A Classic

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

Jose wrote all sorts of annoying [censored] 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

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

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

Quoted message said:

John L :

Quoted message said:

Jose & Zebee,

Your idea of a balanced argument comes from having a chip on both shoulders.

Insults do not improve your argument.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

& doesn't expect to have it dissected by a nitpicking anal retentive.

Ah, you only succeed in increasing your credibility gap.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Oh no I think I've jjust caught your disease.

You can only improve.

Quoted message said:

John L.

Jose Rizal _@_._ said:

Mark Lee:

>> "Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

>> Why did he see the need to mention the race at all? The only

*possible*

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> isn't a culture of learning about vehicular operation in traffic

from an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and think up of the reason afterwards? You're not thinking hard

enough.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I know of someone who's learning to drive now as a mature adult who

grew up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> in a tiny village in a country where cars are very rare. One day she

may be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> out on our roads.

Relevance of this?

> Roald Dahl relates a drive with his 21 year old sister during the

1920's in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> his book "Boy" -incredibly dangerous due to the lack of training

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> entrenched motorised transport culture.

Ditto.

> "Thailand has the highest rate of road fatalities in the world at 40

deaths

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> for every 100,000 people, or 2.9 people dying an hour, a researcher

said

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> yesterday.... about 17,520/year. ...six million people were injured in traffic accidents and
> 100,000

crippled

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> for life last year, according to the National Health

nstitute." -from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> online news sources
>
> Australian drivers may not be great, but obviously our transport

safety

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> culture is better than some. Annual road toll here is ~1750.

Comparative

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> populations 61 vs 19million. I'm sure car ownership rates are higher

here

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

John Doe:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

: 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.

Quoted message said:

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".

John L :

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

John L.

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

John Doe:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Tired, tired, tired...

John Doe:

Quoted message said:

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..."?

Quoted message said:

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...".

Mark Lee:

Quoted message said:

Jose wrote all sorts of annoying [censored] 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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

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 said:

Mark Lee:

Quoted message said:

Jose wrote all sorts of annoying [censored] 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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

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

Quoted message said:

This was started as a comment about some idiot riding in the fog, how did the rest of this [censored]
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.

Quoted message said:

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 🙂

Quoted message said:

take this [censored] elsewhere!!!

One persons [censored] 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

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:

John Staines:

Quoted message said:

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?"

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?"

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Anyway I thought this was a discussion group concerning cycling!

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

John L :

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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".

Quoted message said:

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...

Quoted message said:

John L (Still smiling,. Over & out)

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

Where about's in Australia are you Jose?

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

John Staines said:

Where about's in Australia are you Jose?

"John L" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

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

|:^)

I enjoyed that! Mark Lee

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 said:

John Staines:

Quoted message said:

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?"

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?"

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Anyway I thought this was a discussion group concerning cycling!

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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" <_@_._> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Theo Bekkers:

Quoted message said:

"Jose Rizal" <_@_._> who hides behind a fake address wrote

Quoted message said:

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,

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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....

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Peter Signorini:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.