Depression Recovery

Question:

I like to read political commentary from all sides of the political spectrum, and today I found a prime example of why that is so in my E-Mail box. Usually, I delete most of these E-Mails after the first paragraph because they are going nowhere, but this one had a real gem in it. We are constantly bombarded with the notion that Conservatives represent White people. This is of course never conveyed outright, but is implied. I believe that every change in America that has occurred in the destructive sense has happened BECAUSE of CONservatives.The most often quoted Conservative is Ronald Reagan.  You can’t listen or read any Conservative commentary from any source without hearing Ronald Reagan praised to the heavens. So here I share with you my little gem: Remember, it was Reagan, who, as Governor of California, signed into law the affirmative action programs banned by Prop 209, and who said in 1974: "Time and experience have shown that laws and edicts of non-discrimination are not enough. Justice demands that each and every citizen consciously adopt and accentuate a commitment to affirmative action, which will make equal opportunity a reality." It was under the Ronald Reagan Administration in Washington D.C. many years later that the even more virulent form of Affirmative Action known as "Race Norming" came into being. It was actually pushed by his Administration, though very, very quietly, while the media continued to describe him and especially those around him as "right-wing", "reactionary" and perhaps "bigoted". Reminds me a lot of the way Pat Buchanan is described. The ADL quotes Buchanan as saying that "David Duke is stealing from me". Funny, I don’t remember that. I do remember Pat gloating on Crossfire after the 1992 election cycle was over about how he "Stopped Duke in Louisiana". True, he did. In the last eight years Pat had called for a "freeze" on immigration. Now that he has his pedigree, he suddenly-though quietly-has changed this policy to "reducing" immigration to 250,000 a year "legally". No more Chinese wall across the border either. No policy to undo the illegal citizenship given out to millions by Clinton. No more talk of "Zulu’s". Same pattern that CONservatism has followed post WWII. The ADL has close contacts with the highest power brokers in the Republican Party, as well as the "World Anti-Communist League". The front runner in the Republican Party is George W. Bush. The line being pushed by the Republican Party’s highest profile spokesman is that George W. is not his Father. Funny, I don’t see any policies enacted or advocated by him as Governor that would differentiate him from Dad. In fact, he seems if anything worse than Dad. Then you have to look at his brother, Jeb, the Governor of Florida. He is married to a very brown mexican. He is the Father of the infamous "Little Brown Ones". George W. has criticized California’s passage of Prop 187 to curtail the non-White invasion. As Governor of Texas he has advocated INCREASING immigration and closer ties with Mexico. Just what is it that he intends to conserve? Not our soil, and if brother Jeb is any indication, not our blood either. Then there is the "Ruby Ridge Question". The Republican Party’s most high profile spokesman would have you believe that Ruby Ridge was conducted by Janet Reno (I’ve heard him say so twice in the past year and he may have said so many more times than that). In August of 1992, Janet Reno was an unknown alcoholic lesbian in Florida. Bill Clinton was still Governor of Arkansas running against George Bush Senior. Yes, Ruby Ridge was presided over by a Republican Administration. I don’t doubt that most of you have the will to handle the "Gorillas in the Mist". The question that hangs in the air, and which will decide whether we live or die is: Can you take out the Race Traitors in our midst?

Response:

Keep your crap off this newsgroup!  Fucking skinhead pussy! Calvin

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I like to read political commentary from all sides of the political > spectrum, and today I found a prime example of why that is so in my > E-Mail box. Usually, I delete most of these E-Mails after the first > paragraph because they are going nowhere, but this one had a real gem in > it. We are constantly bombarded with the notion that Conservatives > represent White people. This is of course never conveyed outright, but > is implied. I believe that every change in America that has occurred in > the destructive sense has happened BECAUSE of CONservatives.The most > often quoted Conservative is Ronald Reagan.  You can’t listen or read > any Conservative commentary from any source without hearing Ronald > Reagan praised to the heavens. So here I share with you my little gem: > Remember, it was Reagan, who, as Governor of California, signed into law > the affirmative action programs banned by Prop 209, and who said in > 1974: "Time and experience have shown that laws and edicts of > non-discrimination are not enough. Justice demands that each and every > citizen consciously adopt and accentuate a commitment to affirmative > action, which will make equal opportunity a reality." > It was under the Ronald Reagan Administration in Washington D.C. many > years later that the even more virulent form of Affirmative Action known > as "Race Norming" came into being. It was actually pushed by his > Administration, though very, very quietly, while the media continued to > describe him and especially those around him as "right-wing", > "reactionary" and perhaps "bigoted". Reminds me a lot of the way Pat > Buchanan is described. The ADL quotes Buchanan as saying that "David > Duke is stealing from me". Funny, I don’t remember that. I do remember > Pat gloating on Crossfire after the 1992 election cycle was over about > how he "Stopped Duke in Louisiana". True, he did. In the last eight > years Pat had called for a "freeze" on immigration. Now that he has his > pedigree, he suddenly-though quietly-has changed this policy to > "reducing" immigration to 250,000 a year "legally". No more Chinese wall > across the border either. No policy to undo the illegal citizenship > given out to millions by Clinton. No more talk of "Zulu’s". Same pattern > that CONservatism has followed post WWII. The ADL has close contacts > with the highest power brokers in the Republican Party, as well as the > "World Anti-Communist League". > The front runner in the Republican Party is George W. Bush. The line > being pushed by the Republican Party’s highest profile spokesman is that > George W. is not his Father. Funny, I don’t see any policies enacted or > advocated by him as Governor that would differentiate him from Dad. In > fact, he seems if anything worse than Dad. Then you have to look at his > brother, Jeb, the Governor of Florida. He is married to a very brown > mexican. He is the Father of the infamous "Little Brown Ones". George W. > has criticized California’s passage of Prop 187 to curtail the non-White > invasion. As Governor of Texas he has advocated INCREASING immigration > and closer ties with Mexico. Just what is it that he intends to > conserve? Not our soil, and if brother Jeb is any indication, not our blood > either. > Then there is the "Ruby Ridge Question". The Republican Party’s most > high profile spokesman would have you believe that Ruby Ridge was > conducted by Janet Reno (I’ve heard him say so twice in the past year > and he may have said so many more times than that). In August of 1992, > Janet Reno was an unknown alcoholic lesbian in Florida. Bill Clinton was > still Governor of Arkansas running against George Bush Senior. Yes, Ruby > Ridge was presided over by a Republican Administration. > I don’t doubt that most of you have the will to handle the "Gorillas in > the Mist". The question that hangs in the air, and which will decide > whether we live or die is: Can you take out the Race Traitors in our > midst?

Response:

As an African-American, I truly understand your anger, but why must a sexist term like "p****" be brought into play?  I know you’re throwing term at a person who obviously celebrates hatred; but in the larger scheme, why a word that disparages women?   Dana (Carl Dana Jackson) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Keep your crap off this newsgroup!  Fucking skinhead pussy! > Calvin > I like to read political commentary from all sides of the political > spectrum, and today I found a prime example of why that is so in my > E-Mail box. Usually, I delete most of these E-Mails after the first > paragraph because they are going nowhere, but this one had a real gem in > it. We are constantly bombarded with the notion that Conservatives > represent White people. This is of course never conveyed outright, but > is implied. I believe that every change in America that has occurred in > the destructive sense has happened BECAUSE of CONservatives.The most > often quoted Conservative is Ronald Reagan.  You can’t listen or read > any Conservative commentary from any source without hearing Ronald > Reagan praised to the heavens. So here I share with you my little gem: > Remember, it was Reagan, who, as Governor of California, signed into law > the affirmative action programs banned by Prop 209, and who said in > 1974: "Time and experience have shown that laws and edicts of > non-discrimination are not enough. Justice demands that each and every > citizen consciously adopt and accentuate a commitment to affirmative > action, which will make equal opportunity a reality." > It was under the Ronald Reagan Administration in Washington D.C. many > years later that the even more virulent form of Affirmative Action known > as "Race Norming" came into being. It was actually pushed by his > Administration, though very, very quietly, while the media continued to > describe him and especially those around him as "right-wing", > "reactionary" and perhaps "bigoted". Reminds me a lot of the way Pat > Buchanan is described. The ADL quotes Buchanan as saying that "David > Duke is stealing from me". Funny, I don’t remember that. I do remember > Pat gloating on Crossfire after the 1992 election cycle was over about > how he "Stopped Duke in Louisiana". True, he did. In the last eight > years Pat had called for a "freeze" on immigration. Now that he has his > pedigree, he suddenly-though quietly-has changed this policy to > "reducing" immigration to 250,000 a year "legally". No more Chinese wall > across the border either. No policy to undo the illegal citizenship > given out to millions by Clinton. No more talk of "Zulu’s". Same pattern > that CONservatism has followed post WWII. The ADL has close contacts > with the highest power brokers in the Republican Party, as well as the > "World Anti-Communist League". > The front runner in the Republican Party is George W. Bush. The line > being pushed by the Republican Party’s highest profile spokesman is that > George W. is not his Father. Funny, I don’t see any policies enacted or > advocated by him as Governor that would differentiate him from Dad. In > fact, he seems if anything worse than Dad. Then you have to look at his > brother, Jeb, the Governor of Florida. He is married to a very brown > mexican. He is the Father of the infamous "Little Brown Ones". George W. > has criticized California’s passage of Prop 187 to curtail the non-White > invasion. As Governor of Texas he has advocated INCREASING immigration > and closer ties with Mexico. Just what is it that he intends to > conserve? Not our soil, and if brother Jeb is any indication, not our > blood > either. > Then there is the "Ruby Ridge Question". The Republican Party’s most > high profile spokesman would have you believe that Ruby Ridge was > conducted by Janet Reno (I’ve heard him say so twice in the past year > and he may have said so many more times than that). In August of 1992, > Janet Reno was an unknown alcoholic lesbian in Florida. Bill Clinton was > still Governor of Arkansas running against George Bush Senior. Yes, Ruby > Ridge was presided over by a Republican Administration. > I don’t doubt that most of you have the will to handle the "Gorillas in > the Mist". The question that hangs in the air, and which will decide > whether we live or die is: Can you take out the Race Traitors in our > midst?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->As an African-American, I truly understand your anger, but why must a >sexist term like "p****" be brought into play?  I know you’re throwing term >at a person who obviously celebrates hatred; but in the larger scheme, why >a word that disparages women?   >Dana >(Carl Dana Jackson) > Because people are used to throwing around terms that have no real > meaning to them but are meant to incite still more anger.  

Yes, but just because people are just to doing this, does not make it right or okay. > It offends me too when used in this context.  I wonder, would we (male > or female) have been offended if he had used the word d*** or some > other male derogative term.

No, because if it is said by a straight guy, those same straight guys generally celebrate their use of that word. > I would have… but would I have > commented on it… (not to say that your doing so isn’t right, Dana. > As a female I appreciate the statement.)…. I just think that we’ve > all gotten so "politically correct" when referring to women, > African-Americans, "Alternative Lifestyles", etc that we are > forgetting that men get bashed too.

Yeah right.  You are exactly the kind of person I thought you are.  Men bashing?  HUH??  Give me a break… It is not your job — or anyone else’s — to decide what I want to be called.  If you do not like my use of "African-American" — TOUGH! For pete’s sake, right-wing knuckle-heads are all the same — be they clinical depressed or not… Dana (Carl Dana Jackson) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Now this is totally off-topic and I shouldn’t be responding to this > thread but as usual I have to get my .02 in.  :P > take care, > leefus > x-no-archive in headers

Response:

> x-no-archive: yes >Yeah right.  You are exactly the kind of person I thought you are.  Men >bashing?  HUH??  Give me a break… > You obviously have *no* idea what kind of a person Leefus is, Dana. I > can’t see where you are coming from at all. Leefus was not suggesting > that men bashing was more acceptable.  

And, neither was that my interpretation. >It is not your job — or anyone else’s — to decide what I want to be >called.  If you do not like my use of "African-American" — TOUGH! > You are off again in your perceptions of Leefus if you believe in any > way that she was insulting your use of the term African-American. She > was simply making a point, just as you originally made your point. She > in no way criticized you.

I would suggest that you become more engaged in American culture.  Over the last seven years or so in the U.S., there has been a loud cry from non-people of color, that they are tired of "political correctness."   When in fact, there is no such animal. I’ve had people tell me to my face that they are tired of all of this talk about "African-American" — and other such things — and they always couch it in terms of "political correctness."  This has happened to me and those I know time and time again.  So, whenever someone talks about "African-American" and "political correctness" in the same breathe — my red flag ALWAYS goes up. In your view, this is perhaps all a figment of my imagination.  But you would be wrong. >For pete’s sake, right-wing knuckle-heads are all the same — be they >clinical depressed or not… > Sorry, you lost me totally here. Don’t know who you’re talking about > or why.

Re-read my previous paragraphs. > We all usually just ignore spammers Dana. Or trolls.

Yes, that is my Usenet practice as well. > They tend to drag > us into other groups univited by cross-posting, which is not endorsed > in the Charter of this group.

You have no argument from me here. >They wreak havoc as they have obviously > done here, and leave without answering us.

Yes, trolls throw the bombs and then run away.  Agreed. > So what have we gained?

If you are referring to me, I’ve not thrown any bombs and then run.  So, imply that I am a troll to your heart’s desire, but again, you would be wrong. >Two > of asdr’s group members having an argument over something that should > have just been ignored?

Wrong.  I simply questioned the use of a word that I believe disparages women. >You were both manipulated.

Nope.  Though, I can’t speak for the other person. > But not by each > other. Try to keep that in mind.

Thanks, but that won’t be necessary for me. Dana – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Jai > — > For more information about this posting service, contact: > If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page: > http://asarian-host.org/emailform.html

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> x-no-archive: yes > I rarely shut up at the appropriate time, but I think a little more > mutual understanding is in order between you and me. But first, let me > set the mood, so as to minimize misconceptions. I have a deep, calm > voice. When I write here, it is in that same calm and supportive > voice. I have a huge sense of humour and laugh a lot. Anything else > you want to know about *me*, just ask. >I would suggest that you become more engaged in American culture. > LOL! <sorry Dana> I don’t totally understand American culture, or even > the history that well. I live in Canada.

That was precisely my point.  I already knew that you were obviously *not* an American. >  Over the >last seven years or so in the U.S., there has been a loud cry from >non-people of color, that they are tired of "political correctness."   When >in fact, there is no such animal. > I think I agree, if what you’re saying is that when we all try to > please every group we end up alienating others. Or perhaps you mean > that people there aren’t trying hard enough? That they just use > language and don’t follow up with actions that really change anything. > I agree with all of this. You have a huge population there, with so > much history period. As an individual in Canada, I don’t *know* how to > affect that. The situation doesn’t seem to be getting any better based > on what I see on tv. I only know how I treat people IRL here.

See, what others call "political correctness", I simply call an extension of the Golden Rule.  Let the individual decide what he or she wants to be called, rather than the other way around.  To understand the particular ethnic group angle in this country, one has to truly understand American’s history of race relations. From what I have been following of Canadian cultural issues for the past 15 years or so — I listen to and watch the CBC — Canada has had its own problems vis-a-vis First Nations people and the like. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I’ve had people tell me to my face that they are tired of all of this talk >about "African-American" — and other such things — and they always couch >it in terms of "political correctness."  This has happened to me and those >I know time and time again.  So, whenever someone talks about >"African-American" and "political correctness" in the same breathe — my >red flag ALWAYS goes up. > I can only try to understand how this would make you feel. I can’t say > "I know how you feel", because I think that would be patronizing. I > really don’t know how bad it makes you feel. If I were suddenly thrust > into *your* type of position, I think I would be distrustful, angry > and totally sick of the situation. But I’m sure your feelings run even > deeper than I can imagine.

Yes, and that is why when I’m on Usenet and this issue comes up, it *always* sends me into protective defense mode.  When it happens, I’m truly not trying to come off as a "troll."  It’s just that I can’t let such issues as this go unanswered, because *then* people start to agree with such inane rhetoric. >In your view, this is perhaps all a figment of my imagination.  But you >would be wrong. > Not at all. I think I am understanding you the more you say. If you > don’t talk about yourself or your life, I have no way of knowing what > kind of a person you are.

I really appreciate your understanding >If you are referring to me, I’ve not thrown any bombs and then run.  So, >imply that I am a troll to your heart’s desire, but again, you would be >wrong. > I wasn’t implying that you were a troll. I meant the person who > originally posted this thread, and the person who used the derogatory > terms.

I’m sorry.  It was my mistake and I apologize for it. > I think that is as clear as I get. We don’t have to agree. We don’t > have to agree to disagree. It is nice to have clarity and > understanding. This isn’t the real world. We can only know each other > through words on a screen. Sometimes you have to trust what you’re > reading. But you never know for sure if it is the truth. That works > both ways. I am the same person IRL as I am here. Others are not. > Sometimes it’s hard to figure out. > Jai <whose .02 cents is only worth about .01 cent>

No, I think you’ve said some wonderful things.  Truly. Dana – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> p & e’d > — > For more information about this posting service, contact: > If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page: > http://asarian-host.org/emailform.html

Response:

<snip> > The only thing remotely conservative about me is my clothing and my > belief in God.

Hmmm…I’m not sure if you live int he U.S., but if so, you would probably know several Republican presidential candidates have this in common with you and they *too* despise so-called "political correctness." Dana – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> leefus > x-no-archive in headers

Response:

> Okay.. first of all, please take a deep breath.. I was not in *any* > way putting you down or laying blame on you or arguing with you.  I > was just adding my .02.

Fair enough, but on my examining your .02, I found that there was suff there that sent off my red flags.  If I came off as defensive, it’s became I’ve been living in a country — a country that I still love — that has had race and ethnic issues for nearly 400 years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Please let me show you where you interpreted what I said quite > differently from what I meant (which either means I said it poorly or > you anticipated anger when I meant none at all). >> Because people are used to throwing around terms that have no real >> meaning to them but are meant to incite still more anger.   >Yes, but just because people are just to doing this, does not make it right >or okay. > I agree completely.  people do this because they are trained to by > their upbringing or their environment or whatever.  No it doesn’t make > it right.  But it’s the only explanation.  It certainly isn’t because > they are thoughtful or concerned about how others feel upon seeing > derogatory terms.  I was basically agreeing with you.  uh.. as my > husband might say "We’re violently agreeing" so relax… I wasn’t > saying this bozo had a right to use that term.

Yes, perhaps I did jump-the-gun a bit too quickly, but my gosh, being a product of my own environment makes me this way. >> It offends me too when used in this context.  I wonder, would we (male >> or female) have been offended if he had used the word d*** or some >> other male derogative term. >No, because if it is said by a straight guy, those same straight guys >generally celebrate their use of that word. > hm… hadn’t thought of that but that’s possible.  I know my straight > husband wouldn’t want to be called a d*ckh**d though.

Yes, and I can see why. >> I would have… but would I have >> commented on it… (not to say that your doing so isn’t right, Dana. >> As a female I appreciate the statement.)…. > Did you not see this part???

I believe I did.  But I will go back and re-read the thread. >> I just think that we’ve >> all gotten so "politically correct" when referring to women, >> African-Americans, "Alternative Lifestyles", etc that we are >> forgetting that men get bashed too. >Yeah right.  You are exactly the kind of person I thought you are.  Men >bashing?  HUH??  Give me a break… > uh… who are you talking to?  I’m not the person that posted the > original post so how on earth did you decide what kind of person I > am?????

No, of course not.   Did I misinterpret something? >  I have seen much male bashing.  Just yesterday my husband > forwarded a cartoon to me that was sent to him by a woman – it showed > a woman at a wishing well and the woman said "I wish I were stupid and > had no brains" and tossed a coin in the well.   POOF! she turned into > a man.  Is that not male bashing?  That is only one of *hundreds* of > such things I have been sent via email from mostly women.

Yes, I could see that as male bashing, but as a gay male, I can understand *why* there is this animus towards heterosexual men.  It’s about the old question of who has controlled things on this planet for eons? But, yes, you are right.  It does not excuse the abuse towards your husband. > I get both, > male bashing, female bashing, blonde bashing, southern bashing, yankee > bashing, and the list goes on.  It’s happening everywhere = not just > in this one bozo’s stupid post or in the post that was followed up > with the "p word".

I see. >It is not your job — or anyone else’s — to decide what I want to be >called.  If you do not like my use of "African-American" — TOUGH! > I don’t care what you want to be called.  I wasn’t making a judgment > of that.  All I was saying was that all people of all types get > bashed.  Do you know how sick I am of seeing that all redheads on TV > are "short-tempered but with great senses of humour and slightly > slutty"?  Since I was a child I was told I was short-tempered because > I had red hair.  When I revealed to people that I was born and spent > some of my childhood in Africa I was called a derogatory term (yes, > the "n word")  despite the fact that I am as grubworm white as a > caucasian can be (except for the freckles which according to most men > I’ve talked to are "ugly").

I see.  I’m taking everything you say in. > So believe me, I don’t care if you call > yourself African-American, Black, "of color" or whatever you are > comfortable with.  I don’t care if I am called "redheaded", "white", > "caucasian", or hell – grubworm.  I didn’t give one flying fritter > that you used the term.  I *thought* I was commiserating.  I’m sorry > that you misunderstood that.

I see.  It’s just that when I saw the words "African-American" and "political correctness" used in the same breathe, it sent me into automatic protective defense mode. >For pete’s sake, right-wing knuckle-heads are all the same — be they >clinical depressed or not… > Sweetheart –

Hmmm…I’m not sure if you are meaning to be condescending here or not, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.    ;-) >I am as far from right-wing as you can get without > calling me a bunny hugger.  And you can almost call me that!

I’m afraid I do not know what is a "bunny hugger", but I suspect it is someone who loves animal critters.  If that’s true, I’m a bunny hugger as well.   > I’m sorry for the miscommunication.  If you continue to feel that I am > somehow arguing with you than I can’t help past that.  Good luck to > you.

Yes, I’m sorry for the miscommunication as well.  Like I said earlier, it’s just when I see certain things, my red flags immediately.  I would say that it’s even close to being a conditioned response. In the future, I will try to be a bit more critical in my reading of things.   ) Dana – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> leefus > x-no-archive in headers

Response:

Jai… I’m just in one of those moods…. a right wing is the one on the right side of the duck and a left wing is the one on the left side of the duck.   I hope this clears the wing thing up for you <grin> — <//>< Cynthia / Southern California "For it is God which worketh in you both to will  and to do of His good pleasure"   Philippians 2:13

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> x-no-archive: yes >Shucks Jai.. you’re right. > That would be a first >Hey guys… can you see me as right-winged?  yeah.. ol’ GWBush and I >are close pals… And that pop of is…he’s one heckuva a guy.. > Here for all to see, how clueless I am. I don’t know right-wing from > left-wing. Neither does my husband. You have 2 political parties, we > have, I don’t know, about a dozen. I know how *I* vote, but couldn’t > tell you if that was left or right. The only thing I remember from > political science <Canadian is all we’re taught> was that Communism > was all the way to one side. I don’t know which side. > Also, I have no idea what a "bunny hugger" is, although I thought it > was a bad thing until it came out of you. Tree hugger I understand. > And to be completely honest, we couldn’t figure out for sure what a > d*** was, because if it’s what I think it is, we use that term here > all the time, and in public! > So, relax. Chill. We are an international group. Although most of you > live in the one state And I think most of the Canadians live in > one province or two. All 3 or 4 of us. >The only thing remotely conservative about me is my clothing and my >belief in God. > See, you wouldn’t want to call yourself conservative in Canada. That’s > like admitting to what party you vote for, and in Canada, you don’t > tell anyone–isn’t that weird? If you bother to vote at all that is. > This is all pretty complex sometimes. Words, phrases, ideas, they get > all mixed up when everyone is not from the same place. But that’s part > of the good thing about being here too. > I’m glad you are here Leefus. I’m sorry you’re feeling badly. > Take care of you. > Love, > Jai > — > For more information about this posting service, contact: > If you want an anonymous account, visit our sign-up page: > http://asarian-host.org/emailform.html

Response:

Yeah, I’m more of a thigh person myself <grin> — <//>< Cynthia / Southern California "For it is God which worketh in you both to will  and to do of His good pleasure"   Philippians 2:13

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Jai… I’m just in one of those moods…. a right wing is the one on the >right side of the duck and a left wing is the one on the left side of the >duck.   I hope this clears the wing thing up for you <grin> > Damn, Cynthia.. you beat me to it… > > I don’t even like wings – I prefer breasts… and I’m a woman… uh > oh… hope that doesn’t digress further. > leefus > x-no-archive in headers

Response:

LOL!  I understand where you’re coming from.  I think you and I — accept for my dress — have a lot in common.   Dana – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -><snip> >> The only thing remotely conservative about me is my clothing and my >> belief in God. >Hmmm…I’m not sure if you live int he U.S., but if so, you would probably >know several Republican presidential candidates have this in common with >you and they *too* despise so-called "political correctness." >Dana > LOL!  Yes, Dana but that is where the similarity ends.  Actually I > don’t despise political correctness at all.  But I think we’ve already > established that.   > My clothing is conservative in the sense that I don’t believe in > showing my cleavage to every man in the world or wearing tight jeans > or whatever. But that’s for *me*… my sixteen year-old has her own > viewpoint   My belief in God is even liberal.  I give a lot of > credence to other religions and faith systems… some of my best > friends (Hi – you know who you are) are Pagans (Wiccans).  Politics is > another issue – they all piss me off because they’re all talking out > of both sides of their mouths. (and another orifice which shall remain > nameless.   > leefus > x-no-archive in headers

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Okay.. first of all, please take a deep breath.. I was not in *any* >> way putting you down or laying blame on you or arguing with you.  I >> was just adding my .02. >Fair enough, but on my examining your .02, I found that there was suff >there that sent off my red flags.  If I came off as defensive, it’s became >I’ve been living in a country — a country that I still love — that has >had race and ethnic issues for nearly 400 years. > Having read your response to Jai I now understand a little better. > I’m glad to see that my first impression was correct.  That you are a > reasonable person that just was "set off" by what you thought I was > saying.  This country – many countries have had these issues for ages. > I hate that we do and I’m embarrassed by it at times.  I wear "funny" > clothing because of oversensitivity to UV light.  I get all kinds of > stares and glares – especially from "working women" that are dressed > to the nines to get their stupid groceries.  I don’t normally get > upset by it but the other day I was in tremendous pain physically and > got one of these stares and I got angry and made a snied remark well > within earshot.  Now I regret it but like you… I was triggered by > what I perceived.  In fact, if you read my later post I was triggered > by being misunderstood by you!  :P  It’s a vicious circle sometimes. > That now cliche’ "why can’t we all just get along" stuff really comes > to mind when these kinds of threads get out of proportion to what is > really important which is that we are all individuals and all > different and yet we are all the same – human.   >Yes, perhaps I did jump-the-gun a bit too quickly, but my gosh, being a >product of my own environment makes me this way. > I think *fighting*  your environment makes you whatever you are.  Or > should I say having to "cope" with your environment.  I think that > because of my illness (mental and physical) that I have more triggers > than some people about things that wouldn’t normally trigger even many > depressives.  Yet I have some things that don’t bother me at all. and > the differences just in this group are interesting to me.  I’ve seen > jokes posted about mental illness which frankly – I found funny.  I > can see humour (though it be somewhat sick humour) in my illnesses. > If I don’t then I will get more depressed. But a lot of folks here are > deeply offended by such jokes.   Again, just pointing at the > differences between us all. >>  I have seen much male bashing.  Just yesterday my husband >> forwarded a cartoon to me that was sent to him by a woman – it showed >> a woman at a wishing well and the woman said "I wish I were stupid and >> had no brains" and tossed a coin in the well.   POOF! she turned into >> a man.  Is that not male bashing?  That is only one of *hundreds* of >> such things I have been sent via email from mostly women. >Yes, I could see that as male bashing, but as a gay male, I can understand >*why* there is this animus towards heterosexual men.  It’s about the old >question of who has controlled things on this planet for eons? > trust me.. (ick, I hate it when people say that)… but seriously, I > have the same gripe.  I’d go into it more but probably end up stepping > on my tongue. >I see.  It’s just that when I saw the words "African-American" and >"political correctness" used in the same breathe, it sent me into automatic >protective defense mode. > I understand and I figured that this is what you might have > misinterpreted.  I do not think in this way though. >> Sweetheart – >Hmmm…I’m not sure if you are meaning to be condescending here or not, but >I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.    ;-) > no… not at all.. I tend to use terms of endearment when I’m > emotional.  But not condescending.  It’s a way of me defusing my > emotions, not anything else.  I call most of my friends "sweetheart, > luv, hon," etc.  I imagine they get sick of it.  

Hehe…I understand.   >>I am as far from right-wing as you can get without >> calling me a bunny hugger.  And you can almost call me that! >I’m afraid I do not know what is a "bunny hugger", but I suspect it is >someone who loves animal critters.  If that’s true, I’m a bunny hugger as >well.   > Loves animals, believes in protecting the environment, you basic > bleeding-heart liberal.  

Yep!  That’s me too! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> I’m sorry for the miscommunication.  If you continue to feel that I am >> somehow arguing with you than I can’t help past that.  Good luck to >> you. >Yes, I’m sorry for the miscommunication as well.  Like I said earlier, it’s >just when I see certain things, my red flags immediately.  I would say that >it’s even close to being a conditioned response. > I understand completely.   >In the future, I will try to be a bit more critical in my reading of >things.   ) > well, or just ask what was meant before assuming what was meant.  It’s > hard to do, I don’t always do it.  But if you hang around here any > time you will find that I am one of the least argumentative people > around – I actively avoid confrontation. About once a month I make the > mistake of putting my foot in my mouth and I have to suffer the > consequences.  It’s not the disease  - it’s my nature to want to give > my opinion but I *try* (obviously don’t always succeed) to be > open-minded.

Alrighty.  The more I read, I more I come to understand.   > Take care,

Yes, you too. Most Sincerely, Dana (Carl Dana Jackson) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> leefus > leefus > x-no-archive in headers

Response: