Training Week Ending February 19, 2006



[email protected] wrote:

What is the purpose of bringing Pendejo's real name into this? There is
usually a good reason why people don't use their real name on
newsgroups. Maybe he doesn't care, but unless you've gotten approval
from him, I think this is a pretty low blow. Of course, kicks to the
groin seem to be the norm on this group ever since your knee injury.

tkb
 
steve common <[email protected]> wrote

> Because he talked about the 1K dollar wager as well, and
> that particular wager was in the escarpment thread and was
> not to do with a direct race challenge from Charlie and my
> reply said no more and no less.

Steve, STEVE!.... when you are in a hole, quit digging!

> I'm not having a go at lance because it's gang bang time,
> it's just that his /mauvaise foi/ got my goat.

I still say take the high road, stick to the facts, and leave
the editorial comments to all the other gang-bangers.




--
__________________










_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
 
>What is the purpose of bringing Pendejo's real name into this?

to identify the person.

>I think this is a pretty low blow.

okay, so a white woman is capable of stepping up and criticizing a
Black man. that she can do. however when a white man publicly
challenges a Black man to a race and then suddenly is not willing to
stand up to his words......this same white woman is reserved, unable to
speak, characterize or comment.

the white man's coward behavior produces no "rise" in the white woman.
she extends "white privilege" to the coward white man and refrains
from comment.

But the big bad black outspoken black man? he uses the white man's
real name....and OH MY GOD. The white woman is OUTRAGED! To what
measure?....this act causes her to pipe up, chime in, etc. This she
can speak to.

This folks is "white privilege". Never comment or speak of the clear
coward behavior of the white man, focus on criticizing the outspoken
Black man.

Charles Anderson enjoys white privilege. Is there a single white
person on this NG who is willing to encourage Charles Anderson to step
up to his words?

Perhaps you white people would be good enough to ask yourself

1. Why won't Charles Anderson stand up to his words?
2. Why will Charles Anderson chime in and support the words of Steve
Common, but not his own? What's that all about?

Okay TKB, you've expressed your outrage. Now can you answer the two
questions? Or it it forbidden within the rules of white privilege?
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >What is the purpose of bringing Pendejo's real name into this?
>
> to identify the person.
>
> >I think this is a pretty low blow.
>
Let us ask this question? Why are you so fat and yet scream about
competitive running? I've asked it several times before but you seem to
hide behing the Fredrick Douglas privilege and don't address your hypocrisy.
 
[email protected] wrote:

>>What is the purpose of bringing Pendejo's real name into this?
>
> to identify the person.

You're evading the real question. Maybe you didn't understand. Let me
reform my question. Why do you want to identify the person? What is the
underlying purpose of airing Pendojo's name on the Internet?

>>I think this is a pretty low blow.
>
> okay, so a white woman is capable of stepping up and criticizing a
> Black man. that she can do.

Okay, so a white woman cannot criticize a black man. Otherwise, she
will be labeled racist. Sounds like your typical logic. Your defense
for everything...I'm black, you're white, you're challenging me, so
where's my race card? I have to give it to you Lance, you are very,
very good at throwing around your color as a defense, an answer to
everything that you cannot answer on your own merits as a human being,
as evidenced below...

> however when a white man publicly
> challenges a Black man to a race and then suddenly is not willing to
> stand up to his words......this same white woman is reserved, unable to
> speak, characterize or comment.
>
> the white man's coward behavior produces no "rise" in the white woman.
> she extends "white privilege" to the coward white man and refrains
> from comment.
>
> But the big bad black outspoken black man? he uses the white man's
> real name....and OH MY GOD. The white woman is OUTRAGED! To what
> measure?....this act causes her to pipe up, chime in, etc. This she
> can speak to.
>
> This folks is "white privilege". Never comment or speak of the clear
> coward behavior of the white man, focus on criticizing the outspoken
> Black man.

I must remember this. Don't criticize the black man, you'll be acused
of focusing in on it because of the rules of white privelege.

> Pendejo enjoys white privilege. Is there a single white
> person on this NG who is willing to encourage Pendejo to step
> up to his words?

Excellent work Lance. Very well said. I must commend you on your
liberal use of black, and white privelege. Unfortunately, you don't
help your fellow black man with such thinking. Keep it up!

>
> Perhaps you white people would be good enough to ask yourself
>
> 1. Why won't pendejo stand up to his words?

I think he's already answered that for himself. I have no clue what
goes on in Pendejo's head. I'm only wanting you to answer my original
question. I can only guess from your side-stepping evasion of the
answer, that you have no good moral reason to air Pendejo's real name
on usenet. I await your answer before I pass additional judgement.

> 2. Why will Pendejo chime in and support the words of Steve
> Common, but not his own? What's that all about?

Same answer.

> Okay TKB, you've expressed your outrage. Now can you answer the two
> questions?

Even though you've never answered my original question, I have answered
you.

> Or it it forbidden within the rules of white privilege?

I don't know. Doug, can we get a ruling here? :)

tkb
 
"Mark Hutchinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Trailrunner <TheTrailhead*BS*@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > but did 46:32 on a really hilly course
>
> OK, I guess that settles that contest. And beautifully
> illustrates the point being made in this whole discussion - your
> typical ultra runner just ain't competitive on roads. Never has
> been. That's exactly why he is na ultra runner.
>
> Case closed, stick a fork in it.

What, exactly, do you consider being competitive? You keep talking about it,
but you've yet do say what you mean by it.

-Tony
 
>I have no clue what
goes on in Pendejo's head. I'm only wanting you to answer my original
question.
___

But you know the facts right?

1. Spouting off, targeting me, mocking me, over a series of weeks etc.
challenging me to a real world race, on a real world specific day, at a
real world specific time & place. The character Pendejo was very
detailed in the context of the real world.

2. When I accepted his direct & specific request, the character,
"Pendejo" elected to be "non-responsive". The Character sought the
benefit of the talk, without the responsibility of bringing congruent
action to his talk.

The character "Pendejo" was clearly, firmly, squarely intent and
entrenched in being "non-responsive". I wanted and needed a
response because his request required preparation on my part, for
example I have to register for the event (something I currently am not
nor planned to be).

Note this is entirely an invention of Charles Anderson, not me. When
the character "Pendejo" was intent on being non-responsive, I thought
the real person behind the character could be reached if the real
person saw he is a real person, who declared a real challenge to
another real person, in a real life event, that requires an amount
real preparation on my part (like registration for example). Charles
Anderson chose to bridge his character into real life then chose to be
non-responive to the responsibilites that come in real life in issuing
the challenge.

I simply employed a tactic I thought might be effective, seems I was
right...no? Effective in what? Obtaining a response from the
character (or person, take you pick). Do you think it's a coincidence
that the character is suddenly now no longer being non-responsive?
Answer that question TKB. Perhaps TKB if Pendejo had of
responded...none of this would have been necessary to illicit a
response. But you don't want to concede Pendejo could have averted
all this.

Note TKB...all of this is entirely an invention of Charles Anderson,
not me. I sense you want to exclude Charles Anderson of any
responsibility or cupability in creating this situation. Is that fair
to say? Why don't you ask Charles Anderson why he chose a
"non-responsive" posture to my answering of his request?

In other words....instead of probing into my motivations, why is
Charles Anderson free of placing under the lens of scrutinty as well?
Why issue the challenge, then the dodge?
Don't want to do that do you TKB? Can you equally probe into and
question the motivations, actions, and behavior of Charles Anderson?

If I've not answered any of your questions...let me know.
Thanks
 
[email protected] wrote:

> >I have no clue what
> goes on in Pendejo's head. I'm only wanting you to answer my original
> question.
> ___
>
> But you know the facts right?

Yes. You won't answer the question.

> I wanted and needed a response because his request required preparation
> on my part, for example I have to register for the event (something I currently
> am not nor planned to be).

That's your answer? Couldn't you just send him a private email and ask
him? Call him on the phone? Send him a letter? Ask him in person at
Pendejo's next race? What you've done seems like a s--tty way to treat
people. Maybe pendejo couldn't care less. He hasn't directly commented
on your use of his name, so who knows? Maybe he could care less.

> I simply employed a tactic I thought might be effective, seems I was
> right...no?

Yes.

> Effective in what? Obtaining a response from the
> character (or person, take you pick).

But at what cost?

> Note TKB...all of this is entirely an invention of Charles Anderson,
> not me. I sense you want to exclude Charles Anderson of any
> responsibility or cupability in creating this situation. Is that fair
> to say? Why don't you ask Charles Anderson why he chose a
> "non-responsive" posture to my answering of his request?

So you take no responsibilty for your hitting below the belt? Because
of Pendejo's actions you were forced to do it.

tkb
 
"TenKBabe" <[email protected]> wrote

> What is the purpose of bringing Pendejo's real name into
> this? There is usually a good reason why people don't use
> their real name on newsgroups. Maybe he doesn't care, but
> unless you've gotten approval from him, I think this is a
> pretty low blow. Of course, kicks to the groin seem to be
> the norm on this group ever since your knee injury.

While your comment has some validity, it also proves Lance's
point that this mostly white group has chosen to erect a
protective wall around Mr. Pendejo in a united opposition to
Lance. To the extent of even portraying him as a victim,
instead of the instigator.

Is this a racial issue? I don't know, but you pop-up as yet
another poster all too eager to point out Lance's faux-pas,
while remaining conveniently silent about Mr. Pendejo's
inability to honor his own challenge. And for an athlete, even
a weekend wannabe, that is a most grievous offense.

Also, you lost me on the groin kicks - most of those have been
directed in Lance's direction. The only huevos Lance seems to
really enjoy frying these days are those belonging to Mr.
Pendejo - assuming he can find them.

Through all his overblown hyperbole, Lance is in essence holding
up a mirror to this group. And the nasty reaction he's getting
indicates the group does not like what it sees. Think about it.









(damn, I'm good at this!)







_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
 
"Tony S." <[email protected]> wrote

> "Mark Hutchinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> OK, I guess that settles that contest. And beautifully
>> illustrates the point being made in this whole discussion
>> - your typical ultra runner just ain't competitive on
>> roads. Never has been. That's exactly why he is na ultra
>> runner.
>>
>> Case closed, stick a fork in it.
>
> What, exactly, do you consider being competitive? You keep
> talking about it, but you've yet do say what you mean by
> it.

A fair question, but Lance has already written volumes on this
topic and there is no need to rehash his eloquent words. While
his descriptions frequently tend toward the metaphysical (which
I enjoy BTW), my own definition is a bit more straightforward.
I figure a road runner who fancies himself to be competitive in
any sense of the word should expect to consistently place within
the top five in his AG.

Now clearly, there will be regional and other factors that
affect this, such as the size of a particular race, the size of
the available talent pool, length of a race, given turn-out,
etc. But if you can't consistently stay within the top five in
the AG in a major US metro area racing scene (outside of mega-
places like NY, LA, Chicago), you probably won't be considered a
competitive threat.

The other broad stroke definition might be WAVA placement. I'd
look for finish times of 70% and higher. Mid-70's preferably.






--
__________________










_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
 
>Couldn't you just send him a private email and ask
him? Call him on the phone? Send him a letter? Ask him in person at
Pendejo's next race?
__

Why is it my responsibility to go this route TKB? This is an
invention of Charles Anderson, not me. Charles chose to be
non-responsive, not me. Charles could have done everything you are
suggesting I do.

This is an illustration "white privilege" and your white bias. Your
immediate impulse is to assert it was my responsibility to go through
"back channels" to address this matter.

You TKB extend the privilege to Charles Anderson of not having to be
responsible to perhaps resolve this matter through the means you
outline. You TKB assert this was my responsility to do. You question
me, not Charles Anderson. This is how white privilege works. I have
a higher burden and standard than the person who initiated this and the
person who chose to be non-responsive on this.

If you were fair, and not biased, you would say Charles Anderson should
have and could have contacted me before this all got "cranked up".
But he's white.....and protected...by you.....the burden was mine in
your view. You have a natural bias, I've illustrated how, you simply
don't see it, but it's clear to any honest person.

>So you take no responsibilty for your hitting below the belt?

You have no problem characterizing me TKB...do you?....yet you won't
characterize the clear and indisputable "coward" behavior of Charles
Anderson....will you? Me?...you have no problem declaring to be
"hitting below the belt". Charles Anderson? The whole newsgroup would
concede his actions are rather cowardly...but he's white...and not
subjected to being characterized congruently with his conduct (that of
a coward).

White privilege is about being protected. Charles Anderson's been
protected....spared of valid characterization...by the newsgroup. I am
not saying you are a racist TKB, I don't think that. However you, like
Doug, have a natural white bias.













What you've done seems like a s--tty way to treat
people. Maybe pendejo couldn't care less. He hasn't directly commented
on your use of his name, so who knows? Maybe he could care less.


> I simply employed a tactic I thought might be effective, seems I was
> right...no?


Yes.


> Effective in what? Obtaining a response from the
> character (or person, take you pick).


But at what cost?


> Note TKB...all of this is entirely an invention of Charles Anderson,
> not me. I sense you want to exclude Charles Anderson of any
> responsibility or cupability in creating this situation. Is that fair
> to say? Why don't you ask Charles Anderson why he chose a
> "non-responsive" posture to my answering of his request?


So you take no responsibilty for your hitting below the belt? Because
of Pendejo's actions you were forced to do it.

tkb


Reply
 
TenKBabe wrote:
> Maybe pendejo couldn't care less. He hasn't directly commented
> on your use of his name, so who knows?

Well, if I wanted my name all over Usenet, I'd post under it. I'd
strongly prefer it not be. I'm somewhat irritated and disappointed
lance has felt the need to childishly rubberstamp my name all over his
posts. His ploy "worked" in eliciting my reply to him, not so much
because I felt that as a "real-life person" I was compelled to stand up
to my "real-life challenge" (which I still gotta believe, most here who
were paying attention would've understood as a bit of attempted parody,
whether or not they found it chuckle-worthy); but rather, because it
finally made me fully aware that - no matter what part of lance's
writing here he considers "shtick" (all? none? half?) and which portion
is genuine - at some level he's deeply disturbed by some of our
interaction here, which I had heretofore considered a trading of
friendly jabs and postures between consenting adults.

On the other hand, if I were absolutely positively in dire need of
ironclad anonymity, I'd never have posted identifying info here such as
links to race results and even photos of my fine-lookin' self.

I'm gonna assume there's at least another day or two of odious life
left in this topic, and I plan to keep out of it, not feed it any
further. That probably means I won't be directly commenting on a
number of assertions, assumptions, characterizations, assassinations,
et cetera. So please, just assume I would say and do the honorable,
the honest, the righteous, the witty, the compassionate, the inspired
thing, and you'll probably be right.

Pendejo, often imitated, never intimidated
 
Charlie Pendejo wrote:

> TenKBabe wrote:
> > Maybe pendejo couldn't care less. He hasn't directly commented
> > on your use of his name, so who knows?
>
> Well, if I wanted my name all over Usenet, I'd post under it. I'd
> strongly prefer it not be. I'm somewhat irritated and disappointed
> lance has felt the need to childishly rubberstamp my name all over his
> posts. His ploy "worked" in eliciting my reply to him, not so much
> because I felt that as a "real-life person" I was compelled to stand up
> to my "real-life challenge" (which I still gotta believe, most here who
> were paying attention would've understood as a bit of attempted parody,
> whether or not they found it chuckle-worthy); but rather, because it
> finally made me fully aware that - no matter what part of lance's
> writing here he considers "shtick" (all? none? half?) and which portion
> is genuine - at some level he's deeply disturbed by some of our
> interaction here, which I had heretofore considered a trading of
> friendly jabs and postures between consenting adults.

That was my first impression. If it's gotten to to the point of hurting
a fellow runner, then maybe we should stop the jabs and be all serious
business here.

> On the other hand, if I were absolutely positively in dire need of
> ironclad anonymity, I'd never have posted identifying info here such as
> links to race results and even photos of my fine-lookin' self.

I've never posted my race results. But if someone wanted to spend a lot
of time researching me based on my usenet posts, they could probably
find my real name and where I live.

> I'm gonna assume there's at least another day or two of odious life
> left in this topic, and I plan to keep out of it, not feed it any
> further. That probably means I won't be directly commenting on a
> number of assertions, assumptions, characterizations, assassinations,
> et cetera. So please, just assume I would say and do the honorable,
> the honest, the righteous, the witty, the compassionate, the inspired
> thing, and you'll probably be right.
>
> Pendejo, often imitated, never intimidated

Whatever **** head, I mean pendejo. ;-)

tkb
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >our resident troll Lance
> -DF
> ___
>
> More of what Doug Freese does well, elects to bring me into the
> equation for some reason, criticizes me, the Black man that questions
> him while endearing his fellow White man Charles Anderson with white
> privilege.
>
> What brought this on Doug?

Your continuous trolling. Who is this Charles Anderson that you put me
in the same play pen with?

-DF
 
"Mark Hutchinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tony S." <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > "Mark Hutchinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> OK, I guess that settles that contest. And beautifully
> >> illustrates the point being made in this whole discussion
> >> - your typical ultra runner just ain't competitive on
> >> roads. Never has been. That's exactly why he is na ultra
> >> runner.
> >>
> >> Case closed, stick a fork in it.
> >
> > What, exactly, do you consider being competitive? You keep
> > talking about it, but you've yet do say what you mean by
> > it.
>
> A fair question, but Lance has already written volumes on this
> topic and there is no need to rehash his eloquent words. While
> his descriptions frequently tend toward the metaphysical (which
> I enjoy BTW), my own definition is a bit more straightforward.
> I figure a road runner who fancies himself to be competitive in
> any sense of the word should expect to consistently place within
> the top five in his AG.

I suggest you read Lance's to my reply in your namesake thread.

> Now clearly, there will be regional and other factors that
> affect this, such as the size of a particular race, the size of
> the available talent pool, length of a race, given turn-out,
> etc. But if you can't consistently stay within the top five in
> the AG in a major US metro area racing scene (outside of mega-
> places like NY, LA, Chicago), you probably won't be considered a
> competitive threat.
>
> The other broad stroke definition might be WAVA placement. I'd
> look for finish times of 70% and higher. Mid-70's preferably.

I can see defining a "competitive runner" objectively as you have, though
it's hard to pin down exactly what that means. As far as the choice of races
goes, while some races indeed have an objectively more competitive field
than others, what motivates 99.9% of runners to choose one race over another
has very little to do with the field involved IMO. I would strongly suspect
that road runners who are close to being competitive in their age group
would be far more tempted to cherry-pick a race for the purpose of placing
than would trail runners, because what motivates the latter is the course,
and the course plays much less of a role for road runners, unless they're
seeking flat for a fast time. The suggestion that mediocre road runners
switch to trails for the glory of placing or winning is preposterous. As
other's have stated, it may be a natural migration for many, but the main
motivation is that trails offer a far richer overall experience.

I can also see any runner as having a competitive spirit. As a fellow
mid-packer at most events I enter, I'm curious - how would you regard your
own competitive nature? e.g. what are you race goals?

-Tony
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> However you, like Doug, have a natural white bias.

It is the white hood I wear that gives me away? Maybe the skinhead
posters in my living room or my NRA card? Damn that homeland security
peeking in my window. I'm laughing so hard at your color monolog that I
can't catch my breath. You shouldn't waste this dialog on r.r but write
for Chris Rock(who you could learn from).

-Uncle D
 
"Mark Hutchinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Through all his overblown hyperbole, Lance is in essence holding
> up a mirror to this group. And the nasty reaction he's getting
> indicates the group does not like what it sees. Think about it.

Methinks he is looking in the mirror and does not like what he sees. The
more of his pots I read the more I consider him a big baby. If it's too
hot in the kitchen Lancer-ooh, stop the repartee or at lwast tone it
down. The more you whine the more we poke you in the ribs the angrier
you get. I would have thought by now you would figured this out.

-DF
 
[email protected] wrote:
> >Couldn't you just send him a private email and ask
> him? Call him on the phone? Send him a letter? Ask him in person at
> Pendejo's next race?
> __
>
> Why is it my responsibility to go this route TKB? This is an
> invention of Charles, not me. Charles chose to be
> non-responsive, not me. Charles could have done everything you are
> suggesting I do.

I agree with that. Maybe he should have as well.

> This is an illustration "white privilege" and your white bias. Your
> immediate impulse is to assert it was my responsibility to go through
> "back channels" to address this matter.

Maybe I am blinded by the white. But I don't think I see it that way at
all. My immediate impulse when seeing that all of a sudden you're
referring to pendejo by his real name, is that you've gone a bit too
low. Maybe that's just my own issue with the Internet and wanting to
maintain some sort of privacy.

> You TKB extend the privilege to Charles of not having to be
> responsible to perhaps resolve this matter through the means you
> outline. You TKB assert this was my responsility to do. You question
> me, not Charles Anderson. This is how white privilege works. I have
> a higher burden and standard than the person who initiated this and the
> person who chose to be non-responsive on this.

Why should I question him? He can speak for himself if he wants. You
keep wanting to turn this around like it's a white/black thing. I'm
saying you've gone too low by dragging his real name into this. Wanted
started out as a friendly conversation has turned very ugly. Can we not
have a discussion without turning it into a black vs white issue?

> If you were fair, and not biased, you would say Charles Anderson should
> have and could have contacted me before this all got "cranked up".

Who cranked it up?

> But he's white.....and protected...by you.....the burden was mine in
> your view. You have a natural bias, I've illustrated how, you simply
> don't see it, but it's clear to any honest person.

You've got a one track mind. You too have a natural bias, you simply
don't see it because you are blinded by your own bias. Attitudes like
this is what keeps some black men down. Not because whitey keeps him
down, but because he keeps himself down with his own self-limiting
attitude and blaming his current state on "biased" white men.

> >So you take no responsibilty for your hitting below the belt?
>
> You have no problem characterizing me TKB...do you?....yet you won't
> characterize the clear and indisputable "coward" behavior of Charles
> ....will you?

Charles, your behavior is cowardly. Now as for you Lance, my good man,
isn't your behavior equally cowardly if not down right nasty?

> Me?...you have no problem declaring to be
> "hitting below the belt". Charles Anderson? The whole newsgroup would
> concede his actions are rather cowardly...but he's white...and not
> subjected to being characterized congruently with his conduct (that of
> a coward).
>
> White privilege is about being protected. Charles Anderson's been
> protected....spared of valid characterization...by the newsgroup. I am
> not saying you are a racist TKB, I don't think that. However you, like
> Doug, have a natural white bias.

I'm going to have to learn about this white privelege thing. Maybe I
could use it to my advantage. Lance, seriously though, I like you. I
like your determination and drive, but don't you think you've taken
this white/black thing a little too far? Nevermind, I know your answer
already.

Have a good one Lance. Hope your knee gets better so that you can come
down here, run the Peachtree and get a good ass whoopin' by this white
old lady -- white privilege style. Care for a little wager? ;-)

tkb
 
"Mark Hutchinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, that ain't too bad. Makes you almost fast enough to
> smell my farts. :)

For that I'll slow down.


> Actually, that's pretty good advice. I should be doing as you
> suggest, but I'm nursing a pulled hamstring. Being a rookie
> runner, I forgot to take a break after a half marathon a couple
> of weeks ago and foolishly raced a 10K last weekend.

It's an hackneyed expression but you get stronger during rest. Something
like " too much, too soon, too fast?"


> Ordinarily, I'd ignore the pain, but since I'm going for a 10K
> PR next weekend, I decided to take it easy and put the extra
> time to good use. At least it's running related.

Careful now or you'll really get wounded and you will be able to drive
into NY and rehab with Lance. ;)

-DF
 
>blaming his current state on "biased" white men.

"his current state"? You've got a lot to learn. my Black friends
that earn hundreds of thousands of dollars per year are getting screwed
because it's typical that white men at the same firm doing the same
work (perhaps even at a lesser level) earn 20% - 25% more for the same
job.

you comment of "current state" is laughable. are well paid negroes
supposed to not complain TKB? It's an issue of being paid on par with
your peers. As long as that's not being met, Black people are going to
call it for what it is, discrimination..._regarless_ of their current
state. Most white women are not paid (or promoted) fairly due to
their sex and have every right to keep complaining.

You probably don't take issue with my point when I place it in the
context of a white woman....do you? In that case "complaining" is
Okay...right TKB?

It's called the "glass ceiling" TKB. Due to it, many of my Black
friends walked away from jobs paying $300K & $400K and started their
own business. Donovan knows a college friend of mine that walked away
from a job paying him over $1M/year. Why? he was being screwed and
the white guys at the job were earning $2M and $3M for the same work(if
not lesser).

The "glass ceiling" that treats women and minorities unfairly is real
and an invention of the white man. But clearly you're not knowledged
or familair with this level of corporate culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back