I am a victim in all this. I am VERY angry, and my tiny feelings are hurt. Yes, yes they are. Everybody feel sorry for me, or you're all bigots and I'll have to throw a tantrum.
I know it's not very sensitive to mock someone who is obviously psychologically disturbed. However, if you insist on publicly calling me a "stupid bigot" and even a "white supremicist" who would actually support the institution of black slavery in modern America- well, really, you're asking to be made sport with, aren't you?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Eric Olsen
Natalie, There is nothing magical about Amazon and I had no intention of going with them when we started, but the reality came crashing down: there is no other site that has the system they do which gives us the pictures, etc, with just a bit of code. We looked at other sites, we even tried to switch once, but they have the market sewed up. And because people are so used to seeing the name, thee is also a comfort and trust level that comes from having such a ubiquitous name.
Our financial deal isn't good, but we couldn't find one better, and the picture/info arrangement is gold. That's the reality right now.
27 - The Theory
we could always go to pop up adds, if that's better than amazon...
*The Theory... is joking and would kick some serious bootay if pop up adds were added to blogcritics*
28 - TDavid
Eric / Phillip - did you see my comments above about a possible timed edit / delete function? Seriously, you might want to take a look at this. Reply via private if you prefer, but a reply or acknowledgement of some sort addressing this would let me know that you got the message.
Thank you ;)
29 - Eric Olsen
Thanks T, we're all over it. Nothing can really be deleted anyway. Everything you said is exactly what we thought. Editing, fine - deleting, not fine.
30 - The Theory
could you clarify that, eric? like, the "nothing can really be deleted anyway" part...
31 - Natalie Davis
Eric: Nothing moral either. The whole thing makes me feel unclean. Of course, I would not be the first to say that reality bites. At least in politics, I have the option to vote Nader.
32 - Mac Diva
Powell's? Right here in my home town? Don't even think about partnering with them, Eric. I would be at Mike 's (the sole owner and a friend) giving him an earful about Barger's take-over of Blogcritic's the next day. Let's just say there's a price to pay for abetting the neo-Confederate movement. (BTW, why is it some folks think they are never supposed to be held responsible for the things they do? You allowed Barger to take over the site. So, you are responsible for the outcome.)
As for Barger's latest lie, I abhor Tupac Shakur and have never said anything defensive about him in my life. (Yes, I know he has a lot of fans, but I don't understand why.)
T, so far my entries have not fallen off though I definitely did delete all of them. I think it only fair to remove them at my request. Why should Eric benefit from the work of someone he disrespects and who has asked he return her work product? I can't think of a good reason. It is not as if Eric needs good writers for Blogcritics. He has Joe, Al and Andy. Who could ask for more?
33 - The Theory
FYI: Andy is not a blogcritic. just a reader.
34 - Mac Diva
And, that somehow gets Eric off the hook for aiding and abetting Andy? If anything, it is worse that he eagerly supports someone who doesn't contribute content to the site while insulting someone who does.
Perhaps Eric intends to support Al Barger and the neo-Confederate movement. Perhaps not. Either way, he is doing so by providing a platform for Barger. (Which is unnecessary. The movement has its own forums that Barger is doubtlessly active in. I can tell by what he posts here. It is largely content from those sites.)
As for the latter's mental health. Anyone who supports that movement, which is not only racist, but believes the South should again secede from the U.S., is in no position to throw stones. Methinks Barger is just very upset about being outted. You see, where he is coming from is so shameful people in the know will think he must be crazy.
35 - TDavid
Mac Diva I have to respectfully disagree with this statement:
As you know, I don't own or operate this website, I'm just one of many that frequent here and I haven't even been here that long so what I think is probably of little consequence to you, but I don't think what you want to do can be classified as fair.
Once you agreed to post reviews here, for better or worse, you don't have the right to pull them back unless you made that arrangement in advance.
I don't know what deal you made with Eric in advance, it's none of my business, but I'm guessing that it didn't include yanking back everything you wrote at some later date and time if you someday became unhappy as you appear to be at the time of this writing.
If I were, Eric, however, I'd be writing in that agreement when signing up new critics right away to prevent further misunderstandings (hint, hint)
And what about the people who commented on what you wrote -- what about those people's words and reactions to your work? Don't you care about them? Or the time they took to read what you had to say and make a post to you?
Why punish readers like me because you are mad at the website and/or a few of those who frequent here?
I understand that you are mad and who you are mad at, but the methods by which you want to deal with that anger are perplexing to me.
Since the central objective of any writer is to have and share with readers and you will get more readers and traffic to your website by having content up on other websites, yes? Not to mention search engines, technorati, etc. So insisting that your work be removed isn't exactly helping you share your work and words with others, is it?
Fine, don't contribute any more reviews here, but taking the past content down is also hurting yourself and the people who enjoyed your work more I think than it affects any one person (Eric) or website (blogcritics).
I hope you understand that I am not trying to fight, argue, lecture or irritate you with these comments, I'm just trying to offer you a relatively unbiased opinion here and suggest perhaps a peaceful respite from this situation.
Life's too short for stress, yanno?
36 - Mac Diva
I know that having my citations to Blogcritics will cause my linkage numbers to fall a lot, T. I am willing to accept that rather than be on a site dominated by Al Barger, a neo-Confederate. I started participating in blogs by exposing that movement and what it stands for. Remember the Trent Lott controversy? I began gathering information about the neo-Confederate movement while a reporter in the South years ago. I provided much of the material big name bloggers have relied on in exposing the movement, which Lott shares with Barger and about 70,000 other members. (Atrios and Josh Marshall did a lot of digging on their own, too. They are credited with having brought Lott down.) It would go against everything I believe in not to expose Barger's affiliation and why he is looking for a platform. Posting side-by-side with him would undermine my position in regard to that dangerous (yes, it has been linked to violence) movement. So, the reasonable thing for Eric to do, since he apparently wants Barger to continue to rule Blogcritics, is to remove my material from the site. Understand?
Note that I am sticking to the big issue, not addressing Eric's apparent approval (he did not disagree) of Barger calling me insane and worse. However, my tolerance stops at coddling neo-Confederates.
My blog stats have been very high at times because knowledgeable people who are good writers are rare in the blogosphere. The way to keep them high is never to take a meaningful stand on issues. Just echo everyone else. Brown-nose the big names. Beg for links. I would rather have my stats drop than do any of that.
37 - Mac Diva
Oops! "I know that deleting my citations to Blogcritics will cause my linkage numbers to fall a lot, T."
38 - Eric Olsen
Mac Diva, I am surprised that I have to respond further to this since I thought you made it clear that you were leaving - that, deleting your posts, and threatening some kind of action with Amazon made your point.
I do not control the site, I am merely first among equals in terms of participation, ownership, etc of the site. Writers - such as yourself - post on their own. Al is not a neo-Confederate. You know this. You also know he is not a racist. You DID act in a disturbed and irrational manner. I told you I didn't want you to go. Several others have done the same. What is left to discuss? Either join in on equal terms or go your own way. There are 330 writers on this site. No one dominates it - not even me. That is what is so good about it. If you can't take a wide range of opinion - including those 180 degrees from yours on many issues - then it's not for you.
You are obviously intelligent, a fine writer, and I thought you had a sense of humor - there is no need to make this kind of spectacle.
39 - Natalie Davis
In fairness, Eric, you don't know that MD knows that Al is not a racist or a neo-Confederate. She may very well believe that he is. Her statement does not mean that he is or isn't; it merely expresses her opinion. If I am to believe what I have read in this horrible thread, all participants here have the right to say what they want however they want, no matter who is hurt by it. What's good for the goose...
40 - andy
Maybe I should just leave then too. As a "non contributor", I apparently have no right to comment on anything written on this site? Screw that man. I may not be the deepest thinker or best speller on this site, but I have a right to comment on what I want in any way I want, whether you find it insulting or not. That's why this comment field exists. Again Mac, I am sorry if I insulted you. I'm sorry you see me as a racist too, but...the feeling's mutual.
41 - Al Barger
Miss Natalie- You say "all participants here have the right to say what they want however they want, no matter who is hurt by it." Well, I try to play nice myself, but I suppose that's optional.
One thing that IS required though is honesty. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Ms Diva does not appear to be dealing in good faith.
Further, the "horrible" element, the psychic disturbance, the viciousness is all coming from this same one person who obviously doesn't work and play well with others.
42 - Natalie Davis
Oh, don't try it, Al. We all know that sometimes you say offensive things and post offensive topics just to get a rise out of people (and then play nice, falling into that tiresome "aw, shucks, I'm just a dumb guy from Kentucky" routine after you've wounded someone through hurling your sharp semantic axes). You have admitted to same.
That is the truth, and frankly, one easily could wonder which is the "honest" Al.
Personally, I find much of what you write horrible. And while I certainly have not agreed with many of the things MD said or her approach (to which she is entitled, same as anyone else, and I say that as someone who also has felt the sting of her words), I don't see where she has not been honest, even if some find her honesty painful.
Which leads me to a question: If your intent is to be honest and not to disrespect people and cause them pain, why in hell did you begin this thread anyway? I don't see why it was necessary unless, on some level, you wanted to incite a conflagration.
If that was your motivation in whole or in part, one could suspect that at least a portion of you is enjoying all this sturm und drang. So, IMO, and with all due respect to you and ALL participants in this shameful thread and the other ones, you ought to be very careful about pointing fingers and casting blame here. As Craig posted above, you are the one who started a topic that has proven itself to be nothing more than "fucking mean" and "unnecessary." Let's see you try a little honesty and assume some responsibility here.
43 - Al Barger
Natalie, I was struck by your use of the word "offensive." You present it as though it was the opposite of "truth." I accuse MD of not telling the truth, even though I make "offensive" posts. Offensive or not is not my principle criterion, truthfulness is.
Thing is that I purposely dive into highly sensitive topics, because they are often the most important. I expect a certain amount of dissent. I care more about saying things I think need said than I do about the possibility that someone's feelings get hurt.
I don't say things I know are going to anger other people just to make them angry. There is generally some point to my provocative comments other than mere provocation. There are other points to consider than that someone might decide to get their feelings hurt.
I do, however, try as much as possible to be personally nice to people with whom I have differences of opinion. You seem to be criticizing me even for that.
I just tries to tell the truth, best I can make it out. It's possible that I might get overheated or overanimated in how I express things from time to time, but I'm trying to give an honest opinion.
Purposely starting conversations on known sensitive topics means that I do volunteer for some criticism and misunderstanding. OK. I can take being the butt of a joke, and I can take serious criticism.
But the fact that I discuss sensitive topics (even in an occassionally flippant manner) does not mean that I should assume fault or shame for someone comleting going off the deep end for no reason whatsoever. Neither I nor anyone else on this thread did anything whatsoever to bring on MD's little hissy fit.
I refuse to self-censor my expression based on the worst way that the most foolish or immature person could possibly decide to take it.
Indeed, this MD situation is not based on anything that I have said. She's just making stuff up wholecloth about me supporting slavery and such. It wouldn't have mattered what I said.
Natalie, you like to be regarded as the voice of conscience. I do trust you to be truthful. Yet I'm finding it difficult to understand how you could honestly look at the abusive and dishonest manner in which MD has acted, compare it to my much more restrained and HONEST, reasonable and mostly fairly friendly replies- then decide that ol' Al is The Goat, or even co-goat.
What's up with that?
44 - Brian Flemming
Wow. I didn't even know about this whole to-do until now. I was busy raping and killing Bill O'Reilly, and even worse things were apparently happening here.
There's no way I could possibly catch up with all of the threads and all of the details of who said what when.
I'm just bummed that Mac Diva is gone.
Since I can't possibly get familiar enough with the basic body of evidence here, I'll refrain from any defense/condemnation/judgment on the dispute, and I want to be clear that my comments below do not address this specific matter.
That said, I do want want to comment more generally on something this whole issue brings up in my mind: When should a Blogcritic leave as a protest of the strain of conservatism that runs through this site?
I have considered it myself. Among the handful of people who could be termed the leaders of Blogcritics, all have made statements that, if I were sitting at a dinner table with that person, I would have left the table in disgust.
I do know, from email communication, that others have ceased posting and visiting Blogcritics because of the dominance of conservatism here, and because of the frequently low quality of the debate, especially on political topics. It gets old posting some actual thoughts on a political matter only to receive in response an ad hominem attack. It gets really old.
And I have personally wondered if I am doing the right thing by remaining here and endorsing the site.
Every time I consider it, however, I determine it is better to be here than not. The solution to bad speech is more speech. Blogcritics has readers. I want to reach them.
A tip to those who may experience the same frustration as I do when comments threads degenerate: I always imagine the eavesdropping audience. I especially did this during the war. Whenever I could manage it, I didn't imagine myself in conversation with the people attacking me, I imagined someone unbiased perusing the comments threads (there are many, many more readers than posters), forming their own opinions on whatever the subject was. I tried to advocate for my position with them in mind, and let the other side embarrass itself with its crude arguments. It got me through.
45 - Eric Olsen
I am alarmed by some of the misconceptions I am encountering: there is just as much "liberalism" as there is "conservativism" here. I didn't realize there was a political litmus test that the site must pass. This is a group site, I control nothing other than what I personally post and minor copy editing. Read the bottom of the page: the copyright remains with the author, each is responsible for him/herself.
This is a forum, an outlet, an opportunity. There are 330 people who have equal access to creating the site's content. The "flavor" of the site changes with every single post. I guarantee no particular "flavor" at any given time, only that things will not be allowed to veer into hate speech.
People come and go all the time - that's what happens with a group site. I am never happy when someone leaves but there isn't much I can do about it except try to create as open and welcoming environment as I can, which I do.
To insist the flavor of the site reflect your personal political bent is absurd. It's a big, fat, hairy popular culture magazine that allows people to talk about most anything they want. I disagree with things I see here all the time and I say so - you are all welcome to do the same.
46 - Dew
Queue Applause
47 - Craig Lyndall
Come on now people... we need to get off of all this seriousness and enjoy my post of Christina Britney and Madonna acting like drunk college co-eds on the latest incarnation of "Girls Gone Wild." We all need a day of thoughtless gratuitous content to cheer everyone up and make everyone colleagues if not friends. How better to do that, than with some hot photos?
Now everyone kiss and make up! :-)
48 - The Theory
/shameless plug
:-P
peace.
49 - Craig Lyndall
Completely shameless. I just figure their are now flies circling this horse's carcass. I think everyone needs to put down their Louisville sluggers.
50 - Natalie Davis
Just saw thi from Dawn: "Dew, Mac and Natalie can dress appropriately, act appropriately, speak appropriately in a way that wouldn't never deceive who they are, but as soon as you open your eyes and see them, there they are: black."
If you were to look at me, Dawn, perhaps that is what you would see, but in my case, at least, you would be wrong. There is a difference between brown and black. Sorry, but I will not sit for erroneous categorizations.
51 - Natalie Davis
Oh, and Al, you didn't address my point. You claim MD is dishonest but you fail to demonstrate how. I believe she is AT LEAST as honest as you claim to be. And I don't buy that you started this to address a necessary topic. Other already active topics offered avenues for that. I believe you started this one to be unkind and to watch the fireworks, and you haven't changed my mind in the slightest.
Back to Dawn: "dress appropriately, act appropriately, speak appropriately"... What in heck does that mean?
52 - andy
Natalie, please don't overlook Dawn's point. It was a good one.
53 - Natalie Davis
Yes, put aside the fact that she said something incorrect. As always, patronize the well-meaning but wrong and ignore what the one wronged has to say. MD was correct about some things, apparently.
As I said, I won't sit still for or suffer erroneous categorizations made public. Had a judge thrown off of a trial for something similar the last time I had jury duty. That, my dear, was a blast.
54 - Craig Lyndall
I feel like this is the real world and we are slipping into our roles as they have them cast on the show. The problem is that because we are in a less rich environment than face to face, we end up saying things that piss each other off. Ok? So if everyone goes into this knowing that everyone is ignorant about everyone else maybe we would be better off. My experience as a man from a certain class from the suburbs of Cleveland Ohio is vastly different than other people's.
I still can't figure how this dropped into a morass of negativity, but I for one would like to let it end. Everyone who is on one side or the other seems intent on getting the last word.
AT WHAT POINT DO WE MOVE ON? Right, wrong, disaffected, involved or otherwise? I think we have wrong on both sides, but also, I don't think we are getting anywhere.
At least on the Real World the different hand-selected stereotypes have to come to some sort of agreement because they live together. Here in the blogosphere, there is no such necessity because we don't share the same physical space.
Who will let this end?
55 - Dew
Queue Curtain Close
well said Craig
56 - Phillip Winn
TDavid (#9), you're right. As Eric has said repeatedly in this thread, we are a community of equals, and MovableType is based on that concept, so anybody is allowed to do anything they want to with their own posts.
Or they were, at least. Unfortunately, this is at least the second time that people have chosen to delete posts, and so I've taken the step of modifying the source code to remove that privilege for all but a couple of site-admin people. So now I guess that some of us are more equal than others.
Everybody still has edit privileges on their own posts for all time, so there are still ways for authors to cause problems, but I don't feel comfortable taking away the ability to edit even very old posts. Perhaps I'll start a poll on the subject to gather fellow BC authors' opinions. (Poll, hint, hint...you know who you are...)
By the way, the structure of Blogcritics is such that MacDiva's 18 deleted posts are actually still available, though not through the search engine. Though they were deleted from the database, the pages still exist on disk. It would even theoretically be possible for me to somehow reconstitute the database entries from those pages if that turns out to be the right thing to do. Given the passion surrounding this whole thing, I will leave them alone for now at least.
So now nobody has permission to delete any posts from the main blog but Eric and me (I think that's all, anyway). I'm sure that there are valid reasons to delete posts, such as duplicates and abandoned drafts and so on, but anybody that wants one delete will now have send email to eolsen@blogcritics.org or pwinn@blogcritics.org to request it. Sorry about that. :(
I'll post separately to comment on non-technical issues.
57 - Natalie Davis
"I don't think we are getting anywhere."
I believe you're right. And I don't believe we ever will.
58 - The Theory
i expierenced the cruel harsh reality of being unable to delete drafts today... blah.
59 - Eric Olsen
Natalie, did you entirely miss the fact that Dawn was trying to express empathy with you, or did you just pick up on the fact that she called you "black"? That seems to entirely miss her main point.
60 - Phillip Winn
See how useful that can be? Now you'll be bugged and eventually maybe finish the Viva Voce piece! ;)
61 - The Theory
See, I did... and pasted it into a new entry to get the correct date and time... and clicked "save"... and then my compute chocked up and didn't save it. So now I'm discouraged and don't feel like writing a quality review now. haha.
62 - Natalie Davis
Of course not. I certainly got the empathy bit. Surely you noticed that I used the hyphenate "well-meaning" to describe her. Or did you just pick up on the fact that someone took issue with something your wife said?
Empathy is worthless to me if the person wielding it miscategorizes me (which happens to me all the time; it makes me sick). I am sorry if that upsets you or anyone else, even if no one is sorry about upsetting me.
63 - Phillip Winn
TT (#61) Did you know that after saving a post, you can edit the date/time? You don't need to create a new post for that. In fact, we had an issue recently where someone set a future date (accidentally) on a post, and it weirded out some RSS aggregators. Don't do that, please.
Maybe I'll have to dig into the source to disallow timestamps that haven't happened. I'll have to allow for the international date line... ;)
64 - Eric Olsen
Nothing to do with who wrote the comment - I would have asked the same question regardless. I don't know if she's even seen your response, I haven't talked to her.
I understand and respect your desire to be treated as an individual, but in this case "black" was simply a generic collective term. I am not white, I am sort of "beige," and in the summer I am "golden brown" or something like it, yet for collective purposes I am "white." It's nothing personal. Please choose to see it that way.
65 - The Theory
Phillip: Cool. I'll finish that tomorrow night, then.
Natalie: If you don't like the word "black" being used, what would you prefer we use?
peace.
66 - Natalie Davis
The Theory: Human, which I use on government forms. Or multiethnic, which is what is on my birth certificate (not by my choice, but I can live with that). Interestingly, some hospital personnel have labeled me as "white," others have labeled me as "black." And then I raised hell to have both of them changed.
Eric, why would you assume I am part of any collective? And why would you request me to accept such miscategorization quietly since it is "not personal"? Darling, it's all personal. I don't mean to show you or Dawn any disrespect; I adore you both. But kneejerk miscategorization IS disrespect.
Small story: The last time I had jury duty, I was part of a pool of potential jurors for a drug-possession case. Each of us was interviewed individually by the judge and the lawyers for the defense and prosecution. When my turn came, I gave my standard and honest "I don't trust cops, I don't trust judges, I don't believe in the War on (Some) Drugs" speech and was excused from sitting on the panel, although I had to remain in the courtroom until the proceedings were completed. Well, there were a LOT of people to be interviewed, and at some point, the judge was tired of the endeavor. She announced to all those present: "This is taking far too long, so I am going to simplify things. You all see that the defendant is African-American. Do any of you have a problem with judging African-Americans without prejudice?" I immediately stood up and walked out of the courtroom and down to the court commissioner's office. I filed a complaint against the judge on the grounds that you CAN NOT look at anyone and determine whether they are or are not African-American. The fact that the judge would make such a sweeping generalization and assume that everyone would take that same potentially erroneous leap obliterated the credibility of the court and of herself. The CC agreed and the judge was forced to recuse herself.
Another story: Like your wife, I am part Jewish. The Tay-Sachs gene runs in my family. But doctors, who automatically tested me for Sickle Cell disease, refused to test me for Tay-Sachs disease until I threatened litigation against them.
The moral: If you actually give a shit about people, don't trust your eyes. The darkest-hued individual may indeed be something you haven't considered; the most lily-white could be African-American. Why diminish them because of your limited experience or imagination? Talk to people and get to know them before you toss them into society's disgustingly constricting boxes.
That is my point. Taking a look at someone and making a snap judgment based on that is wrong. Slapping a label on another person is equally wrong. Expecting people to accept that sort of thing mutely, regardless of the intentions of the miscatgorizer, is worse.
67 - The Theory
is calling someone white wrong? even though they're more of a pale pink? I agree that skin color shouldn't matter, however, the world doesn't seem ready discard the concept.
68 - The Theory
and I'm not trying to be difficult or anything... just trying to understand
69 - Natalie Davis
I know, TT. And in answer to your question, I would say, "yes, that's wrong too." If someone is pink in hue, they are pink. If they are beige, they are beige. If they are olive-skinned, that is what they are. In terms of color: That doesn't involve ethnicity or anything like that; it's a small world, after all, and one world is enough for all of us. Truthfully, most of the people you would call "black" are in truth "brown." I don't have the stomach for making inaccurate statements and I won't stand for having them hurled at me without rebutting or insisting on a correction. One blog referred to my recent piece on color-based affirmative action (which I do not support) by calling me "some brown chick who looks like a guy." That was acceptable.
The world, by and large, isn't ready to discard many vile concepts. That does not mean I have to play along. I will not. If that makes me unpopular or makes people consider me difficult, so be it. It is not my job to facilitate their wrongness or to make it easier for them to treat me or anyone else inhumanely.
In short, my rule is to go by what an individual tells me. If they tell me they describe themselves as "white" or "Hispanic" or "black" or "African-American" or "human" or "Latino/a" or "chartreuse" or "Asian," I respect that person's wishes. If I make an assumption, I state clearly that I am making an assumption and apologize up front. If I call someone, say, African-African, I phrase it as "a person societally categorized as..." In my work, I have to use the conventions mandated by my editor and/or the Associated Press stylebook. But in my life, I will not use wanton categorizations based on melanin or genetics without making all necessary disclaimers. To do otherwise would be, IMO, inhumane and indecent. People deserve respect. It's a shame so many appear so reluctant to give it for the sake of ignorance, lack of experience, or convenience.
70 - The Theory
ok, cool.
71 - andy
Natalie, I don't think anyone meant you disrespect. Sorry about that. Thanks for showing your point of view of the whole thing. As a person not in your shoes, I don't fully understand your point of view or what pisses you off about it. IF someone calls me white, whatever. I'm white. I don't understand your problem w/ it, but I can respect that you dont like the generalization.
72 - Natalie Davis
Again, I have said before that I am quite aware that Dawn meant well. At the same time, she was dead wrong. Pointing that out doesn't make me necessarily disrespectful either. However, by not speaking up, I would show disrespect to myself. I spent many years silently absorbing erroneous labeling and categorizations. No more. Never again.
73 - Dawn
I apologize for my misspeaking. In no way was I trying to be disrespectful and upon re-reading that comment, I can totally understand why Natalie, Dew or Mac would be offended.
I was genuinely trying to say something that in my heart felt right, which was that white (I AM actually pink in hue) people have no clue what a person of color - ANY COLOR - feels when they are being mistreated - FOR ANY REASON, because sadly, people are racist.
As for the speak/act/dress appropriately crap, I meant to imply "WITHOUT AN OBVIOUS STEREOTYPE" thing going on.
Say, you know, like most normal people.
I don't know if that helps, sometimes I am a complete moron even when I am trying to be helpful.
Just forget I said anything, cause I sure don't want to create a riff with anyone at all.
And for the record, NO ONE is meaner and more critical of me than Eric, so please don't assume he is defending my honor, more likely he is correcting my stupidity.
Good luck sorting this out, all I wish for is peace and love people!
74 - The Theory
by the way, Al, I am quite thankful for the ":)" in the title of this article. regardless of the intentions, it has, in my mind, kept the conversation from taking on a sharp edge.
75 - andy
Natalie, I will say that it was easier to hear what you were saying than it was from MD because you weren't calling anyone an "ignorant bigot". So, thanks for that.