A Classic

[John Doe]

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: John Doe:
:
: And so new derogatory words will just be invented, and the cycle starts again. Or do you
: honestly think that in the future there will never be offensive words ever, if only everyone
: laughed them off?

People that are offended would not laugh them off. I mean truly laugh them off... not laugh them
off and in their own mind be offended. I always think there will be offensive words because there
will always be over sensitive people. If you can just get comfortable with yourself then it
doesn't matter what people say about you. If they beat you up over your race, belief system or
culture then that is what I consider racism. I am sorry if I have offended you by disagreeing with
your point of view.

Actually one of the biggest things I find amusing (not offensive) how people lump all Australians in
a bucket and say they are racist. (I am not suggesting you are doing this, this is merely an
observation). This is in fact in itself racist. Often you will find the race of the person making
the complaint have a severe racism problem in their country of origin. I don't think anyone likes to
believe that their own people are racist and only recognise racism if its pointed at them.

I don't think personally I would distinguish between the cyclist mentioned but then again if it was
a minor I might have said "a boy" etc to describe what I saw. Even "A boy with no helmet" or "a boy
with green hair". Although as a boy I was mindful of road rules on my bike I would not be ascribing
that all boys or a majority could not ride a bike safely. I would probably be just using the
description to paint a more vivid image for the reader. A writer uses many descriptive phrases to
paint a mental image for the reader without necessarily trying to put them in a collective box.

 

[Mark Lee]

Jose wrote all sorts of annoying ******** which I have snipped as you've probably all read it.

To Jose: I ask: is your hijacking of this thread due to "Nature or Nurture". Or if you weren't born
a sanctimonious, "superior" git, what is it that's turned you into one?

I'm sure there is going to be a very long answer - in fact there will probably be many. But I won't
be reading them as I have a life to get on with and it even involves riding a bicycle. <Plonk>

Mark Lee

 

[Tony]

This was started as a comment about some idiot riding in the fog, how did the rest of this **** come
up. Some people obviously have too much time on their hands. take this **** elsewhere!!!

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John L :
>
> > Jose & Zebee,
> >
> > Your idea of a balanced argument comes from having a chip on both shoulders.
>
> Insults do not improve your argument.
>
> > If you want to analyse any statement for long enough, you can make any self serving judgement
> > you wish.
>
> This is not just any statement, it is a specific reference which has been specifically addressed
> and analysed. Your simplistic generalisation does not divert from reality.
>
> > The average person in Australia doesn't sit & think for an hour before making a statement,
>
> It doesn't take an hour to think about a statement. It only requires knowledge. But then, maybe
> the average person should sit and think long. At least you should.
>
> > & doesn't expect to have it dissected by a nitpicking anal retentive.
>
> Ah, you only succeed in increasing your credibility gap.
>
> > The main problem appears to be between your own hypersensitive ears.
>
> So if it doesn't bother you, you think it shouldn't bother anyone else? How amusing.
>
> > I also find your remark, "your'e not thinking hard enough", to be generally offensive & laying
> > claim to some superior thought process.
>
> Of course it is superior to your thought processes, since you display an appaling lack of
> understanding of the issue raised, instead concentrating on propagating your own narrow simple
> view of the world.
>
> > Oh no I think I've jjust caught your disease.
>
> You can only improve.
>
> > John L.
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 17:28:51 GMT, Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote:
> >
> > >Mark Lee:
> > >
> > >>> "Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
> > >>> Why did he see the need to mention the race at all? The only
*possible*
> > >>> reason is because he thought it was relevant.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why was it relevant?
> > >
> > >> You've got me thinking now. Could she come from a country where
everyone
> > >> drives on the right-hand side of the road? Or where very few people (relatively) drive their
> > >> own transport due to exorbitant garaging etc costs... perhaps travelling mainly by train,
> > >> bus, taxi or boat?
Where there
> > >> isn't a culture of learning about vehicular operation in traffic
from an
> > >> early age? Maybe a big city where it never gets truly dark?
> > >
> > >All this rhubarb is leading to what? A poor justification after the fact of making your
> > >race-specific statement? You mention the
ethnicity,
> > >and think up of the reason afterwards? You're not thinking hard
enough.
> > >
> > >> I know of someone who's learning to drive now as a mature adult who
grew up
> > >> in a tiny village in a country where cars are very rare. One day she
may be
> > >> out on our roads.
> > >
> > >Relevance of this?
> > >
> > >> Roald Dahl relates a drive with his 21 year old sister during the
1920's in
> > >> his book "Boy" -incredibly dangerous due to the lack of training
or
> > >> entrenched motorised transport culture.
> > >
> > >Ditto.
> > >
> > >> "Thailand has the highest rate of road fatalities in the world at 40
deaths
> > >> for every 100,000 people, or 2.9 people dying an hour, a researcher
said
> > >> yesterday.... about 17,520/year. ...six million people were injured in traffic accidents and
> > >> 100,000
crippled
> > >> for life last year, according to the National Health
nstitute." -from
> > >> online news sources
> > >>
> > >> Australian drivers may not be great, but obviously our transport
safety
> > >> culture is better than some. Annual road toll here is ~1750.
Comparative
> > >> populations 61 vs 19million. I'm sure car ownership rates are higher
here
> > >> but the scooters/motorbikes there would skew the figures.
> > >
> > >Excellent. You've just explained that it is about ethnocentrism after all. You got pulled up
> > >for mentioning race in your observation, and then you dig up unrelated statistics to justify
> > >it. Where is the link to cycling in the dark witout lights while wearing dark clothes? How
do
> > >you know the woman you saw was Thai? Thais don't make up the whole of Asia. "Asians" can come
> > >from many countries in the region.
> > >
> > >You probably could do with the benefit from a doubt though: why don't you think harder on why
> > >you thought ethnicity was important in describing a disagreeable event? You might be unaware of
> > >your own unintentional prejudices.
> > >

 

[Jose Rizal]

John Doe:

>
> "Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> : John Doe:
> :
> : It is your sort of comments that propagate the notion that there is nothing to be improved in
> : the way some people perceive others without being affected by colour or culture. You exemplify
> : the people who like to pretend that we are all living in a harmonious society where people's
> : ethnicities are irrelevant to issues of equality and acceptance. Get your head out of the sand.
>
> You do not know me well enough to make such comments. I am the first to fire up over truly racist
> comments and not just a descriptive term. It is you who saw that the original comment was
> intending to lump a race or age or

On the contrary. "What it actually was" is associating someone's ethnicity to her behaviour. That is
part of the definition for racism. If you can't see that, then no one can help you.

> : On the other hand, if you described a co-worker as "An Asian man who does not wash his hands
> : after going to the toilet; what a filthy person", are you able to see the implication of
> : mentioning his ethnicity, when it is in fact completely irrelevant?
>
> I would not mention that. I would say Jo is a filthy man who does not wash his hands as he was a
> co-worker and I would use his name as I knew him.

Then you have just supported my point.

> This is an exaggeration as to what was originally posted. It was describing a situation where the
> person was anonymous.

No, it's similar. "An Asian woman" has been attributed an erroneous bahaviour, rather than "a
woman". What is the relevance of her ethnicity? You don't seem to be able to answer this, because
there is no palatable answer other than "none".

 

[Jose Rizal]

John L :

> Yawn.
>
> I've worked all round the world, never had a problem witn any of the people, apart from the
> nitpicking anal retentitives, who pop up every now & then anywhere in the world.

Oooh, ahh, worked around the world.... if true, learned nothing from it, obviously. It seems anyone
who disagrees with your narrow views are "anal retentives". I can see how someone going around
thinking everyone who thinks he's wrong are just "anal retentives" would stay ignorant all his life
like you. On the upside, maybe he'd be content, despite being stupid like you.

> I don't have to support Mark's argument, because the problem lies between your ears, in what
> appears to be a particularly thick head.

It's a simple question. The problem is that you don't have a coherent, intelligent answer to support
your ethnocentric views. You display no knowledge of ethnic issues, nor of the meaning of racism,
and your simple perception of people is limited to the colour of their skin. But that's okay with
you, since "some of your best mates are....".

Squirm and wriggle all you like, you don't fool many with your ignorance.

> John L.
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:07:40 GMT, Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote:

 

[Jose Rizal]

John Doe:

>
> "Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : John Doe:
>
> You dont seem to get that you are the racist and I just love everyone despite the title.

This makes it to one of my more amusing posts read this week.

> You should organize to get that chip rubbed off your shoulder.

Tired, tired, tired...

 

[Jose Rizal]

John Doe:

> If they beat you up over your race, belief system or culture then that is what I consider racism.

Okay, then why don't you think that associating someone's ethnicity with what is perceived to be a
wrongdoing is not racism? Why do you not see a difference between "An Asian woman .... " as opposed
to "A woman..." in describing someone doing something silly? Will you have been equally unaware of
the irrelevance if the description had been "A white woman..."?

> I don't think personally I would distinguish between the cyclist mentioned but then again if it
> was a minor I might have said "a boy" etc to describe what I saw. Even "A boy with no helmet" or
> "a boy with green hair".

Which is completely different to stating "An Asian boy..." or "A white boy...".

 

[Jose Rizal]

Mark Lee:

> Jose wrote all sorts of annoying ******** which I have snipped as you've probably all read it.

Who are you addressing?

Just answer the question I posed. You can't? We all know why that is then, don't we?

> To Jose: I ask: is your hijacking of this thread due to "Nature or Nurture".

To Mark: It's due to your stupidity in the form of your original post.

> Or if you weren't born a sanctimonious, "superior" git, what is it that's turned you into one?

Interesting that rather than answer a simple question about your post, you spout insults instead.
They don't disguise your stupidity though.

> I'm sure there is going to be a very long answer - in fact there will probably be many. But
> I won't be reading them as I have a life to get on with and it even involves riding a
> bicycle. <Plonk>

Stick to riding your bike. You've been exposed for the racist fool that you are.

 

[John Staines]

Why don't you just accept that other people have different opinions other than your own?

Who made you king of the jungle on what "x" is or what "y" could be?

As I've said in the past if you want to fight tooth and freaking nail to get your point across then
do it privately. It all started out so honourable but yet again turn the discussion into you said,
he said, she said shouting match.

Why is it that you only joust in the public arena Jose?

Anyway I thought this was a discussion group concerning cycling!

Your tolerant friend

John

Jose Rizal wrote:
>
> Mark Lee:
>
> > Jose wrote all sorts of annoying ******** which I have snipped as you've probably all read it.
>
> Who are you addressing?
>
> Just answer the question I posed. You can't? We all know why that is then, don't we?
>
> > To Jose: I ask: is your hijacking of this thread due to "Nature or Nurture".
>
> To Mark: It's due to your stupidity in the form of your original post.
>
> > Or if you weren't born a sanctimonious, "superior" git, what is it that's turned you into one?
>
> Interesting that rather than answer a simple question about your post, you spout insults instead.
> They don't disguise your stupidity though.
>
> > I'm sure there is going to be a very long answer - in fact there will probably be many. But I
> > won't be reading them as I have a life to get on with and it even involves riding a bicycle.
> > <Plonk>
>
> Stick to riding your bike. You've been exposed for the racist fool that you are.

 

[Trevor S]

"Tony" <[email protected]> wrote in news:3eefb9f1@info-int:

> This was started as a comment about some idiot riding in the fog, how did the rest of this ****
> come up.

Actually I find it refreshing. If the original statement had of been along the lines you suggested,
the rest of the debate would not have arisen.

> Some people obviously have too much time on their hands.

I hope the irony of you making that statement after reading this thread does not escape you

> take this **** elsewhere!!!

One persons **** is another persons treasure Much as you may lament the discussion, this is an
unmoderated group, you wishing it to go away is not going to make it happen, if it annoys you that
much, simply use your newsreader to kill the thread.

Trevor S

 

[John L]

Sorry about the late additionn to the thread, just spent a couple of days in hospital, no Jose they
didn't find a brain .

I'm not squirming Jose, just smiling at your attempts to make the world as you want it to be. Try
laxatives, that may help solve your problem.

Most Australians inclluding myself are happy to live & let live.

You're the only one taking this thread wayyyyy too seriously.

John L (Still smiling,. Over & out)

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 03:39:31 GMT, Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote:

 

[Jose Rizal]

John Staines:

> Why don't you just accept that other people have different opinions other than your own?

Yes John, "why don't you just accept that other people have different opinions other than your own?"

> Who made you king of the jungle on what "x" is or what "y" could be?

> As I've said in the past if you want to fight tooth and freaking nail to get your point across
> then do it privately.

"Who made you king of the jungle on what "x" is or what "y" could be?"

> It all started out so honourable but yet again turn the discussion into you said, he said, she
> said shouting match.
>
> Why is it that you only joust in the public arena Jose?

> Anyway I thought this was a discussion group concerning cycling!

> Your tolerant friend

You're obviously unaware of the contradiction in this last phrase. Get a dictionary and look up
"clueless", John. That shouldn't be too hard, you work in a library for cucumber's sakes.

> John

John, either contribute to the issues being discussed, or just shut up. You buzz around annoyingly
like a mosquito.

As I've explained before, this is a public forum so if you want to avoid reading about arguments,
make yourself a cup of tea and inject some excitement in your life by engaging in gossip with your
workmates.

Otherwise, get someone to teach you about the wonders of newsgroup filters. I suspect, however, that
you just can't help yourself to following my posts and interjecting absolutely zero significance
statements.

 

[Jose Rizal]

John L :

> I'm not squirming Jose, just smiling at your attempts to make the world as you want it to be. Try
> laxatives, that may help solve your problem.

You're not even trying.

> Most Australians inclluding myself are happy to live & let live.

Great, now you have taken it upon yourself to represent "most Australians". But why do you now shift
to an unrelated issue?

You certainly don't represent me, and judging by your comments, it's unlikely you know enough people
to come anywhere near the number for "most Australians".

> You're the only one taking this thread wayyyyy too seriously.

And when there are no credible arguments left for his side, the joker runs away, pretending that
he's just been having fun all along...

> John L (Still smiling,. Over & out)
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 03:39:31 GMT, Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote:

 

[John Staines]

Where about's in Australia are you Jose?

 

[John L]

Jose resides in La La Land, home of the trolls, nowhere near Australia.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 07:16:59 GMT, John Staines <[email protected]> wrote:

>Where about's in Australia are you Jose?

 

[Mark Lee]

"John L" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Jose resides in La La Land, home of the trolls, nowhere near Australia.
>

|:^)

I enjoyed that! Mark Lee

 

[John Staines]

You missed my point (sound familiar?) and also ignored answering my questions.

You'd think that your shrink would have told you that you never answer a question with a question, I
guess there's just no telling some people.

As for this being a discussion forum, well I'm all up for discussion, but you seem to find force
feeding your opinion down peoples throats as discussion and if, heaven forbid, someone should happen
to disagree with you then they're dodging the point, they're stupid, your not paying attention, your
grammar isn't up the scratch, yadda yadda, yadda.

Tell me, do you discuss things with your friends like you do on the newsgroup? If you do then I have
no idea how you managed to live to tell the tale. Is this the only way you can get your pent up
point of view across? Or is it you don't have any friends?

As for buzzing around like a mosquito...would you rather feel the sting of a bee, Jose?

ps Thanks for the suggestion of filtering the endless dross that you continually post, but sadly,
I'm not that easily intimidated or brushed aside. But then again for once you might actually have
a point, first time for everything.

Jose Rizal wrote:
>
> John Staines:
>
> > Why don't you just accept that other people have different opinions other than your own?
>
> Yes John, "why don't you just accept that other people have different opinions other than
> your own?"
>
> > Who made you king of the jungle on what "x" is or what "y" could be?
>
> > As I've said in the past if you want to fight tooth and freaking nail to get your point across
> > then do it privately.
>
> "Who made you king of the jungle on what "x" is or what "y" could be?"
>
> > It all started out so honourable but yet again turn the discussion into you said, he said, she
> > said shouting match.
> >
> > Why is it that you only joust in the public arena Jose?
>
> > Anyway I thought this was a discussion group concerning cycling!
>
> > Your tolerant friend
>
> You're obviously unaware of the contradiction in this last phrase. Get a dictionary and look up
> "clueless", John. That shouldn't be too hard, you work in a library for cucumber's sakes.
>
> > John
>
> John, either contribute to the issues being discussed, or just shut up. You buzz around annoyingly
> like a mosquito.
>
> As I've explained before, this is a public forum so if you want to avoid reading about arguments,
> make yourself a cup of tea and inject some excitement in your life by engaging in gossip with your
> workmates.
>
> Otherwise, get someone to teach you about the wonders of newsgroup filters. I suspect, however,
> that you just can't help yourself to following my posts and interjecting absolutely zero
> significance statements.

 

[Peter Signorini]

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> If I refer to you as "this Italian guy who just tried to dismiss an important issue with flawed
> reasoning" instead of "this guy who tried to dismiss an important issue with flawed reasoning", do
> you accept a difference in the two statements or not? If not, then you need to have a crash course
> in spotting ethnocentricity when subjected to it.

If I WAS Italian I wouldn't have a problem with it, but then there's your own assumptions coming to
the surface eh?

Cheers Peter

 

[Jose Rizal]

Theo Bekkers:

> "Jose Rizal" <_@_._> who hides behind a fake address wrote
>
> > The most obvious difference is that ethnic descriptors are quite exclusive, while gender ones
> > are less so. Both genders exist in all ethnic groups and hence are a lot more general in
> > descriptive
> nature,
> > whereas singling out a specific ethnic group and attaching anomalous behaviour to it is specific
> > discrimination. Couple that with an atrocious attempt at justification by dredging up all sorts
> > of irrelevant, unrelated statistics such as Mark Lee had done, and no doubts are left as to the
> > racist overtone of the original remark.
>
> Jose, I've been reading your pleas for tolerance and understanding ever since you placed an
> emphasis on the original post that the poster did not imply and nobody else inferred.

You haven't been reading all the posts then, or are you just selectively blind?

> The facts of life is that people are different, and whereas those differences allow people to
> discriminate against those who are not of their own group, it also allows people to describe other
> people. You don't appear to see the difference. You would want the French to drop the use of 'le'
> and 'la' and Australians to drop any gender or ethnic descriptors from their language.

You assume this. Where have I stated such?

> Why not make a law preventing the use of the word 'tall' to describe a person as it is obviously
> discriminating against people of stature? Let's drop the word 'short' as well. We could go the US
> way and refer to people by their surnames only.

Here we go again, resorting to exaggerations and red herrings to try to justify the obvious. Tiring,
tiring, tiring....

> The most hilarious word I see used in newspapers in Australia is the word 'Caucasian' to refer to
> an alleged offender. I wonder if the editors or the readers are aware that Australian aborigines
> are of the 'Caucasian' race, the same as all the white people living here.

Caucasian, together with Negroid, Mongoloid, and Asiatic, are terms that an anthropologist came up
sometime in the 19th century to try to categorise humans into "races". Caucasian has been chosen for
what was thought to be the best-looking group of people because they came from the Caucasus region
in Europe.

I guess I'm saying you're talking out of your bum.

> I'm quite happy for people to refer to me as that four-eyed, grey-haired, balding, shortish,
> senior person, because that describes me very well. If I had to meet a stranger in a public place
> that is the kind of verbal image I would give them of myself. I do not

> other -ist.

I'd describe you all that myself. However, if I'd added "white" as well, I would be checking myself
since I don't condone ethnocentricity. On the other hand, you can't understand any difference
between that and all these other rhubarb issues you've tossed up, so it would all be the same to
you, wouldn't it?

> I suppose if somebody mugged you, you would refuse to describe them to the Police because you
> might marginalise their ethnic group.

It is pretty tiring, really... was the post a description to the police? So why have you used that
as a comparison, you four-eyed, grey-haired, balding, shortish, old geezer?

> I have some words of advice for a person as anally PC such as

>
> Theo

This from someone who has just spent a considerable amount of time spewing the above rhubarb...
hilarious. Thanks, but your advice, like your opinions, is worth SFA.

You were doing a heroic attempt at being quasi-intelligent there, but you couldn't quite keep it up,
could you?

 

[Jose Rizal]

Peter Signorini:

>
> "Jose Rizal" <_@_._> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > If I refer to you as "this Italian guy who just tried to dismiss an important issue with flawed
> > reasoning" instead of "this guy who tried to dismiss an important issue with flawed reasoning",
> > do you accept a difference in the two statements or not? If not, then you need to have a crash
> > course in spotting ethnocentricity when subjected to it.
>
> If I WAS Italian I wouldn't have a problem with it, but then there's your own assumptions coming
> to the surface eh?
>
> Cheers Peter
>

You've missed the point. It doesn't matter if you're Italian or not, your name suggests it, and not
knowing a whit about you, if I associated your name to your behaviour, that would be ethnocentric.