Oil/location report...

Tom Littleton wrote:
and, for 3 days, this 'debate' rages on. I'm sure the general populace of
the planet has been adequately alerted to RDean's racist agenda, and that
minds have been sufficiently changed on both sides. Now, let's move along,
nothing to see here, folks.

Quite the contrary, this is just starting to get ... um ...
"interesting". In the last missive from Mississippi we learned
that it is insidious and paternalistic when white people do
not defend the white race. I'd like to know more about this.
How, exactly, does one go about defending the white race ?
Do you need a robe and a hood ? Is burning a cross absolutely
necessary ?

No, there's plenty to see here. I'd encourage rdean to keep
right on posting on the subject of racism.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:40:56 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
and, for 3 days, this 'debate' rages on. I'm sure the general populace of
the planet has been adequately alerted to RDean's racist agenda, and that
minds have been sufficiently changed on both sides. Now, let's move along,
nothing to see here, folks.

Quite the contrary, this is just starting to get ... um ...
"interesting". In the last missive from Mississippi we learned
that it is insidious and paternalistic when white people do
not defend the white race.

First, I'm just about done with this, at least for now. You clearly have no
interest in debate or even "debate," but rather, you want to twist what I and
others have said. You have not even done so in some alleged attempt to combat
"racism," but done so simply to, at least as you see it, "win." Manufacturing
what others have said and then arguing with your own manufactured contention
does nothing to counter the actual contention. That said:

I made no comments about white people defending the white race or even about any
specific race defending their own race. What I said was that when someone
defends another race, yet does not defend their own, it is a indication of
paternalism. You claim to be against "racism," yet the only "racism" you
"attack" is that which YOU perceive to be racism directed at blacks by whites.
Your paternalistic approach to what you perceive as "racism" is clear by your
words and tone - why would a person, a self-proclaimed defender against
"racism," not attack _all_ racism, from any quarter, directed at any race? Where
is your "outrage" against "racism" in which you have no "stake" - black on black
racism (in may cases, more virulent than white vs. black, each toward the
other), Arab/Persian vs. Jewish (each toward the other), black vs. Asian (each
toward the other), etc.? Why aren't you just as vocal about black racism toward
whites? If one claims they are against "racism," they would seemingly be
against _racism_, not merely what they allege is "racism" they allege from a
singular race directed at another singular race.

And in this particular case, you haven't even established why _you_ believe my
phrase to be "racist," other than by a ridiculous and offensive comparison to
"Aunt Jemima" in which you compared a character whose premise is not race-based
and not only portrayed but created by a black actor in a sitcom about a black
family portrayed in a favorable (sitcom) sense to one created by whites solely
upon derogatory stereotypes and alludes to blacks being no more than servants
and is entirely contingent upon not only the character's race, but the
perception of whites about that character and "her" race.

I'd like to know more about this.
How, exactly, does one go about defending the white race ?
Do you need a robe and a hood ? Is burning a cross absolutely
necessary ?

See above. To suggest that one who is against black racism toward whites is a
Klansman is just more of your guilty white paternalistic hypocrisy. Again, one
who legitimately wishes to combat "racism" would not even consider the source or
object of "racism," only the "racism" itself. Under the premise you put forth
above, a black person "defending" their race (or even suggesting that defending
another race but not their own is paternalistic), and doing so with nothing but
words, would be themselves a potentially-dangerous, probably criminal and
unquestionably avowed racist themselves. The only possible explanation is that
you feel that the black race somehow needs your (and other white) defense, but
other races, and not limited to the white race, does not. IOW, you are a guilty
white PC "liberal" with a paternalistically racist view of the black race.

No, there's plenty to see here. I'd encourage rdean to keep
right on posting on the subject of racism.

See above.

HTH,
R

rdean wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Quite the contrary, this is just starting to get ... um ...
"interesting". In the last missive from Mississippi we learned
that it is insidious and paternalistic when white people do
not defend the white race.

First, I'm just about done with this, at least for now. You clearly have no
interest in debate or even "debate," but rather, you want to twist what I and
others have said. ...

I have no interest in "twisting" or "debating". You post racist and
offensive crap to roff, then I post saying that's racist and offensive.
There's no "debate", no argument, no long-winded diatribes. Don't do
that. But when you do post racist and offensive crap to roff I *will*
say that it's racist and offensive and I'll even throw in a personal
insult or two free of charge. Count on it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Jun 13, 11:02*am, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:40:56 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
and, for 3 days, this 'debate' rages on. I'm sure the general populace of
the planet has been adequately alerted to RDean's racist agenda, and that
minds have been sufficiently changed on both sides. Now, let's move along,
nothing to see here, folks.

Quite the contrary, this is just starting to get ... um ...
"interesting". In the last missive from Mississippi we learned
that it is insidious and paternalistic when white people do
not defend the white race.

First, I'm just about done with this, at least for now. *You clearly have no
interest in debate or even "debate," but rather, you want to twist what I and
others have said. You have not even done so in some alleged attempt to combat
"racism," but done so simply to, at least as you see it, "win." *Manufacturing
what others have said and then arguing with your own manufactured contention
does nothing to counter the actual contention. *That said:

I made no comments about white people defending the white race or even about any
specific race defending their own race. *What I said was that when someone
defends another race, yet does not defend their own, it is a indication of
paternalism. *You claim to be against "racism," yet the only "racism" you
"attack" is that which YOU perceive to be racism directed at blacks by whites.
Your paternalistic approach to what you perceive as "racism" is clear by your
words and tone - why would a person, a self-proclaimed defender against
"racism," not attack _all_ racism, from any quarter, directed at any race? Where
is your "outrage" against "racism" in which you have no "stake" - black on black
racism (in may cases, more virulent than white vs. black, each toward the
other), Arab/Persian vs. Jewish (each toward the other), black vs. Asian (each
toward the other), etc.? *Why aren't you just as vocal about black racism toward
whites? *If one claims they are against "racism," they would seemingly be
against _racism_, not merely what they allege is "racism" they allege from a
singular race directed at another singular race. *

And in this particular case, you haven't even established why _you_ believe my
phrase to be "racist," other than by a ridiculous and offensive comparison to
"Aunt Jemima" in which you compared a character whose premise is not race-based
and not only portrayed but created by a black actor in a sitcom about a black
family portrayed in a favorable (sitcom) sense to one created by whites solely
upon derogatory stereotypes and alludes to blacks being no more than servants
and is entirely contingent upon not only the character's race, but the
perception of whites about that character and "her" race.

I'd like to know more about this.
How, exactly, does one go about defending the white race ?
Do you need a robe and a hood ? Is burning a cross absolutely
necessary ?

See above. *To suggest that one who is against black racism toward whites is a
Klansman is just more of your guilty white paternalistic hypocrisy. *Again, one
who legitimately wishes to combat "racism" would not even consider the source or
object of "racism," only the "racism" itself. *Under the premise you put forth
above, a black person "defending" their race (or even suggesting that defending
another race but not their own is paternalistic), and doing so with nothing but
words, would be themselves a potentially-dangerous, probably criminal and
unquestionably avowed racist themselves. *The only possible explanation is that
you feel that the black race somehow needs your (and other white) defense, but
other races, and not limited to the white race, does not. *IOW, you are a guilty
white PC "liberal" with a paternalistically racist view of the black race.. *



No, there's plenty to see here. I'd encourage rdean to keep
right on posting on the subject of racism.

See above.

HTH,
R

Debate? Debate? DEBATE!
That is a total crack up.
You post a bunch of bizarre oil nonsense from the Oligarchy Cookbook.
Pure ****ing into the wind on your part. Then, I check out your stuff,
(for example on dispersants using YOUR reference) and YOUR reference
ITSELF shows that YOU conveniently left out the essential facts about
the relative ineffectiveness AND Toxicity of the choice made by BP.
We will leave out the little matter of BPs worst-of-the-majors safety
record and the American fatalities, documented by Baker, Mr Republican
himself.

Not to mention that your grasp of the simple chem of detergents seems
to be another area where the co-eds doing your homework failed you
again. Want other examples?

Then you shift to "Johnny on the scene" who touches the elephant from
behind his keyboard and, guess what (?), . . . "Oil? Oil? I can see no
oil?, It is all a media plot! and I know that because of my
Mississippi Zip code." But day by day the Oligarchy Cookbook falls
further and further behind reality, and amature Spin-puppets just
cannot keep up with that reality thang.

Then, as you usually do, you bugger off, pretending that you have
debated. AND, as in this instance, you try to slam the door with some
prep-school boy racist snot, that is at the same time both gutless,
and marginal. When all else fails blame the Black guy. And you do the
same sphincter-dance over and over and over, and most of the time I
ignore it.

Richard, you got **** that you do know about. Share that.

Dave

On Jun 12, 9:10*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
MajorOz wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You're ridiculous. The only one who is WAY off is you and
you're so far off you're on a different planet.

No matter how much you want to argue otherwise, describing
a black man as "Urkel goes gangsta" is every bit as racist
as describing a black woman as "Aunt Jemima goes ho". On
this planet.

I wouldn't want to censor Usenet even if that were possible
but I do feel obligated to speak up in the face of racist
and offensive speech. A lot of what spews off your Mississippi
keyboard is precisely that, racist and offensive speech.

Actually, you seem to get stirred up only by what you see, or
interpret, as racist.

If you were truly nanny-agitated to condemn offensive speech, g would
keep you from doing anything else with your life.

By g I'm assuming you mean Wolfgang. Wolfie's commentary is indeed
oftentimes quite offensive

Penetrating observation from yet another who never reads any of it.

In any case, I read just about of it as anyone here, I'd guess.....and
I've never been offended.

but it's not racist.

Well, not overtly.....or not obviously overtly, anyway. But sometimes
I wonder.....

Likewise, your
anonymous chicken**** commentary is oftentimes so far to the stupid
side of right-wing nitwittery that it too is offensive

Oh my! Aren't we getting to be just the touchy old biddy!

but it's not racist. Not overtly anyway.

Well, not obviously overtly, anyway.

So you're right, it's only racist and
offensive speech which gets my panties in a twist,

No, dear.....that's your hand.

the merely
offensive is just roff being roff.


Ken Fortenberry

BOO!

g.
hee, hee, hee

On Jun 13, 7:10*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
and, for 3 days, this 'debate' rages on. I'm sure the general populace of
the planet has been adequately alerted to RDean's racist agenda, and that
minds have been sufficiently changed on both sides. Now, let's move along,
nothing to see here, folks.

Nothing much to see here pretty much anytime. Funny you don't feel an
overpowering urge to point that out just any old time

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *yeesh, as they say
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

Hm.....

How's the sausage or pickel or whateverthehellitis supply holding up?

g.
they say every man has his price. three fresh blackberry muffins and
a cold sixpack of beck's would probably do it for me right about now.

On Jun 13, 1:02*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:40:56 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
and, for 3 days, this 'debate' rages on. I'm sure the general populace of
the planet has been adequately alerted to RDean's racist agenda, and that
minds have been sufficiently changed on both sides. Now, let's move along,
nothing to see here, folks.

Quite the contrary, this is just starting to get ... um ...
"interesting". In the last missive from Mississippi we learned
that it is insidious and paternalistic when white people do
not defend the white race.

First, I'm just about done with this, at least for now. *You clearly have no
interest in debate or even "debate," but rather, you want to twist what I and
others have said. You have not even done so in some alleged attempt to combat
"racism," but done so simply to, at least as you see it, "win." *Manufacturing
what others have said and then arguing with your own manufactured contention
does nothing to counter the actual contention. *That said:

I made no comments about white people defending the white race or even about any
specific race defending their own race. *What I said was that when someone
defends another race, yet does not defend their own, it is a indication of
paternalism. *You claim to be against "racism," yet the only "racism" you
"attack" is that which YOU perceive to be racism directed at blacks by whites.
Your paternalistic approach to what you perceive as "racism" is clear by your
words and tone - why would a person, a self-proclaimed defender against
"racism," not attack _all_ racism, from any quarter, directed at any race? Where
is your "outrage" against "racism" in which you have no "stake" - black on black
racism (in may cases, more virulent than white vs. black, each toward the
other), Arab/Persian vs. Jewish (each toward the other), black vs. Asian (each
toward the other), etc.? *Why aren't you just as vocal about black racism toward
whites? *If one claims they are against "racism," they would seemingly be
against _racism_, not merely what they allege is "racism" they allege from a
singular race directed at another singular race. *

And in this particular case, you haven't even established why _you_ believe my
phrase to be "racist," other than by a ridiculous and offensive comparison to
"Aunt Jemima" in which you compared a character whose premise is not race-based
and not only portrayed but created by a black actor in a sitcom about a black
family portrayed in a favorable (sitcom) sense to one created by whites solely
upon derogatory stereotypes and alludes to blacks being no more than servants
and is entirely contingent upon not only the character's race, but the
perception of whites about that character and "her" race.

I'd like to know more about this.
How, exactly, does one go about defending the white race ?
Do you need a robe and a hood ? Is burning a cross absolutely
necessary ?

See above. *To suggest that one who is against black racism toward whites is a
Klansman is just more of your guilty white paternalistic hypocrisy. *Again, one
who legitimately wishes to combat "racism" would not even consider the source or
object of "racism," only the "racism" itself. *Under the premise you put forth
above, a black person "defending" their race (or even suggesting that defending
another race but not their own is paternalistic), and doing so with nothing but
words, would be themselves a potentially-dangerous, probably criminal and
unquestionably avowed racist themselves. *The only possible explanation is that
you feel that the black race somehow needs your (and other white) defense, but
other races, and not limited to the white race, does not. *IOW, you are a guilty
white PC "liberal" with a paternalistically racist view of the black race.. *



No, there's plenty to see here. I'd encourage rdean to keep
right on posting on the subject of racism.

See above.

HTH,
R

Now THAT is ****ing hilarious!

g.
nothing to see? yet another chapter in the never-ending saga of the
nitwits versus the fools versus the idiots versus the pigs versus the
cretins versus the filth versus the morons versus the liars versus the
semi-literate versus......

NOTHING TO SEE!!??

On Jun 13, 2:18*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:02*am, wrote:





On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:40:56 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
and, for 3 days, this 'debate' rages on. I'm sure the general populace of
the planet has been adequately alerted to RDean's racist agenda, and that
minds have been sufficiently changed on both sides. Now, let's move along,
nothing to see here, folks.

Quite the contrary, this is just starting to get ... um ...
"interesting". In the last missive from Mississippi we learned
that it is insidious and paternalistic when white people do
not defend the white race.

First, I'm just about done with this, at least for now. *You clearly have no
interest in debate or even "debate," but rather, you want to twist what I and
others have said. You have not even done so in some alleged attempt to combat
"racism," but done so simply to, at least as you see it, "win." *Manufacturing
what others have said and then arguing with your own manufactured contention
does nothing to counter the actual contention. *That said:

I made no comments about white people defending the white race or even about any
specific race defending their own race. *What I said was that when someone
defends another race, yet does not defend their own, it is a indication of
paternalism. *You claim to be against "racism," yet the only "racism" you
"attack" is that which YOU perceive to be racism directed at blacks by whites.
Your paternalistic approach to what you perceive as "racism" is clear by your
words and tone - why would a person, a self-proclaimed defender against
"racism," not attack _all_ racism, from any quarter, directed at any race? Where
is your "outrage" against "racism" in which you have no "stake" - black on black
racism (in may cases, more virulent than white vs. black, each toward the
other), Arab/Persian vs. Jewish (each toward the other), black vs. Asian (each
toward the other), etc.? *Why aren't you just as vocal about black racism toward
whites? *If one claims they are against "racism," they would seemingly be
against _racism_, not merely what they allege is "racism" they allege from a
singular race directed at another singular race. *

And in this particular case, you haven't even established why _you_ believe my
phrase to be "racist," other than by a ridiculous and offensive comparison to
"Aunt Jemima" in which you compared a character whose premise is not race-based
and not only portrayed but created by a black actor in a sitcom about a black
family portrayed in a favorable (sitcom) sense to one created by whites solely
upon derogatory stereotypes and alludes to blacks being no more than servants
and is entirely contingent upon not only the character's race, but the
perception of whites about that character and "her" race.

I'd like to know more about this.
How, exactly, does one go about defending the white race ?
Do you need a robe and a hood ? Is burning a cross absolutely
necessary ?

See above. *To suggest that one who is against black racism toward whites is a
Klansman is just more of your guilty white paternalistic hypocrisy. *Again, one
who legitimately wishes to combat "racism" would not even consider the source or
object of "racism," only the "racism" itself. *Under the premise you put forth
above, a black person "defending" their race (or even suggesting that defending
another race but not their own is paternalistic), and doing so with nothing but
words, would be themselves a potentially-dangerous, probably criminal and
unquestionably avowed racist themselves. *The only possible explanation is that
you feel that the black race somehow needs your (and other white) defense, but
other races, and not limited to the white race, does not. *IOW, you are a guilty
white PC "liberal" with a paternalistically racist view of the black race. *

No, there's plenty to see here. I'd encourage rdean to keep
right on posting on the subject of racism.

See above.

HTH,
R

Debate? Debate? DEBATE!
That is a total crack up.
You post a bunch of bizarre oil nonsense from the Oligarchy Cookbook.
Pure ****ing into the wind on your part. Then, I check out your stuff,
(for example on dispersants using YOUR reference) and YOUR reference
ITSELF shows that YOU conveniently left out the essential facts about
the relative ineffectiveness AND Toxicity of the choice made by BP.
We will leave out the little matter of BPs worst-of-the-majors safety
record and the American fatalities, documented by Baker, Mr Republican
himself.

Not to mention that your grasp of the simple chem of detergents seems
to be another area where the co-eds doing your homework failed you
again. Want other examples?

Then you shift to "Johnny on the scene" who touches the elephant from
behind his keyboard and, guess what (?), . . . "Oil? Oil? I can see no
oil?, It is all a media plot! and I know that because of my
Mississippi Zip code." But day by day the Oligarchy Cookbook falls
further and further behind reality, and amature Spin-puppets just
cannot keep up with that reality thang.

Then, as you usually do, you bugger off, pretending that you have
debated. AND, as in this instance, you try to slam the door with some
prep-school boy racist snot, that is at the same time both gutless,
and marginal. When all else fails blame the Black guy. And you do the
same sphincter-dance over and over and over, and most of the time I
ignore it.

Richard, you got **** that you do know about. Share that.


All demonstrably and precisely true......um.....except for that last
bit. That has never been demnstrated. I mean, yeah, it's real sweet
of you to invite the boy to play with the big kids.....but it just
ain't gonna happen.


Dave

Meanwhile, how're my babies doing?

g.

On Jun 13, 12:47*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
rdean wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Quite the contrary, this is just starting to get ... um ...
"interesting". In the last missive from Mississippi we learned
that it is insidious and paternalistic when white people do
not defend the white race.

First, I'm just about done with this, at least for now. *You clearly have no
interest in debate or even "debate," but rather, you want to twist what I and
others have said. ...

I have no interest in "twisting" or "debating". You post racist and
offensive crap to roff, then I post saying that's racist and offensive.
There's no "debate", no argument, ...

You don't happen to be on the faculty at Madison, Berkeley, or
Boulder, do you?

oz

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:18:06 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:


Debate? Debate? DEBATE!
That is a total crack up.
You post a bunch of bizarre oil nonsense from the Oligarchy Cookbook.

I did? Please cite.

Pure ****ing into the wind on your part. Then, I check out your stuff,
(for example on dispersants using YOUR reference) and YOUR reference
ITSELF shows that YOU conveniently left out the essential facts about
the relative ineffectiveness AND Toxicity of the choice made by BP.

I did? Please cite.

We will leave out the little matter of BPs worst-of-the-majors safety
record and the American fatalities, documented by Baker, Mr Republican
himself.

No, let's not "leave it out" - please explain how an explosion at a refinery, in
which responsibility is/was nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to think (or
at least put forth), is somehow "proof" of something at an offshore drilling rig
with 2 other "players" involved. For those that aren't familiar with this,
here's Wikipedia's page on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_C...nery_explosion

Not to mention that your grasp of the simple chem of detergents seems
to be another area where the co-eds doing your homework failed you
again. Want other examples?

Yes, specific ones, and back them up with actual quotes and information rather
than your interpretations, accusations, assumptions and misquotes.

Then you shift to "Johnny on the scene" who touches the elephant from
behind his keyboard and, guess what (?), . . . "Oil? Oil? I can see no
oil?, It is all a media plot! and I know that because of my
Mississippi Zip code." But day by day the Oligarchy Cookbook falls
further and further behind reality, and amature Spin-puppets just
cannot keep up with that reality thang.

Hmmm...let's analyze, shall we? It appears your complaint is that someone who
is literally "on the scene" and has been so situated for many years prior cannot
possibly know anything about what they are seeing (or not seeing, as the case
may be), even when they are able to cite to a variety of reports as well as
actual pictures, whereas you, up in Washington or wherever, are able to "read
between the pixels" and determine the situation in area with which you have, or
at least have claimed, no familiarity, in an industry in which you have claimed
no knowledge (or cited to any). Good luck with that.

Then, as you usually do, you bugger off, pretending that you have
debated. AND, as in this instance, you try to slam the door with some
prep-school boy racist snot, that is at the same time both gutless,
and marginal.

When all else fails blame the Black guy.

I did? Please cite. Frankly, it is beginning to look like Obama will get more
"blame" for this than he would otherwise deserve, but he appears to be bringing
more and more upon himself.

And you do the
same sphincter-dance over and over and over, and most of the time I
ignore it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! You claim to ignore it, but yet, you simultaneously claim to
have pointed out supposed inaccuracies...SNICKER...

Richard, you got **** that you do know about. Share that.

Fair enough. I call you - you're full of **** - put up or shut up. I'll give
you one chance (nope, I don't care one iota if you or anyone else thinks that's
"fair," and yep, as I have full control of whether, how and when I choose to
respond, if I so choose, I'll be the sole judge of whether your response
warrants my response). If you fail to put up in a generally responsive way,
I'll demonstrate to you how to properly ignore something/someone...

HTH,
R

Dave