the same thing.
I say we need to be building bonds among humans - it's easy when you agree and even more important when you don't.
It's part of making the world a better place, in my opinion, to try to comprehend another's reasonings, especially when they are polar opposites, to not let sensitivities, out and out outrages, sometimes, block us up so far that we never even know anyone who doesn't step in line with all our comfort zones of thought.
In my opinion, that is a big reason why our country feels so much in trouble. Who reaches out? Who stays engaged? The politicians even, they rarely cross the aisle anymore and we're all paying for it.
Having only friends who only view the world the same way can lead to polarization, where views become more important than the human.
I don't roll that way.
Would we be friends if I'd met them today rather than the one as a child?
Who knows.
Can't say I've made any racist friends as an adult that I am aware of, but I do stay engaged in talk with my racist neighbor. I've confronted him, he's confronted me - over similar issues that my friends and I have.
Most of the neighbors avoid this guy, and sometimes I do, too - but who might actually make this guy think one thing outside of his comfort zone if his only friends think exactly like he does, if the only information he gets is from Fox News?
I'm right across the street, I'm not doing my part if I'm letting this guy only know about what's going on on Fox News, if I let him think all southerners love to join in on the racist bullshit.

One of my favorite memories of living back in the south as an adult was one night, year 4 (our last) in Georgia, when a few of us were walking along late at night, a bit tipsy, most of us - very tipsy was one guy, the same guy who met my long-haired husband 4 years before and refused to shake his hand, walking off, muttering 'hippie' with disdain under his breath instead.
This night, after 4 years of socializing among these mostly conservative, prepped out ol' southern sailor types (my mother's world we were in, there) this same guy came up to my husband and threw his arm around my hub's shoulder saying (add drunken slur) "You know? I can't quite believe how much I like you, Andrew! You're just a regular guy! A regular guy!" the repeated phrase at the end said in wonder, as if he couldn't believe some long-hair was human.
Husband and had previously begun to refer to ourselves in Georgia as The Ambassadors from Another Planet (we'd moved from Oregon). Ambassadors are important!
That's why I can't give up on people, even if they're self-described racists.
You never know who might turn around if we work on them long enough : )
Wow, I think I just added my entry for the longest OS comment there, Kosh.
Might make the top 100 : )
JT,
You're in practice for long at the moment.

You don't ostracize your racist friends,
But you criticize your racist friends to their faces. That's more moral than ostracizing them because it presents a better chance at modifying behavior.

Being as we're talking about this particular case,
This is not symmetrical. I've kept away from the case itself but, just in terms of why this isn't stopping:

The main thing that infuriated Kim, Bill issued a public apology for.

Bill offers to take the conversation private, Kim objects to getting PM's from him.

Bill keeps saying he wants this to stop.,Kim wants to save OS from Bill. If you think I'm kidding, go to Kim's Show Me Around post, pretty late and recent in the thread, and read for yourself.

I'm not addressing what Kim's reasons are, just making the point that this is not a question of both of the, wanting this to continue. Quite simply, Bill often says he wants it to stop and I've never seen Lim say that.

Kim will explain why if younyalkmto him privately, I'm sure.
No, the exercise was not for you, necessarily. It also was not a writing exercise, necessarily. The point was to think about it. First of all, as has been stated numerous times, one's status of racist or not racist is not at issue.

(When I was a kid, my Dad used to make me acknowledge certain points in steps. One thing builds upon the next. Complex issues can diverge, or be ignored on a number of levels. This is an important one. This status is entirely irrelevant.)

What is a racist? It does not take much to make that a useless designation. It is pointless to base anything upon establishing it. Consider the Voting Rights act which is being dismantled by our government piece by piece. When it was constructed, it was layered with a series of acts and characteristics which in and of themselves are not extremely serious. Many even doubt that they exist. But when put together, the result was the massively oppressive Jim Crow era. It was applied in some states, and not in others. Now the tactics are being re-established as the protections are being removed. One side is openly basing these tactics on a problem that does not exist in any real way; voter fraud. Hype about voter fraud, which has no statistical support, is justifying anti democratic measures which are designed to make it more difficult for certain age groups and ethnicities to vote. Is this racism? Yes. No. Maybe. Does answering that question accurately move anything toward a better democratic process? Does it solve the problem in the big picture? No. No. No. So why focus on whether or not it is racist? Who wants the focus to be the question of racism? Those who want the disagreement to stifle progessive change. It is a stumbling block which is near the point, but beside the point. The Voting Rights Act targeted certain practices which were necessary to arrive at this result which benefits the racist, whether the acts themselves were racist or not.

(Get a cool beverage. Think about hamsters. Let your mind breathe. Process.)

Now, what is a dispute? What is asking for a dispute to be settled? What actions or elements serve that end? What is a grudge? What actions elements, or attitudes serve that end? Can you reliably discern the difference between asking for peace, and declaring yourself to be the warning device for a certain appearance of a certain person, and when that person appears in your "crosshairs", you will act. Completely aside from whether or not that statement, description of an act, or act is racist, is it/are they in the interest of peace? Completely separate from whether or not the person is your friend, your spouse, your enemy, or your self, can you not discern the difference between asking for discretion, and/or peace, and declaring the intent to execute some plan unilaterally? Is there really any confusion here?

(Ponder…if it really requires that. Get another beverage.)

There is an old joke that probably everyone here is familiar with. A guy goes to see his doctor and says, Doc, it hurts when I do this. The doctor says, stop doing that. Problem solved.

Now, describe that scene. We probably all have a slightly different image of the room, the participants, and the action which is causing the pain, but the idea is the same. You can solve youw own problem if you stop bending your arm that way, or poking your eyeball, or pokng your ribs…or whatever. That's the idea.

What no one pictured was the doctor in the room, the patient sitting on the table, and a third person sitting next to him, and the patient says, Doc, it hurts when do this, and the person sitting NEXT to the patient is poking him in the eye. And the Doctor says, stop doing that.

No one pictures it that way because the joke concept does not work that way. If the guy next to the patient says, I'm gonna poke that guy's eye every time I see it, that is not something that the patient can stop. Reasonable measures can be taken to avoid the eye poker, but how much avoidance needs to take place? At what point is it complete abandonment of the space, especially when it has been stated by the poker that this is his intent. You can even see the devious measures that the eye poker is taking, assisted by others, in order to irritate.

Now, is the stick that the eye poker uses coming from a racist tree? WHO CARES? It's a stick. Let's say it does come from a racist tree, which exists in a GROVE of racist trees. The main point is that it is a stick, wielded by someone with the intent, and demonstrated habit of poking, with the STATED intent to drive the other person away.

Does the doctor say, well, that stick is from a Maple tree. If it had been an oak, this might mean something, but …clearly it is Maple. No. Drop the stick.
Could someone distill this down to 25 words or less and pm me

the ESSENCE? The CRUX?

Not really . . . I'm kidding but do wish it would all just STOP so
mo attention might be paid to creative writing geniuses, like me.
My patois is swinging, and fresh . . jes sayin'
Yes, Tr ig. Disputes can be resolved privately. Public airing of this sort of thing is designed to irritate. That is why it should be resolved privately.
Sorry.. to say, in regards to swinging and fresh, I was referring to my penis. Glad this ^^^ is being worked out here.
Sit back..have a refreshment...sit back have a refreshment. Damn it Bill, I've got a caffine high!

TRIG! You've mellowed. This being settled in stuff has got to stop!
Sit back..have a refreshment...sit back have a refreshment. Damn it Bill, I've got a caffine high!

TRIG! You've mellowed. This being settled in stuff has got to stop!
I hope it's being worked out but I don't see evidence that it is. If that evidence comes, it will be in the form of silence.
Bill's point is: It is insane for me to be held responsible for their poking me.

My point is: We shouldn't tolerate hitting below the belt even if we think the guys doing it are nice guys and even if they don't do it to us personally.

Both are valid.
You know, its funny. There are two types of dishonesty that I know of. The first type of dishonesty is to deny the fact. That type might be one farmer says, that guy stole my goat. The guy says in response, I have never seen that goat. I did not steal it. I do not have his goat. Simple enough.

Then there is the other type of dishonesty. The farmer says, that guy stole my goat. The other guy says, "what's a goat?" (Of course, these assume that the accusation is real, and the responses are false.)

This actually happened to me as a cop. It is a long fun, funny story, but I'll give the high points. Partner and I were in a high speech chase down Hollywood Blvd on a Saturday night, around 9pm or so. We were chasong a white, late model Honda, which was designated as stolen. The guy driving the stolen Honda had a record of car thefts. We followed him in our black and white, uniformed patrol car, with red lights and siren flashing. My partner and I were wearing the patrol uniform. The driver tried to evade us, then jumped out of the car, left it in gear, and evaded on foot. We persued him on foot. We caught him on the next street after going through a backyard, over a fence, and into the back yard of the next street.

Once in court, this story was related to the court (with many more details). I was on the stand. My partner had written the report some 9 or 10 months earlier. The defense attorney asked me, how did my client know that you were police officers? The car could have been stolen. The uniforms may have been fake. You could be just two guys who had a grudge against him and wanted to sneak up on him.

There was no good answer for that. As a young officer, I learned that the second type of dishonesty, denying reality, is really difficult to defeat. You can't debate perspectives, beliefs, motivations, etc. You have to focus on specific acts. Sadly, this type of lying was also used by George Zimmerman when he killed Trayvon Martin. It worked. Six person jury, that the juror who spoke first referred to as "George." Good heart, good intentions…etc. Was GZ racist? Yes. Maybe. No. Was that the point? No. No. No.
Klan Klan Klan KKK Grand Wizard KKK Grand Dragon Klan Klan Klan KKK Hooded Order Klan Klan Klan KKK Grand Wizard KKK Grand Dragon Klan Klan Klan KKK Hooded Order Klan Klan Klan KKK Grand Wizard KKK Grand Dragon Klan Klan Klan KKK Hooded Order Klan Klan Klan KKK Grand Wizard KKK Grand Dragon Klan Klan Klan KKK Hooded Order Klan Klan Klan KKK Grand Wizard KKK Grand Dragon Klan Klan Klan KKK Hooded Order Klan Klan Klan KKK Grand Wizard KKK Grand Dragon Klan Klan Klan KKK Hooded Order Klan Klan Klan KKK Grand Wizard KKK Grand Dragon Klan Klan Klan KKK Hooded Order Klan Klan Klan KKK Grand Wizard KKK Grand Dragon Klan Klan Klan KKK Hooded Order- get it? Not every conservative is a Klan member, but, every KKK hater is a conservative. Guilt by association.
Sincerely, sorry for (seemingly?) making light of this. I'm not racist and should express an opinion although I'll admit to being shy of details because I simply don't follow all this closely, because frankly, it's a little bit boring (ask me if I've read this comment thread).
In my estimation this Gamble/Beck thing goes far beyond racism; may in fact have nothing to do with racism. Just a couple of guys who dislike each other based on things each have written here on the internet from opposite sides of the planet. Racist language has been used but once again I don't think it's as simple as that. Who was it referring to "tarbabies?"
That said, from the relatively little I have observed (in relation to MASS QUANTITY of available data) it seems to me that Kim is winning the war of intransigence, if you can call that winning. Kim, please stop it.
Bill has made an effort to bring it to some sort of conclusion. My position, to repeat, is that I would like to see A CONCLUSION, in whatever form that might take.. like, essentially, fucking over.
This crap is the (main) gremlin on the wing of OS at present.
Are we here again today?

I have a barbecue grill on my patois.

And, JT, congrats on graduating from the Great Northwestern Forest to the Peach State!

How's that workin' for ya?
Trig,
Agreed.
In case you're curious, in the post I mentioned a Brer Rabbit reference. That's Tarbaby. Plug it in. I'm assuming the last thing you want is a scorecard.

Of course this feud isn't driven completely by race. (This post isn't about the feud, by the way, but Myriad's is.) The trouble is that some of these actors use race as one of their weapons. I think that's hitting below the belt. That's really what this post is about, and hitting below the belt is more widespread than just this feud.
I do appreciate your sense of justice Kosher, and your impartial observations. Just re-read the post . . yes, I'll admit it that I dashed through the first time.
Truly, you are the voice of reason in an often unreasonable forum. I agree that race has no place in arguing differences of opinions. Like cursing (which I do too often), it's used as a matter of convenience when one can't be bothered with delving deeper, finding proper language. It's purposely used as a means to attempt to be hurtful.
For what it's worth I'd like to say that when I attack someone here it has nothing to do with race, or sex. I call out what I see as, well, wrong . . attempt to explain exactly why I disagree, and do that with no prejudice whatsoever as to who. Hope you've noticed.
This fascinates me as the most common misunderstanding of what is actually the worst thing here…or just about anywhere else. Consider the quote.

"For what it's worth I'd like to say that when I attack someone here it has nothing to do with race, or sex."

You'll find more laws against attacks than you will about being of a particular race, or being a racist. This does not seem to register. Attacks are a problem, racism, kept to itself, is not. Racism used in an attack, well, the main problem is the attack. The racism is only to indicate that something is an attack rather than general discourse, but it is not the existence of racism that is a community issue. It is the presence of the attack…racist or otherwise.
Kosh, Before you got bitten by the love bug, you gave at least the appearance of being rational. I suggest that you read everything you can find written in blogs but especially in comments by your beloved. Much of it is gone, unfortunately, because he is one of the foremost deleters here. But anyway, read the kind of abusive language he routinely uses against those who have the audacity to disagree with him. And then maybe you will grasp why they slug back.

Oh, and I want to compliment tr ig on his display of sweet reason. We all knew that he had it in him, the fucking moron. Oops, where did I learn that kind of language?
Don't take the bait Trig! Be sweet and watch the steam boil.
Oh come on Bill .. you know what I mean. I haven't "attacked" anyone as such, since Bonnie Russell. I should have said, or could have at least, when I express disagreement in comments. Sure, I get right to the point, and don't hesitate to call a moron a moron. I do however attempt to keep comments and criticisms on topic as opposed to personal. Ask Arthur (for example) if I ever dogged him for being old, like many others do.
I know what you mean, Tr ig, but you are doing two things. One, you make a point to make a statement about something you wish, and everyone but three people wish, would stop being discussed. Kind of like a fireman showing up at a fire in progress. Gathers the attention of the firemen currently trying to put the fire out. And then says….we need to put this fire out. Uh, yep. Thanks. I wish people would not start fires like this one. Uh, yep. Thanks. When I start fires, its not racial. I hope you noticed. Uh, yep. Thanks.
I don't recall, tr ig. By the way, aren't you older than most people here?
tr ig, I do know that Bill Beck has ridiculed me because of my age. I, on the other hand, have never ridiculed him because of his baldness or any other physical attribute. I really have a hard time buying Kosh's fantasy that this guy is a victim.
Arthur you moron, I suppose you'd have to do a post taking an age poll to compare. For reference, I was (barely) old enough to remember my mother, wearing cat's eye glasses, crying for hours on end when Kennedy was killed by the MIC.
And yes Bill, I'm guilty of being late to the fire, doing not much else but bitching - failing to grab the hose.
Arthur, you once measured me against the Black Panthers. Remember that? You claim to have been sympathetic to their cause in some way or another. For whatever reason, you invoked them. It is not the most common group to invoke in order to persuade. I certainly can't…in most cases.

Well, Eldridge Cleaver once said, "you're either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem."

Which are you, Arthur?
Are there any other ex-LAPDs who quote Eldridge Cleaver?
""doveryai no proveryai" "---Ronald Reagan (Trust but verify) Reagan reportedly used this many times between 1984 and 1989. Gorbachev reportedly quoted Emerson. These were done before I became a cop, and after the Black Panthers were doing their social activism. Maybe I learned from them. You could have.



Wiki:

"After Reagan used the phrase to emphasize "the extensive verification procedures that would enable both sides to monitor compliance with the treaty",[3] at the signing of the INF Treaty, on 8 December 1987,[notes 1] his counterpart General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev responded: "You repeat that at every meeting," to which Reagan answered "I like it."[4][5] While Reagan quoted Russian proverbs, Mr. Gorbachev quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson.[3]"
"Oh come on Bill .. you know what I mean. I haven't "attacked" anyone as such, since Bonnie Russell."

BTW, I wonder how Kate "Trig harassed the living SHIT out of her for falling off a bicycle" O'Hara is doing????


"Well, Eldridge Cleaver once said, "you're either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem."

Which are you, Arthur?"


Hmmmm... is calling people "motherfucker", making sexist comments like "go fuck yourself", making fun of people's sexual orientation and trying to intimidate people by attempting to post their personal information a problem or a solution in your mind?



"I think that's hitting below the belt. That's really what this post is about, and hitting below the belt is more widespread than just this feud."

Is that why you NEVER call your asshole buddy on it when HE does it? Or dog forbid, when you do it yourself?



In other words, the hypocrisy and self-serving lies and innuendos on this post are reaching an all time high point.

Carry on, gentlemen... don't let me interrupt your mutual masturbation and bullshit festival.
Он сумасшедший!
Hmmm, that's very interesting Amy. I'll give it some thought. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Sorry, Amy, that was a response to Bill, not you. But you raise a good point. The author of this post, who must be hiding under his bed right now, tried to destroy you on OS with a blog-length accusation of anti-Semitism. But I guess that doesn't count as an attack. And heaven forbid that Bill would ever attack anyone. We know that never happens.
Amy, you rode Kate Faceplant too.. a lot. I did, admittedly, but mostly for claiming to be a teacher while not being able to write in English. She said it was due to dyslexia, but I always wondered if spell check doesn't work for the dyslexic? Really? Squiggly red line means RED FLAG. Right click! Do not publish if you'd like to be considered as intelligent as you claim to be. Then again, maybe I'm dyslexicist. Really though, I never bugged Kate much until she pm'd me telling how she had called the Kansas Bureau of Investigation on me because I had hacked into her e-mail account. I suspect you want my gf Amy. Don't blame ya at all.
tr ig, Wasn't there a ruckus between you and Linda S? This was supposed to have happened before I came to OS, but you could still smell it. The buzz was that you drove her off the site for a while. I don't have verifiable knowledge of this, but that's what folks were saying. By the way, wasn't it the KBI that nailed Dick and Perry? Some company you keep.
Arthur: yes, I killed the hugz queen, but not because she is white, or female, or Canadian, or dyslexic. She is a sensitive talented lady. We have since kissed and made up. Do me a favor please and keep the race baiting of Bill to a minimum. You're smarter than that. Fuck, can't believe I said it.
tr ig, The only race-baiter here is Bill. Kosh is a gullible fool. Read Bill's collected works.
I know what I said earlier about not wanting to say anything else here, but....
I'm wishing we were all better occupied and that there had been no need for Kosh's post in the first place. His post (pardon me for paraphrasing you badly here, Kosh) was not specifically about Bill, per se, nor about any one blogger. Ever. At all.
It's about bigotry. And within every bigot there is a time bomb ticking toward something awful being said or done, because we tend to act out our personal beliefs and feelings.
Kim lives halfway round the world, where the lingo is bound to be used somewhat differently.
Bill naturally takes certain things differently owing to the reality he's lived with which is neither Aussie in tone nor all that easy to take sometimes.
I guess what I wish more than anything right now is that you'd just shut down comments for the night, Kosh. Maybe that's a little presumptuous of me, but it's how I feel tonight.
How many re-hashings of the past will it take to turn away good new writers, anyway? And no doubt your post was taken in the wrong way right from the start by several of us here on O.S.
Right here and now, we'd all enjoy more fun and interesting blog efforts.
Patois is discussed at length in this comment stream.
Well, here's another French word worth studying: détente.
Bill. Kim. Enjoy much of what you guys do offer. Please. try and forge new bonds. Make peace.
For all our sakes.
Disclaimer:
I choose no sides here, having found value in the viewpoint of each person involved but one, who shall go unnamed.
Peace to you all.
Over and out.
Kim lives halfway round the world, where the lingo is bound to be used somewhat differently.

Which is why I used the Merriam Webster definition of 'patois' first, then OED & Macquarie.

Merriam Webster is out of Massachusetts, US.
Not that it makes much difference, since they all offer the same definition, from the same OF root : use clumsily.

Not that that's going to make much difference here either.
I could have said 'patois', or I could have said 'used clumsily' and I'd still be labelled a racist by you lovely lot.

I did qualify, though ^.
I said 'turgid, dense, and ridiculous,' which I think are apt descriptors of Beck's language.
I'm surprised no-one called me a racist here for that, by the way.

I find this subject pathetic, incidentally. You live in a country where someone who uses a word like 'patois' correctly can be publicly likened to a car-thief or a murderer. Maybe I should have stuck to 'use clumsily.'

Good to see you again, PW ~ thank you.
Kim, How did you and Beck first become foes? All I know is what seems to have come much later, that he smeared you with charges of verbally abusing women.
Merriam-Webster:

pa·tois noun \ˈpa-ˌtwä, ˈpä-\
: a form of a language that is spoken only in a particular area and that is different from the main form of the same language
plural pa·tois

Full Definition of PATOIS

1
a : a dialect other than the standard or literary dialect
b : uneducated or provincial speech
2
: the characteristic special language of an occupational or social group : jargon
****************

That's the MW definition of Patois. The user of the term recognizes that reference as acceptable. The MW definition says that it is about language that is different in one area from another. Is that what he meant? He's in Australia, and I am in the U.S. Our languages are different. Is that a distinction that needs to be made? And if so, would my name be applied to it to distinguish me from every other American? No.

Is this about some dispute revolving around professional jargon? No.

Did he intend for it to be specific to me, not all Americans, and to indicate substandard usage? Yes. He explained that when he first used it. Given that indisputable fact, and the fact of its colonial origin, where is the plausible deniability?

Would it help you (anyone )understand that he had previously remarked that my character issues stem from poor raising, and not having been read to, like he does with Aboriginal children there in Australia. This was a previous edition of this classism/ethnicity analogy. I made no issue of it. Patois is a repetition on the SAME theme with a word from a different language and culture. This particular episode ALSO included several references to inability to read.

What is the point of denying the intent?
... What I am driving at is that I am unaware of any racial motivations behind all this. Kosh, who strikes me as your typical guilt-ridden Jewish liberal, seems to be making assumptions based entirely on the fact that Bill is black. Look carefully and you will see Bill himself laughing behind his hand.
Arthur as far as I can remember, the first I came across Beck was in a thread where a blogger called Gypsy Rose was abused and deleted repeatedly on one of Beck's threads.
It was a clear attempt to manipulate the thread, a la thoth, and I called him on it.
He deleted my comments of course, but I kept it up.
The rest, as they say, is history.

Anyone interested in trying to understand Beck's reference ^ to parents reading to children : Looking Back On Barraba ( my place, ) about halfway down ; a conversation between JT and me.
Kim. Bill. We'd all enjoy some relief.
A clean finish.
A fair fight requires a settling down process.
You might both have good qualities and both might well be off base in some way or other.
We are all human here and have ALL of us made mistakes, myself included.
Time to forgive and forget, dudes.
Time to move on.
And blog on, for heaven's sake.
Please shake hands like gentlemen and try and let go the angry words for a while.
We love ya, but, come on....
Kim, Aha, this begins to jell. You called him out when he was abusing a woman, and he then made it his goal to find evidence that You're One Too, his usual defense of his indefensible acts. I see nothing racial in this story of the creation. Kosh, you are doing the devil's work.
PW, understand that no person on OS would like it to end more than myself. I dont know how many people there are on OS. Lets say 1000 just for a easy number to visualize. I am the most desirous of having this thing end. I was trying to end it years ago before many became aware of it.

Then there is a middle that is roughly 995 people. No one wants to see this anymore. Sick of it. Getting sicker of it by the day. By the hour. You're gaining on a feeling I have had, and tried to avoid for years. Years. 995 people in the middle.

Then there are 4 people who do not want it to end, and actively take steps to prolong it. 4 people. Two of them have been present tonight. One never shows, but places Arthur Louis' post in the thread for this purpose. He hasn't since yesterday, but until that does not happen again, he is among the 4. Then there is the person who says that the point is to drive me away from OS.

So, trust me, I agree with you. I am way ahead of you, in fact. I want peace. I have said so. I have asked for it numerous times. I also am not required to be a martyr due to my ethnic rarity. That is not right.
"I also am not required to be a martyr due to my ethnic rarity."

Jesus CHRIST, Beck! Will you stop playing the kabuki race card!

People could give a rat's ass about your race, your color or your ethnicity. We dislike you because you are a hypocritical, narcissistic, misogynistic, homophobic, lying, asshole.

It's REEEEAAALLLY simply! You could be purple and NO . ON . Would . CARE!

We are simply sick of your endless bullshit!

Did you get it this time???

If not you are an even bigger moron than I thought you were!
Kim, did you get that? You are persecuting Bill for his ethnic rarity? It couldn't just be that he is a shmuck, who abuses not only women with exotic screen names, but also everybody else who dares raise doubts about the world according to Beck. Amy has latched onto the key word here: hypocrisy.
Bill: I confess to not having seen very much of your work.
That being said.
Since when does one have to resort to martyrdom or anything like it in the interests of peace?
When 2 wildly divergent viewpoints clash, and others feel forced to wait to enjoy our spot together as angry words fly, who wins?
Nobody.
Who loses?
We all do.
I no longer care who was right or wrong in the first place anymore.
I tire. I weary of the long winded upsets that have taken over here at times sometimes for weeks on end.
hence, my desire for a full détente.
peace.
it's a lovely, a breath-taking thing.
Good night all.
I'm abusing women, Arthur? Exotic screen names?

Whatever you say, Arthur. If I am abusing women, or anyone else, take it up with the editor, or the police. I'll see you in court.
A terrifying thought just occurred to me. Am I and the rest of the Gang of Four giving Bill exactly what he wants? Attention? Sort of like Say anything you want about me but spell my name correctly. What would Open Salon be like if nobody responded to anything that Beck wrote here, nobody mentioned him on his own blog or theirs? Not much chance that this will happen, because he has Kosh and a couple of others to feed his ego. But if his acolytes were indisposed with Yellow Fever or something (not an anti-Asian reference, I assure you), he probably would go into a typing frenzy and his head would explode. Who's for testing the theory?
Fred: A few more back and forths than that : )
We're in the NW now and to stay.

Kosh, before I'm gone from this thread altogether, you wrote:

"Bill's point is: It is insane for me to be held responsible for their poking me.

My point is: We shouldn't tolerate hitting below the belt even if we think the guys doing it are nice guys and even if they don't do it to us personally."

and I'll say to that, again, that I don't agree that what Kim said was necessarily hitting below the belt - nice guy to me or not - nor that he is in the wrong while Bill is the passive bystander. I just don't see innocence there, but manipulation, maybe.
Bill, you asked the questions and I responded. It was not a writing exercise to me, your calling it so felt dismissive and a bit rude to me, even if I misunderstood your request as rhetorical or nonexistent or to someone else. I can't help but think you are surprised I didn't claim, "Oh, of course I know no one racist at all, I would never!"
Maybe I misread that, maybe not. So be it.
Your reply after mine would also be the point where I agree with Kim on the obfuscation. Endless obfuscation.
Thanks for letting me take up space on your thread, Kosh.
I won't be back.
To be dismissed is not a good thing. I am sorry for that misunderstanding. That was not my intent. Imagine that you are told that you are inferior more time than you can count, in something referred to as a feud that you have no desire to continue, and then some come along and say…well, patois is not meant to be an insult….or tar baby….or oreo….or etc, etc, etc. I am sorry for that misunderstanding. To be dismissed must be awful. To be pursued for the purpose of expulsion ain't no picnic either.
Yeah, koshbaloney's adhd first half is working overtime here. ATTENTION DEFICIT:

A fourth blogger, in a conversation with my friend, accuses him of "shucking and jiving." Again, interesting choice. There is nothing remotely jive-like about my friend's syntax.

Where in the hell does mr. baloney get the idea that syntax has ANYTHING to do with the phrase?

Wiki: "Shuckin' and jivin' usually involves clever lies, "The term is also used in the Southern United States referring to deceit or mischief involving lies.

Dictionary.com: misleading or deceptive talk or behavior, as to give a false impression.

Thesaurus.com antonyms for shucking and jiving: "Be honest, tell the truth."

Clearly, baloney's denial and willful ignorance are on overdrive.

Just yesterday, I get a notification of a PM from magus aka mainly dick.
I figure it must be a mistake, but sure enough, there's mr. dick telling me we talk too much about him (bear in mind, I've not uttered a word on os for two months), and he wants to talk about me, and what follows are a string of questions.

He says he wants to build a bridge between us!!! Duh. He says he wants me to come visit him at his house. Double Duh.

I simply tell him little other than I'm wise to his game and that he should find another bridge to fish from. A little disingenuous eh, mr. baloney? Which would you prefer from the definitions above, baloney; deceit or mischief.

He's read my blog and comments enough to have spotted the use of the term "nakie" (probably two years ago +/-) and taken me to task for it, but what he doesn't know is that it was LadyMiko's term and I used it at a time when I was Skyping with her daily as her husband goes through the death throes of congestive heart failure.

Yeah, I'm playing with her words to lighten her load, while at night, I'm helping her find home health care, hospice care, additional info to lessen the load.

On the night of his death, she calls me at 4 a.m. to keep her company until friends arrive.

Easily, there are a dozen or so people, here, who I've helped with cancer, diabetes, depression job woes, etc.

How come no-one knows of this? Simple, I'm not a me, me, me guy like mr. dick. I've offered my help to friends and foes alike.

Who has mr. dick ever tried to help on os in real life problems?

As for lies, they are so numerous that I'll confine myself to a few:

He says I dislike him because of a dispute concerning economics, when he knows full well that the break came when he determined that Manning had engaged in criminal behavior A FULL TWO YEARS before charges were even filed.

When I strongly protested that he, an ex-cop of all people should used the word alleged before charges are filed he became enraged. It was that day that I proposed never to comment on any blog of his and that he not comment upon mine, an agreement I've kept, but he hasn't.

You could look it up, but alas and alack that is part and parcel of the cleansed blog years.

A more recent and indisputable lie: JoeBanana writes about drone strike killing children and the first comment is by mainly dick who says:

"Camel cigarettes used to use Joe Camel to sell cigarettes to kids. Tobacco kills. I'm sure you're aware. The America I grew up in went after the tobacco companies because of how many people were killed with cigarette smoke. It seems that it is a carcinogen. That means it causes cancer.

The hook was that they used cartoons like Joe Camel, and other things which lure kids, and sell the idea of smoking to them. A clown with a cigar in the mouth is fairly typical of the sort of method used to attract kids to the cigarette companies which dealt death. Lots, and lots, and lots of death.

"Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1

443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men
173,940 deaths annually among women"

That is a lot of death.

Then there is second hand smoke. It is listed as an entirely separate category.

"Exposure to secondhand smoke—sometimes called environmental tobacco smoke—causes nearly 50,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States:1

Secondhand smoke causes 3,400 annual deaths from lung cancer.1
Secondhand smoke causes 46,000 annual deaths from heart disease.1,9,10"

That is a lot of death too, and that is just second hand smoke.

Obama smokes. Your clown avatar smokes. Do you smoke? The deaths listed above are annual figures. Let me know when the drone strikes get to that level. Tobacco, especially sold with cartoons, is a child killer."

Reactions to mainly's comment range from:

"I can't begin to comment on the ridiculous whatever the hell it is posed by the first commenter. I would need a vomit bucket to focus on it."

"WHAT THE F*CK IS WRONG WITH YOU, BECK????????????????????

No wonder people run from you screaming and pulling their hair out in frustration and creeped-out-ness!!!!!

What number of war victims reached do you begin to care about the tragedy of war or is it simply, it's not about me so who gives a seriouis sh*t?"

You nailed it, XXXX ~ "... it's not about me so who gives a seriouis sh*t? "

"Yeah, XXXXX, "he's crude and rude, and manly dick's narcissism knows no bounds. The "dude" was a "professional" pig for ten years; now it's just a sickening hobby."

mainly, later comments: "I am drawing a distinction. That is not conflating." Huh!!!

"To have a fellow community member at open salon treat statistics as some kind of measure to minimize the depth of evil of war is heinous imho. It is playing gotcha in a macho faux-intellectual game-playing. It is seemingly and disturbingly obtuse to real evil. And it is promoting divisiveness and apologizing for real EVIL."

"BillBeck: If people smoked more and blew hot air less, we'd be better off. An LAPD person who hates smokers as much as murderers. What a prince. I bet you would send smokers to Guantanomo if you had the choice. You seem to have a hard time differentiating between severity of wrongdoing. The LAPD now jails and terrorizes those who use non threatening speech . You should re-apply."

"Reference to Guantanomo was to express that you don't seem to have the capacity to see gradations between wrongdoings. Genocide and bad habits are interchangeable? Some rule where all evils must be noted or none can be brought up? I now think you might be a satirist or something because your comments are so far out that it's approaching performance art."

"The point is : deflection.

Post any number of stats or facts on OS and joes like Beck or Frank will jump in and deflect. That's their miserable lot in life.
Defending, minimising, deflecting.

What an extraordinarily useless way to spend your time.
Everyone knows cigarettes are deadly.
Get over it.
This post is about drone strikes."

Then the congenital and unrepentant liar goes off and writes his own post about smoking, as if that justifies his lack of remorse and later writes elsewhere: "Joe Banana, even he got it," whereas Joe's responses in the thread were:

"Here's a stat for you Bill. As an American citizen, you and I are eight times more likely to be killed by our own government than in a "terrorist" attack. Aspirin kills an average of 7000 people a year. Cigarettes are different than getting blown to smithereens by flying death machines for something you had no involvement in. And, smoking is a choice." joebanana july 07, 2013 05:57 PM

and

"This was supposed to be about killing children. By a grown man, with WMD's. Mechanized, industrialized, mass murder, is a sick concept. Cigarettes don't kill children, it takes years to develop cancer, and you don't need cigarettes to do that. I know people who NEVER smoked and died from cancer. St. Judes is full of children with cancer who never smoked, who do you blame for that, Bill? My point is that an adult, using military weaponry to kill children, is the most unforgivable, evil, horrific crime I can think of. Even one child is unacceptable. We put people in cages for years, for possessing a flower. But a man can kill untold numbers of INNOCENT children whether intentionally or not, and we pay him $400,000 a year. That's just sick."

joebanana July 08, 2013 03:37 PM

Where is Joe's agreement with dick? There is NONE.

So to sum up, baloney calls this guy his friend, and I presume koshbaloney believes that yesterday's PMs were an attempt to make friends with me (!!!) and not a fishing expedition to find some dirt.

you, kosh, are so far out of the loop that you don't know your elbow from your as*hole, nor the as*hole you call your friend.
If someone agrees with me…even in this thread…they have been called "lapdogs", "sycophants", …practically everythng but a child of God. There is no respect for a differing view. I've seen lots of disrespect and dismissal though.
For those without a dictionary ( again ) ~ re JT's 'obfuscation' :

Obfuscate :
a : darken
b : to make obscure
2
: confuse

Merriam Webster ( again ) but since it includes the word 'darken,' and I used it first on this thread, my use here confirms I'm a racist, right ?

Maybe you guys could print out a list of words we are, and aren't allowed to use ; that would be helpful.

Sorry, PW ~ you ain't seen nothin' yet.

( Whoops ~ 'ain't seen nothin' ~ don't tell me ... Jamaican Patois, right ? )
By the way, when I mentioned a wqriting exercise, I think I said, this is going out on the internet, most reading cannot respond but can think about it. It really is not different from an open call, except it was specifically not an open call….for obvious reasons. It is a question worth considering.
Funny that Kosh seems to have abandoned his post, leaving Bill to flounder around like a -- well, a flounder. One of my spies saw Kosh buying a book called "How to Write Poetry." He must be looking for alternative ways to remain relevant on OS.
Respect is earned, just like disrespect and dismissal, wouldn't that be accurate, dick?
Oh and on the topic of racism, after mr. dick says this administration is the most scandal free of the the last fifty years:

(Pushed for war on Syria.
Mandated the Insider Threat Program which orders federal employees to report suspicious actions of their colleagues based on behavioral profiling techniques.
Supported the PRISM massive NSA spying program.
Launched 20,000 Airstrikes in his first term.
Signed the NDAA into law - making it legal to assassinate Americans w/o charge or trial.
Initiated, and personally oversees a 'Secret Kill List'.
Waged war on Libya without congressional approval.
Started a covert, drone war in Yemen.
Escalated the proxy war in Somalia.
Escalated the CIA drone war in Pakistan.
Maintained a presence in Iraq even after "ending" the war.
Sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan.
Given Bush absolute immunity for everything.
Sold $30 billion of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.
Secretly deployed US special forces to 75 countries.
Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia.
Opened a military base in Chile.
Touted nuclear power, even after the disaster in Japan.
Opened up deepwater oil drilling, even after the BP disaster.
Did a TV commercial promoting "clean coal".
Defended body scans and pat-downs at airports.
Signed the Patriot Act extension into law.
Deported a modern-record 1.5 million immigrants.
Continued Bush's rendition program.
Signed the Monsanto Protection Act into law.
Said the U.S. is the "one indispensable nation" in the world.

http://stpeteforpeace.org/factsheets/obama.html)

mainly dick recants and poses this comment: " Obama- Not quite white enough for you."

Would you like your coffee black or with a touch of racism in it, dick?
Mark, good to see you, but I am surprised you don't know the drill here. Obama is exempted from all criticism because it would be, ipso facto, racist. Same applies to Bill. That is what this post is about.
Mark, I noticed you said,
" ...the cleansed blog years."
The word 'cleansed' is no longer acceptable on OS.
Clearly it's a reference to the attempted 'ethnic cleansing' that occurred during the Balkan Wars in the early nineties.

I respectfully ask you to retract the use of the word 'cleansed.' and remind you we are on a blog full of hypersensitive Yugoslavians who might take offence at ( however correct ) your usage.

Please update the Bosnian Dictionary. Serbs have a better offer, with pictures too, by the way.
Well, Kim, whatever ethnicity chosen, the term, deleted to hide the truth. is what it's all about and always has been.
I am not even sure that references to Mark are appropriate here. Isn't the mark of Cain interpreted by Mormon scholars as a slighting reference to black skin? This is such a perilous world. That's why I carry an iron umbrella.
Mark called me 'Kim.'

Clearly a subcontinental pejorative, as set up by Kipling.
I don't really care if it's my actual name or not, but the fact I've been called 'Kim' here is racist, and I'm flagging this post.
There are lots of reasons to flag this post, chief of which is the amount of bullsh*t mr. baloney plays to poor, misunderstood, self-loathing, mr. dick, who is largely irrelevant at this point to most, here, who have followed his stupid follies.

The thing I find most astounding is the PMs he sent me. Even the Keystone cops wouldn't fall for such a ploy.

Succinctly, the degree of dick's self-loathing drives him to unimaginable depths.
I don't mean to trivialise your post, Kosher ...

Wait, yes I do.
I find this kind of interesting ; kind of sad ; most of all pathetic.
Whoever balks at 'patois' then re-interprets it as 'Jamaican Patois' needs their head read.

I know that's not the entire point of your post, but it's what you allowed it to become.

So now we are are a 'group,' or 'gang,' we three who have barely said boo to each other. Four, if Amy is part of the target. Five with Jan.

Racists all, eh ?

Simply, the only thing we have in common is a detestation of people incapable of answering REALLY SIMPLE questions, and our mutual hatred of the abuse that occurs when disagreements arise.

To say nothing of the wholesale covering of tracks ( deletion ) that occurs when they're called out. I don't think Arthur Mark or I, or Jan or Amy could care less about skin colour, but you sure as hell know how to make a meal out of it.
Couldn't have said it better myself, Kim.

I warned several others about koshbaloney, most of whom chose to dismiss my remarks about him.

he's taken a page from the wolfman playbook, flitting from post to post, constantly commenting, setting himself up to be the ultimate arbiter.

This guy needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror and see if there's anything there.
Good evening. Had a band rehearsal among other things. Turning in in a few minutes. I see the post has been rather active in my absence. Sorry I can't be here 24/7, but life intervenes. Actually, I'm not sorry. It is not desertion not to spend all my time here, but....never mind. That I have to make this point is mind-boggling. But I'm less and less surprised.

This post is about how I object to anyone attacking anyone else with racially charged language, using some of you as examples, and what that language could indicate about its users if used repeatedly and with no worry about whether it is racially offensive.

Period.

That's the content, the whole content, and nothing but the content.
It's not about the feud. For that, see Myriad's post.

This post does not claim innocence on anyone's part.

If you want to have a more extensive conversation, that's up to you. But it's not in the post.
My timing is a bit off here, but I wanted to respond to Poor Woman's pleas for détente. NO!!!!! You don't bomb Pearl Harbor, as Kosh did with this odious, defaming post, in which he viciously besmirches the reputations of multiple OSers, and then say: "How about a draw?"
Were you playing in the band, when the dick said this: " Obama- Not quite white enough for you," or did you not feel it racially insensitive?

And after you've had a chance to wind down, perhaps you'd care to comment about your friend's shenanigans PMing me with such an obvious COCK and bull story.

build a bridge, get to know you better, come to my house.

I guess, in addition to being friends with a congenital liar, you, also get your rocks off on rank stupidity.
Mark, I got a PM from Beck some days ago asking whether I had a crush on him. I had to disappoint him. Now we know why he is on Open Salon.
Well, I sure don't know why he's on open sewer, other than he likes to roll in sh*t. I wonder if koshbaloney approves of being two-timed via PM.

Arthur, leave the damaged lovers to their own devices.

I wonder if that's "syntactically" correct.

For G-d's sake, someone tell kosh there's a program called Google. It's really cool - anyone can learn many things, there.
Kim,
My point is not who anyone detests. My point is what language is used when you detest them. Most of my readers got my point. Most of my readers did not say "this doesn't indicate racism." They all had the option of doing so. If I read a post like this and reached that conclusion, that's what I'd say.

To say that skin color is irrelevant in all cases is crap. If it's irrelevant, don't let the rest of us think it's relevant. If it were obviously irrelevant, I wouldn't have written this. As I've said previously, there are a million ways to attack Bill without going anywhere near race. For that matter, there are a million ways to attack the President without going near race (said for Arthur's benefit). I find it impossible to believe that the selection isn't broad enough for everyone on OS.

Mark, commenting often is arbitting. (Can't figure out how that should be spelled.) As to ultimate arbitting, I don't make any claims, just cases. That is how I contribute when I comment on posts that warrant some sort of analysis. I'm not an authority on much and I don't play one on TV. What Jon does is his business - I have far too much faith in my own thinking, rightly or wrongly, to cop anyone's approach. And if you think I model myself on Jon, try comparing our typical threads. He runs his like a classroom - extremely ardent dissent is very limited before comments get deleted, and he doesn't typically address comments in great detail, having said his piece in the post. I get very detailed in my threads, often with far ruder comments than he would allow, and I hardly ever delete anything, even when I've threatened to.

Now, once again, the title of this post is not In Support Of Bill Beck, nor is it entitled Bill's Attackers Are All Screaming Racists And Bill Beck Is As Pure As The Driven Snow. I could write a post about your feud but I haven't, not that that would be its title. Myriad wrote a feud post. This post is about a single tactic that shows up in your feud from time to time. Maybe unintentionally sometimes. I don't know. What I do know is that said tactic has no place here and that the appearance of that tactic is toxic, so if you want to keep your reputations intact on this score, steer clear of the appearance of that tactic. What I also know is that any time you've used a tactic like this (”you" plural) intentionally or unintentionally, you've defended it. If the tactic is ambiguous, those are sufficient grounds to disown it. If you never do, you will tempt people to reach conclusions you don't want reached.
It looks like the steers are have emptied the trough and it's a waiting game on a water refill for now.
Couple of things I want to throw in based on my own observations, nothing more.

@Kosh: No matter how many times you state this post is not about people but the principle it's not cutting it. Anyone having knowledge of, or being a participant in, the current fracas would be well aware of the players who were used as "examples". Not thinking that would play in the comment area and grow into what it has is naive and that you're not. At this point your stated intent is moot.

@ Kim, I have no knowledge of any prior (two year or more past) issues between Bill and anyone else here, including yourself. You and I have had no bouts under our belts Kim and I'm good with that. On the other hand, keep this in mind when reading this please, Bill and I have. For God's sake he requested I stay away from his blog once, in a personal PM, because he felt offended by a comment I made, which was not my intent. BUT he and I talked privately, listened to each other, sometimes until one or the other was blue in the face and worked it out. For that alone, he's earned my respect and hopefully, I have his. Point being? It can be done.

That being said all I have to base my opinion on is the current "abuse" issue and onward from that, as well a my personal interactions with some of the participants during, yourself included, that time. So, as a bystander, with an opinion, in the most recent occurrence this is what I've witnessed, found confusing and at times contradictory.

1. In some manner of speaking, and I'm not going to trudge though the post to find the correct wording, Bill made mentioned of your being abusive towards women. After a few tit for tats you asked for proof. You received it despite the writers request to Bill not to share the information. You recently made mention on your long standing blog that Bill's giving of that information to you against the writers wish was his first mistake? How so? Would his first mistake not be in making some sort of statement of abuse on your part prior to the evidence given? The offering of a PM without approval would have been between Bill and writer of the PM, not you and Bill.. He didn't abuse your wishes Kim, he honored them. You and I had a private chat in which I asked you why you didn't go directly to the source, the writer of the PM, Chi something, and confront them as to the accusation. You responded with, what difference would it make? And instead preferred to continue to shoot the messenger, the one who abided by your wishes. In fact, I offered to confront the writer for you. That was also shot down. Why?

2. In your long standing post you have asked anyone that has felt you have abused them to come forward and have since stated how odd it was that after all of this time no one has. Is OIT no one? Someone came forth Kim and frankly the things she said were, indeed, verbally abusive on your part. Why is her coming forward being discounted? Do we need a certain head count in order to make it so?

3. This patois thing holds no relevance what so ever in this long standing battle other than being the last word usage that stuck out as having the potential to have been said as racial slur. Kim, no matter how many times you state Webster or anyone else's def. doesn't matter. We all know the meaning. What wasn't known by all was the origin. If Bill took the usage of the word patois as being directly related to the origin then he had every right to find it to be racial in context. No amount of copy and posted def's. will negate how the word was viewed by the party it was directed towards. Have you no idea that the more you continue to dispute his feelings the more guilty you appear? Psych. 101.

4. I asked yo in a post how you'd feel if Bill rated a derogatory post towards you from long ago to bring it up in the feed. And if at this point in time would you not take it as a form of harassment by hi considering your feeling towards him. You didn't answer that. Why?

4. Bill apologized to you Kim. He's stated on numerous occasions his desire to put an end to all of this. You've refused to accept his apology yet allow the party making the accusations to go free. Why?

For the rest of the players, MIJ I am positive that you merely like to hear the noise your keyboard makes when you type. What on earth does one post comparing smoking cigs. vs drones have to do with racial slurs? Arthur, I really can't say anything meaningful aside from telling you that I truly get a kick out of your responses even though I know others have found you offensive. I see you more as the condiment on the hotdog rather than part of the full meal and that's ok.

One last thing before I go...

PW it's a definite pleasure to see you here again! You have been missed!
Opps patois alert: "..... I asked yo in a post"

yo =you

frig
I had a comment just to Kim I was about to post but I think ThroughMyEyes' comment is more important.

TME,
I think it's important that Kim be given the opportunity to answer you. I'm a little divided here - I want to answer what you said to me but I really don't want to divert the conversation away from Kim's answer to you. I'll try to keep my answer short. I'm not good at that.

Though my main object in writing this post was to get people to acknowledge racist or racist-ambiguous wording when they witnessed it and to hold those who said this stuff responsible, my use of examples was inevitably going to offend at least some of those whose examples I used. Given that the nature of my complaint is that some bloggers are saying racially offensive things, intentionally or unintentionally, I am not that worried about those being offensive getting offended. Either they're going to back off saying offensive things, in which case they're off the hook, or they're going to insist on saying offensive things, in which case they deserve to be offended.

Are these things really offensive to more than the primary target and me? In other words, do I get to determine what the community finds offensive by myself? I think it's an irrelevant question, because we already know that the primary target found them offensive, which in a case like this is most of what counts. To answer the question, though: Of course not, but, in the post, I outlined eight events. In a comment stream that has passed three hundred, only one out of the eight has been seriously questioned (with support from anyone not responsible for saying them in the first place), and even that one has been seriously defended. Clearly, my view that these events in the aggregate are at best insensitive and at worst offensive is shared fairly widely. I could not be sure of that when I wrote the post. I also could not be sure how those described would react - whether they would express any regret over events seen as offensive. None have, leaving me less inclined to worry about their feelings.

At this point, I hope the next thing that happens is that Kim addresses your question. Again, it is not my intention to divert the thread from that answer, only to respond because I was part of your comment.

I would ask that Kim be given room to respond.
Thanks Kosher,
Before I get to TME's questions I'd like to address your previous to last comment ~ it's 4am here & I need a moment to collect my thoughts, to run back over comments and try to make sense of why what I've said above isn't enough, given that the sound of my voice must be boring to most of you by now.
( I wish TME had asked those questions on my own post really.
Maybe people have grown tired of scrolling down that far already, a danger here too. )

Language : the first thing that comes to mind is the old insult v criticism conundrum. The incitement of hatred ( using phrases like 'He abuses women' ) v criticism ( 'patois'/language used clumsily. )
The reason I won't say Gee Bill, I'm sorry you thought I wrote JAMAICAN patois as defined by Wiki instead of patois ; that you're offended, is because I'm not a child.
Also I won't conform to the Abrawang ( who I admire ) admonishment to refrain from using words that anyone else might construe as an insult.
To me that's very close to Orwellian.

"...there are a million ways to attack Bill without going anywhere near race."
I agree.
I didn't attack your friend.
If I wanted to attack him I would have used a deliberate insult, like 'motherfucking moron.'
I'm more interested in his answer to the question :
Why after 6 months has no-one come forward to support his lies ?

TME I'll answer your questions but I need to walk & wake up first.
Meantime re-read the emails Beck reproduced on I'm new here & see if you can find any evidence anywhere, in any of them, that I ( according to Beck ) 'abuse women' or 'harass' them, because after all, & as far as I'm concerned, that's what this is all about.

That, and being labelled a racist now.

Backson Wol.
Sorry the bold ran on there.

I really need some coffee and a long walk.
Maybe that was Freudian too.
Maybe the deliberate use of 'Jamaican' in front of 'patois' made me a bit angry ...
Kim,
He wrote you an apology for that already. What else do you want or expect?
A moment of clarity to keep that PM issue from devolving into the typical spun nonsense.

1. The comment about others/women came in because I said you abused me.

2. I said I have received PM's…etc.

3. You denied they existed and insisted that they be produced.

4. I suggested twice that that is not the way to handle it. You continued to say that I was lying. Again, your choice was public, not private or discrete.

5. I produced them to show that I was not lying about them, and suggested to them that they present themselves rather than involve me. And if they were lying, then I would not be sent more PM's trying to involve me in something that I did not seek involvement in.

6. OIT exists, as is a woman, as far as anyone knows. That is her gender claim. Her existence also somehow gets conveniently ignored. Again, the mention of the three, and some man who left as a result of some "RED ALERT" post that you had written in this same banishment responsibility that you have given yourself, the POINT was that you go on the attack. That is what I experienced, and ALL people listed have experienced.

7. Understand this, Gamble. I did not ask you for an apology before, and I am not asking for one now. The concept or idea of APOLOGY in this patois business involves the veracity of your claim to intend no harm by the statement. The lack of the willingness to apologize is seen as an indication that you are not concerned with what accidental harm is caused. Now, about that apology, I find it meaningless because you have already stated that your intent was to inflict harm. Why question your motivation when you have already stated it? You were quite clear, and IT is quite clear as an expresion of inferiority. A shot is a shot, Gamble. Keep your apology. Know that I have not asked for it. There is zero value in it. Your intent is quite clear. But keep the peace. Your attacking is inappropriate no matter how it is characterized. My speech or writing style is not at issue, is it? It certainly is not your business.
TME ,

1. There was no 'proof' or evidence of any abuse in any of the PMs Beck reproduced.
I sort of hoped you'd have gone back and checked for yourself about that.
There were accusations, which Beck believed and acted on, for reasons known only to him.
They proved to be unfounded. Turns out the messenger was the menace.

2. I referred to oit as Beck's 'lapdog' after he/she or it came out from behind the palm tree.
i.e.. After I'd been called an abuser of women.
Turned out oit claims to be a woman. I had no idea ; all I knew was he/she or it was Beck's lapdog.

3. I think this point underlies the pathetic, in this discussion.
'Patois' means to use clumsily. Vernacular.
Any racial connotations incurred in its use by me are incidental and frankly, ridiculous. I thought I'd said all that above.
Then your friend put 'Jamaican' in front of it, as if to imply that's what I meant. As if he knew ( somehow ) I intended to introduce race into what was a simple discussion about truth and lies.
Turns out it worked for him.

4. I don't remember you asking me that question TME but sure, I'd be interested, if someone found a derogatory post about me and put it back into the feed ages later.
I hadn't read Rolling's at the time, but agreed with the content when I happened to click on and see it.
As much as Beck might like to think it's all about him, it was actually about the Editorial policy of OS.
It doesn't take long to read, for anyone who's interested.
I completely understand why Beck might have thought it was all about him, because after all, most things are.

5. Beck's 'apology' was made under coercion.
There's nothing genuine about it.
It comprised removing just one of the hate posts he has made about me.
I haven't been back ; I don't remember which one.
Maybe he's deleted all of them ;I could care less.
My position is : until he offers evidence that I abuse women, I simply can't believe a word of his 'patois'

Sorry I couldn't find it in myself to be kinder.
Please allow me the courtesy to respond to Kim now.
Gamble, again, and again, and again, you said that the posts did not exist. You said I was lying about having received PM's. I stated that they existed several times and suggested that producing them was not appropriate. The point then, as itis now, is that I was not lying.

Also, to that point, you keep saying that I did not care about defaming you. Several things about that.

1. I said, why would I care TO attack some person in a far of land, who I did not know. I said, it is not my motivation or interest. You CONSISTENTLY falsely interpret this as being unconcerned about hurting your reputation. This is a still repeating, still spinning lie.

2. If your actual understanding is that the point was to "damage your name" as you claim, then this is just revenge. Revenge essentially became an uncivil means for resolving disputes thousands of years ago. For someone who prides himself on his superiority, revenge is a rather backward occupation. Many means have been developed to move beyond revenge/feud social politics. One is to addres the deed or deeds. Foreswear future similar conduct. Then to drop it. Outside of legal and civil courts, this is how it is done. THAT is the reason for MY apology. I lied about nothing. My point is to restore peace. You say things like "it scares me that Beck remains free in America." My point is, neither you nor anyone else has reason to fear me. As absurdly grandiose as that claim was, I favor civility and structure. Endless grudge is not civil. It is not honest. It is not in the interest of peace. The SECOND time when I tried to appeal to you I said, you don't have to trust me, Gamble. All you need to do is trust yourself. It cost you know money, and I wont pop from around a corner. Those "fears" are not rational. If you trust YOURSELF not to attack, it will have ended. At that, you simply stopped, with no commitment, which was fine. Then you and your several partners went into your surreptitiously acts of dredging up Rollings old post complaining about why I received an EP, as if that is a fault, my fault, or REMOTELY current.

And Gamble, no one who says "I could care less" need be giving lectures on proper useage. I could care less means the opposite of what you intend for it to say. So, rather than being fixated on someone else's anything, mind your own.
tme is lost. If I like the sound of my typing, why did I not type for several months until dick PMed me?

Why would the dick PM me of all people?

As for JoeBanana, it's an example of the kind of lie, mr. dick loves to pretend never happened; and kosh,

tell me you see no racism in his comment: " Obama- Not quite white enough for you."
Gamble, there is no force alive that can get me to state a principle under coersion. I offered a genuine appeal for peace. You see nefarious possibilities in an apology, but you see the use of terms like patois or tar baby as clear of malicious intent. That is a deeply twisted cynicism, Gamble.
Mark, no one sees racism in "Obama is not quite white enough for you." No one. There is no way that it can be construed as a racist statement. The statement means, Obama is disliked by some because of his race. That cites racism, it does not declare racism. No one is buying that nonsense.

And furthermore, Mark, the statement that his administration is the least scandal ridden in 50 years (my lifetime) is a comparison. You do get "least", don't you? I did not say without scandal, or blame, or error, or whatever. The context was the storm of specious attacks against the man's character. The statement was, and is, as Presidents go, this one is RELATIVELY squeaky clean.

You seem smart enough to understand that a comparison is not meant as an absolute statement. x>y is a comparison. It is not an exact evaluation of x or y. I have never addressed your repeated assault on that statement because it is just too simple to have to address. It's time you learned what "least" means.
Thanks for addressing and comprehensively answering the question Why after six months has no-one come forward to support your lies.

I didn't expect you to.

Please cut and paste the bit about where I said the posts did not exist.

You produced some posts ; they contained nothing.
AND tme, hold your tongue, if you can, these questions are for kosh.

Forget the outright lie concerning JoeBanana - that's par for the course with, dick.

After two + months of not a word, why would I find your friend scurrying around in my PM box - wouldn't one think, he'd like me quiet and away;

and tell me with a straight face that there was no racism in the comment: " Obama- Not quite white enough for you."
Mark, I understand that the sentence excites your brainstem, but use your frontal lobe and explain exactly what about the statement is racist. All you have done is quote it and say that it is racist. It is not racist. Explain precisely where you see racism in it.
Beck it's clear that whatever I say here, or whatever evidence is offered up here, five bloggers will heretofore be labelled racist while you with your lies, vitriol and abuse will walk away clean.

Ask yourself why that might be the case, eh ?
Gamble, Onislandtime has presented herself. Are you awake?
How's this for least, beck:

President Obama’s approval rating has sunk to 37 percent in a new poll released Wednesday — the lowest of his presidency — and his disapproval rate is at 57 percent, a new high for him in CBS News polls.

he must be doing something right to be in free fall.

maybe your adoration has nothing to do with race - liars like other liars,
don't ya' think?

Nothing scandalous about lying in beck's DICKtionary.
Gamble, more people than I can count are absolutely furious with me for being involved with this. More than I even know. To generalize what they think, it is that I should just ignore you, and whether you stop or not, it wont matter becasue no one believes you. (Obviously this is a generalization, and can't necessarily apply as a perfect fit.) So, the notion that I walk away "perfectly clean" is far from true.

Here is what I am not, though. I am not a liar. I am not a person who would backshoot a innocent suspect, as you once claimed. (Count the times you have made some LAPD reference as if you know a thing about the place.) I am not some Aboriginal child who lacked the civilized process of being raised by decent parents…as you once claimed. I am not some danger to the people of the U.S. requiring that they fear my freedom…as you claimed you have. If by that ridiculous standard, you say that I walk away "clean", it is because your statements are ridiculous. Now, when I did not address you, you declared victory and said I should man up. I have answered you publicly to satisfy my need to be on the record. Then I ask that if you have nay further complaints, settle them privately and don't make a stink. If I walk away clean from that, well, maybe it is because I have been publicly asking exactly that for quite some time. Again, Gamble, you don't need to trust me. You only need to trust yourself.
The President's approval rating is dropping. Such things happen. Much of it is earned….the drop, I mean.

Of all the presidents that I have admired, all of their poll numbers, or their yet unpolled popularity dropped at some point. Obama is not the only President that I have liked. No other President that I have admired has been Black. Your theory that it is based upon race doesn't even make any sense.

Obama's poll numbers have dropped for three basic reasons. 1. ACA rollout has been horrible.

2. The opposition to Obama's admin is worse than anything since the Civil War. Propaganda works.

3. The admin is ever present,like this shitty feud, and people have admin fatigue….like this shitty feud. Stuff dragged on like this causes people to become increasingly annoyed, which I think you are well aware of. The process can be manipulated to a degree, which I am sure you are aware of.
Your comment about JoeBanana's agreement with you is not a lie?

you are a sick sociopath.

And when you gonna' come clean about why after all this time you chose to PM me this week?
Oh, I see beck, from where you stand his lying about keeping your insurance has nothing to do with it - it doesn't awaken people to the fact that his whole campaign and presidency is about lying, right?
No, Beck.

To use your phrase, that's a dodge.

Cut & paste for me please, provide evidence of anywhere anyone ever said I abused women.

Cut & paste for me please, provide evidence of anywhere I accused you of lying about the PMs you claimed to have received.

Now cut & paste for me please the part where I said you were "... an Aboriginal child who lacked the civilized process of being raised by decent parents."

Not holding my racist breath here, Beck.
Glad you asked. I have always been clean about it.

Like I said then, you rate Arthur's post daily, sometimes more, to keep it in the thread. When one looked for comments, there were nonse since Sept by you. I watched that for a week or more. Then I just thought I would ask. While I was at it, I tried to, as I said, build a bridge. I talked about common experience, to the degree that I think it exists. You live on an island where I lived for a year, and is a very important year in my life. That common experience is rather rare given that it is the Island of Okinawa. Not many walking around who have been there. After nearly 30 years I wondered about what was the same and what has changed. As hard as it is to get over there, I plan to return sometime, although that flight sucks. My intent was to make a genuine attempt to build upon something. I can be rebuked, but I can try. I have not reached the point that I will believe that two people cannot mend fences. I will not ever believe that. It is not like we are fighting over continents, or power. We are two humans…that's it. I gather that you dislike this President, and I do not dislike him. This is not necessary for this level of animosity….or any. I dont seek to change your view. I was appealing to a human who has at least one thing in common with me.
Kim, you must have said it on his blog, because he never Lies. Unfortunately, you said it during his biennial deletion period.

Now why did you PM dick - were you tired of playing with your manly dick and looking for fun.

Come to my house. We'll build a bridge. I don't really live in Cleveland, but Youngstown.
Kim, while you were walking and having coffee I did do some reading. I went back to Fernsy's post and then yours. Some things were said prior to that in another post or two which isn't relevant to me in regard to the abuse/harassment part.

Prior to the issue of the PM's there was interaction on Fernsy's blog in regard to OIT where you said, "I wouldn't p..s on you if you were on fire. When either you or your lapdog use my name be sure, eventually it will come to my attention." The lapdog incident etc all seemed to stem from Ferns blog. You have argued you didn't know OIT was a female and what difference did it make anyway what gender they were when you called her a m***herF***er. Or.."in F***face's defence, I did drop the "Lap...etc." That's disturbing to me Kim. In light of those types of comments when Bill did present you with to PM's that indicated you'd said things in an unkind manner to other women it would not be beyond a spectators point of view to think it could happen due to the comments you'd already made about OIT , whether the writers of the PM was truthful or not. The seed was planted. By yourself and the words you used towards OIT alone.

In the second PM Bill presented to you he specifically said prior to the copy of the PM:

"I have no proof that this thing between you and Diane happened, so your story is just as easily true."

Kim, he gave you the benefit of the doubt.

And then on your post OIT did list all the things you'd said to her which , gain gave reason for pause .

With that you state here that the PM's have been founded to be untrue. With that being said and the fact that Bill initially gave you the benefit of the doubt I would still question the continuation of your focus on him calling you, and suggesting others have called you, an "abuser"

Kim, I would like you to understand this as well as some of the other writers here that seem to have the idea that whenever two, three or four people are in agreement that it does not mean they are behind the other persons, with whom they are agreeing, actions 100%. There are people on here that I admire tremendously that have said things I find appalling and I've told them so. For some of us it's not about standing behind a person just because we like them or we think they're good people. It's about standing behind a principal. I happen to think..you're good people. It's the principle I have an issue with.

You continue to state that Bill has to offer you evidence. He offered what he was given as "suggestive" evidence Kim with a clear statement that you could be right. You've somehow proven the PM'S to not be valid. Would that not exonerate Bill considering he agreed to that very same premise in his opening of his comment?

Why did it not end there?

I have an apt. so I'll be out for some time. This is not a detailed as I'd hoped to be but it's a start for me until later.
Kim, while you were walking and having coffee I did do some reading. I went back to Fernsy's post and then yours. Some things were said prior to that in another post or two which isn't relevant to me in regard to the abuse/harassment part.

Prior to the issue of the PM's there was interaction on Fernsy's blog in regard to OIT where you said, "I wouldn't p..s on you if you were on fire. When either you or your lapdog use my name be sure, eventually it will come to my attention." The lapdog incident etc all seemed to stem from Ferns blog. You have argued you didn't know OIT was a female and what difference did it make anyway what gender they were when you called her a m***herF***er. Or.."in F***face's defence, I did drop the "Lap...etc." That's disturbing to me Kim. In light of those types of comments when Bill did present you with to PM's that indicated you'd said things in an unkind manner to other women it would not be beyond a spectators point of view to think it could happen due to the comments you'd already made about OIT , whether the writers of the PM was truthful or not. The seed was planted. By yourself and the words you used towards OIT alone.

In the second PM Bill presented to you he specifically said prior to the copy of the PM:

"I have no proof that this thing between you and Diane happened, so your story is just as easily true."

Kim, he gave you the benefit of the doubt.

And then on your post OIT did list all the things you'd said to her which , gain gave reason for pause .

With that you state here that the PM's have been founded to be untrue. With that being said and the fact that Bill initially gave you the benefit of the doubt I would still question the continuation of your focus on him calling you, and suggesting others have called you, an "abuser"

Kim, I would like you to understand this as well as some of the other writers here that seem to have the idea that whenever two, three or four people are in agreement that it does not mean they are behind the other persons, with whom they are agreeing, actions 100%. There are people on here that I admire tremendously that have said things I find appalling and I've told them so. For some of us it's not about standing behind a person just because we like them or we think they're good people. It's about standing behind a principal. I happen to think..you're good people. It's the principle I have an issue with.

You continue to state that Bill has to offer you evidence. He offered what he was given as "suggestive" evidence Kim with a clear statement that you could be right. You've somehow proven the PM'S to not be valid. Would that not exonerate Bill considering he agreed to that very same premise in his opening of his comment?

Why did it not end there?

I have an apt. so I'll be out for some time. This is not a detailed as I'd hoped to be but it's a start for me until later.
You gotta give him this, Kim - his bullsh*t might be believable, if it weren't so transparently lies.

Of all people you want me as a friend - ROTFLMAO at your stupidity and your belief in my gullibility.

Yeah, bill, let me know when you're coming, so I can meet you at the airport. Actually, save some money and take the slow boat from China.
Hey, I got a better idea - let's meet in a neutral area. Kim, you OK with some visitors.

Maybe Amy and Arthur can come, too. Kinda' Auld lang Zein; old acquaintances thingie.

Please leave kosh at home.
Even WOMEN allow other WOMEN to breathe when they talk for Ch***t's sake.
Even WOMEN allow other WOMEN to breathe when they talk for Ch***t's sake.
Mark, I am not picking here, but this is an important point in seeing how I see the word.

You asked, "of all people, you want me as a friend?" The answer to that is no. I do not think you and I would be friends. That is not what I said. I said, "build a bridge." Like I have said many times, I don't see things as either/or. There is a huge area of gray in between the extremes. Right now, you and I exist on an extreme. The extreme is tiresome, and distortive. No offense is so great, no war is no necessary. Real life exists in between. What I will always seek todo is push the extreme into the workable/livable middle. Again, you and I lack the necessary stakes for this to be a win all/lose all proposition. Why have a death battle over absolutely nothing? I'm not friends with my mailman, but I don't scream at him when I see him. We're friendly. I don't know the dude. It is not an either/or proposition. In the vast majority of experiences in life, they exist in the ordinary gray middle.
Who is this "manly dick" that MarkinJackassJapen keeps goin' on about? SafeButchAmy?

She claims to have an assortment of dildos, some glass (gasp!), but I'm not getting why MarkinJJ is callin' Amy "manly dick".

(snicker)
It's a beck post, not about Amy, crazed czar, and like so many others it's been deleted.
Mark, I always wondered if you knew what that meant. The post had zero to do with Amy. Not a damn thing. The post was about a "dick" who lived in the town of Manly. The post consisted of this entire PM bs, and all the elements. The post had absolutely nothing to do with Amy.

You see why a little communication helps?
Also, Mark, a person does not refer to a woman as "manly". The term for a woman, if it were to be used, is mannish. Manly refers to a man. Mannish refers to a boy or a woman.
Mark, You should welcome Bill to your home. He is not a threat, just a sentimental ex-Marine. Don't be disconcerted by the fact that he repeatedly expresses his desire to physically assault Kim, or to get me alone in a dark alley. That's just the expected bravado from a man of action. Bill is an angel, a victim, the best and brightest that OS has to offer. Ask Kosh.
Ok, upon rereading that, I see that you indicated NOT about Amy. That is correct.
TME the comments Beck made about my 'abuse of women' were made before I asked him for evidence, obviously.
PMs from randoms Beck himself claims not to know aren't 'evidence,' are they ?
Whether they're valid or not, from DSL or Cheryl Che or the Diary person, whether they're all the same person or not, they appeared after Beck's slander.

None of them cite any instance of abuse, but did that stop Beck from saying I abuse women ?

You will simply have to take my my word for it that at the time, oit was a palm tree.

This post is about the use of ( potentially ) offensive language, so I'll say no more apart from : I can't believe that six months later, Beck can't bring himself to answer the simple question Why has no-one come forward to support his lies ?
Yeah, Art, the Marines on this island are all angels, except when they're raping, pillaging, or drunkenly driving in the path of teenagers.

Of course, there IS the occasional incident when a Marine rapes a 14 year old, or three military members kidnap, duct tape, and rape, a 12 year old.

No biggie - just small stuff.

What I find hilarious is when one of these "brave" warriors smashes an elderly Okinawan taxi cab driver over the head with an empty beer bottle, and then flees to the safety beyond the base gates.

What a merry band of jokesters!

I'm sure none of this happened whilst smiling beck was an MP.

Seventy wars (not counting obama's secret cpvert ops) since WWII and only decisive victories over "mighty" Panama and Grenada to show for it.

Lean, mean fighting machine, eh?
Oops ... Amy's glass toys are strap-ons, not dildos ... Please note the correction ... I wouldn't want to be accused of lying or being prejudicial against strap-ons
One thing notable here is that the fabled attention to detail of Marines and the lapd seems to have departed when he forgot his oaths of office.

YES, seriously.
Mark, I flew airplanes. I was never an MP. Such an odd, and simplistic thing to presume. You're smarter than that. I flew in the Sabreliner T-39. We flew CIA spooks around theFar East…everywhere.

Yes, Mark, there were crimes committed by Marines when I was there. I think the Marines were responsible for some huge proportion of crimes on that island, especially the violent ones. However, you do realize that this is a small, small sample of individuals, right? You realize that not every Marine commits crimes, right? This applies to all groups of people. For example, the people committing the crimes you mentioned were men. You, Mark, are a man. A rape has more to do with the person being a man than the branch of service that they are in. Yet, you seem to exhonerate yourself. To assume that all Marines commit to those crimes is to assume all men commit those crimes. You are living proof that this is false logic, right, Mark?
"Is he serious" was meant for Gamble. He has been presented with support endlessly. Onislandtime is a person. The PM's were just as TME explained them. You can't keep denyin what has been presented. Read what TME said. Clearly, Gamble, you have completely misread what she explained to you.
None of them cite any instance of abuse, but did that stop Beck from saying I abuse women ?
It's been a long time since I closed comments on a post. I'm considering doing it here.

Bill,
You're engaging these guys. Tell me how the Hell this looks preferable to ignoring them. See how they look to you? When they do this, this is also how they look to everyone else.

Now, who here are you going to persuade of what? In order to persuade anyone of anything, they have to be open in the first place. Do you see any Open here? The only reason any of these guys reads anything you say is to search for verbal ammunition to use against you. Why are you engaging them? Do you like fighting? Are you a masochist? This is excrutiating to read; I can't imagine it wouldn't be even more excrutiating to experience if you actually took this stuff seriously. Talking won't help; they're not listening.

Kim,
You're still asking Bill about something he apologized for quite a while ago. If an apology isn't enough, what is? What do you want?

And please don't tell me the apology was coerced. I am not capable of coercing Bill into anything, and Myriad is less capable of coercing Bill into anything. We're the only two people who were involved in his apology.

What are you realistically trying to accomplish?

Bill and Kim,
Have either of you figured out yet that the population who cares about the history of your feud is dying off faster than WWI survivors? All most people know is that there's this ridiculous, horrendously pervasive feud that they want to stop.

The first guy to stop wins.
Bill,
Don't tell me that you want it to stop. Just stop. What you're doing isn't rational.
"Clearly, my view that these events in the aggregate are at best insensitive and at worst offensive is shared fairly widely."

Kosh, don't assume that. I, for one, find you disingenuous on this post , and frankly wonder at your motives for writing it. I know what you say, but you aren't that naive. I posit that you knew exactly what would happen and went ahead with it anyway.

What I don't understand is why, and probably never will. But one unintended consequence may be a loss of credibility for you. It's a chance that you take when you stir a pot. You have lost me, but I figure I am not on your list of important people to begin with.

No need to reply, I just wanted you to know that your blanket statement didn't cover everyone.
Beck please cut and paste the bit where I said the PMs did not exist.

Please cut and paste any evidence you have that I abused women ( not palm trees, thanks. )

Please cut and paste the bit where I said you were "... an Aboriginal child who lacked the civilized process of being raised by decent parents."

Please cut and paste the bit where I said Jamaican patois.

I've been relatively polite about all this, until now.
Yeah, kosh is a salesman - he sells snake oil - beck is his supplier.
Kim, if the items You request have mysteriously disappeared, they will soon.
Nice timing to close comments, Kosher, before Beck can ignore my questions again.

I get the feeling you've achieved pretty much exactly what you set out to achieve with this post ~ refutations of common-usage definitions, overlooking the insertion of 'Jamaican' into another's comment, establishing that five members of OS are now racists ~ congratulations.

Please be assured I won't cease to demand an answer from Beck though.
And that was no apology. It was a sad excuse. He took a hate post down. Terrific.

Where I come from real people aren't quite as pathetic.
"Mark, I flew airplanes.


Ooooopsie, Beck!

You have stated numerous times that you were enlisted.

Only officers fly planes in the Marine Corps. (and yes, I just verified this with a friend of mine who is current active duty with a USMC Air Wing.)

Never mind though... your buddy Hasbarabolgna will give you a pass on THAT lie too and by tomorrow you'll have bravely defended yourself from more racist comments in his mind.
Kosh, I used to feel certain you had merely spoken out when it perhaps would have been better not to.
Now I see a trend to your thinking which makes me doubt you.
To let these two (and the rest) keep duking it out here in this comment thread is not only less than careful, it's becoming upsetting for quite a few folks here.
We share this spot with others. We blog together, and are free to state opinions at will. But both have to weigh in the balance.
I won't address everybody's motives re each argument being aired now ad nauseum.
I will say that it's disappointing at best to see you lingering over this post as tho' you would allow or even foster further upset.
Now I see why you would not shut down comments to this post before.
It's very sad.
Most of all, it occurs to me now that when you put a bunch of men in a room, regardless of any ethnicity, there will generally be an argument or at least one put-down.
This site has had enough feces flinging in past years and enough upsets.
I'd like our collective reputation restored through peaceful, non-contentious means.
is that asking too much?
All of you, just quit. Now. Please.
This has spoiled others' enjoyment of this website for far too long as it is.
Pme for saying so, but if I thought otherwise, it wouldn't occur to me here to say I just don't get how convoluted arguments get started in the first place that can drag on for years.
Honestly.
Would you all kindly go back to blogging and stop fooling yourselves into thinking anyone in the rest of the world cares anymore?
And that's as mean as I get, believe me.....

*walks away shaking head, grumbling, into Tink's thorn bushes*
Phyllis,
I wrote it because I got fed up with witnessing a specific category of abuse. You think my motive was what exactly - to make the feud explode on one more site? I could have done that in any number of ways.

I don't do hidden agendas. I talk openly about my agendas. The biggest mistake you can make with me is not to take me at face value.
For some strange reason, OS deleted the rest of the word, "pardon" along with the gap between that word and "me."
gad. What next?
It's codependency, and kosh is the enabler in chief. His adhd prevents him from seeing the wreckage objectively.
you DO mean two-face value, don't you, mr baloney.
I peek in here to see what's going on and I find this.

Absolutely incredible.

Kosh, you know that nothing will be solved here, right? No matter what concessions Bill makes, Arthur and Mark and Amy and Kim will not back down. Ever.

This is beyond who is wrong and who is right. It is the Hatfields and the McCoys, OS style.

Any reason on earth that the five of you (Bill, Arthur, Amy, Mark and Kim) cannot simply agree to ignore each other from this point forward? Not talk about each other from this point forward?

This has grown beyond ridiculous. You're supposedly adults - let's start acting like adults.
Go Bill S.!!!!
Good on you!
If I could, I'd rate your comment, dude!
I left for more than two months, until beck sent me a series of bullsh*t PMs two days ago.
Poor Woman,
I just got to my PM's. You are right.

I am closing comments now.
Stop.
ALL of you. Now.
Pleasepleaseplease
STOP. If you beat a dead horse, can it rise to its feet and walk off?
Comments are now closed.