Jump to content

Bacchus

Member
  • Content Count

    1006
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bacchus


  1. the euro can kiss my sweat sack. we dont want it. we dont want europe either. because of them twits every fire extinguisher is red with a smally blue,white or black colour marking on them rather than the main paintwork being a different colour for each type of extinguisher.

    (im office fire marshall).

    Yeah, that really pissed me off too :huh:

    I like the buck is rising, but it is killing me over here. The won is increasin, but the buck is increasing even faster. I really hope it does go back down to around .90 ... not only for my advantage, but because it is way more favourable for trade.

    Also, I wouldn't count the US out just yet ... especially since the Dems will be in the white house soon, and should real the wobbly economy back in to check.


  2. I agree with you. It is called affirmative action. Many people believe it is a problematic solution, to an even more problematic solution: what to do about inequality in the work place, and how to stop its perpetuation? So, although it sucks for you, until we have true equality where people are, as Dr. King once said, not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".

    We have a long way to go until that happens, so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.


  3. I see the white/pink comparison, but never in my entire life have I ever heard a black person described as blue or purple. That seems preposterous to me.

    2 mins searching on google: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m107..._55/ai_61619016

    search for "blue" if you don't care to read it ... it is an interesting read.

    Furthermore, your keeping an eye on a whole population because a small segment (you argued +10 over the average population) engages in crime more so than other demographics, annoys the hell out of the ones who are .... get ready for this .... innocent. What, are you gonna say you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet? Well, make yourself one of those eggs, and every time you went in to a store, an airport, went in to a bank, etc, someone was keeping a suspicious eye on you. How would that make you feel? I don't think that you can truly understand this .... it is friggin' annoying to be constantly presumed guilty until your actions prove otherwise -- and that proof last just as long as the next person casts their suspicious eye on them, and then the next, and then the next.

    Sorry, I know you want to think otherwise, but you have racist tendencies. What you are arguing is like saying you should watch people with turbans just because they may be terrorists. There was a Canadian sent to Syria to be beaten, tortured, and confined because of this type of attitude that presume a certain race more susceptible to terrorism than other races (BTW, who blew-up Oklahoma?) ... and this Canadian was INNOCENT!

    If you can see it, then you are myopic ... plane and simple ... and I hope that one day you feel the sting of racism against you for a short while so that you can understand the pressures that it can create.

    I would also get in to a debate about the validity of a justice system that is itself unjust, but I would expect that the same type of obtuseness would develop. I know that the justice system in the US has improved in recent years, but it wasn't so long ago that Strange Black Fruit hung all over the trees in the Southern states --- not that long ago at all.


  4. c'mon Bacchus, don't be obtuse.

    I was the one that closed the thread, not Puck, because I felt that some posters were being trollish (not pointing a finger at you). Other mods disagreed, so the thread was re-opened.

    Didn't think you were. I came to this thread because I found the topic interesting. I have been keeping an eye on it. I find the topic of racism interesting, its shades, manifestations, etc; especially when it is based on a survey of Canadian people. Then I see that not only has the thread been buried under an innocuous title, but that one of the most high profile mods on this site is suggesting racial profiling as a legitimate crime prevention technique. Abhorrent attitude, bordering on, and very often crossing over to, racism. In the very least it is stereotypical, and I'm sure people would be up in arms if posters started being stereotypical/racist about french quebeckers. Why is it not so bad when we talk about purple/black people? This shift in tolerance by the mod squad is in itself ethically questionable.

    Funny that you think I am being obtuse ... Fanpuck claims to be able to read between the lines when I wrote Puckish, but yet he can't take two seconds to consider my well argued position. If anyone is being obtuse, which of course is the tendency to be slow to understand, it is Fanpuck ... not I. He is the one that keeps on writing, "what are you talking about" without considering first (most of his posts come a whopping 5 minutes after mine ... and for a guy who cannot look up a word like Puckish, it is not enough time to consider my "radically liberal" position).

    BTW, if you really think I am feigning stupidity, please show me where ... and if you mention that Puckish section again, I will fall off my chair laughing! :lol:

    btw, if your looking for trolling, I will present this as exhibit A. from FanPuck:

    "but just keep an eye on them moreso than you would other people".

    Like that isn't controversial .... lets keep an eye on dem blacks, and dem yellers, and dem orangy mexeeecans! They got crime in their blooooooood!

    How would you like to have people "keeping an eye on you" because you spoke French, had brown hair, or some other irrelevant feature that some people made some erroneous connection to crime?!?

    :puke:

    Friggin' disgusting!


  5. Well, if you really want me to elucidate your lack of insight, here we go:

    First: puckish -- It is a real word.

    adjective

    he gave her a puckish grin mischievous, naughty, impish, roguish, playful, arch, prankish; informal waggish.

    I was thinking of: roguish, impish, and mischievous. Check it out in a dictionary if you don't believe me. They are quite easy to use, and can even be found on-line. I can suggest some links if you are unfamiliar with the concept.

    second: Chicken or the egg. What came first, when speaking of these purple people? A) That they have a greater occurrence of crime statistically, or B) That they have been subjugated, and treated as second class citizens; which has resulted in some percentage of the population deciding to ignore the laws that are put in place to subjugate them, and to fend for themselves by their own rules. So, chicken: greater percentage of criminality within a given population; Egg: subjugation of that given population by a governing population.

    You seem to be not looking at the "our laws and society subjugating them" part of the equation, or at least are somewhat justifying it by suggesting that racial profiling is justifiable in the face of crime. But, now consider this, what if the way they have been treated has lead to them having very little options but to commit crime (if they want to enjoy the same fruits that the ruling skin tone enjoy - purple and pink was it ... interesting, that is kinda like black and white. White people are often referred to as pink, whereas very black people are said to have a blueish/purple tone about them ... not too much of a stretch too see where your stereotypical views evolved from)?

    Furthermore, racial profiling actually antagonizes the target population, and thus, perpetuates frustration, anger, resentment, etc ... which can fuel aggressive behaviour. So, again ... what came first, the crime or the antagonizing? Chicken/egg?

    You seem to be in favour of Chicken ... whereas I realize that there is an unhealthy vicious circle that needs to be broken.

    Capiche? If it is too much for you to digest in one sitting, reject the urge to respond, and just let it percolate. You will feel much better, I assure you.


  6. Perhaps you should get the facts straight before you start taking below the belt shots at anyone. I wasn't the one who closed this thread nor the one who changed the title.

    I never pointed a finger at anyone ... who are you to presume who I am thinking about? Why are you always jumping to conclusions? :huh:

    ^_^

    Nice side step of my counter-argument to your inane point btw. :clap:

    What sense does that make? How does saying the egg came first or the chicken came first make any difference about a person? Furthermore, what do chickens have to do with racism?

    I would continue this battle of wits with you, but I see you are unarmed. However, some parting advice:

    Think first. Consider deeply. Look at all perspectives and consider previously unconsidered perspectives ... if new and unique connections are discerned, engage them instead of rejecting them as not the usual method of analysis. This is the way even a child learns to understand the world around her.


  7. :clap:

    :clap: Absolutely. Done right, racial profiling is perfectly fine. If purple people commit more crime than other people, then why shouldn't more attention be given to purple people? Don't pull them over for no reason, but just keep an eye on them moreso than you would other people, since the stats say they are more likely to commit a crime. Just don't go to far and concentrate only on purple people, at the expense of not watching other questionable people with other colored skin. I mean, if you see a purple guy in a suit and a pink person in gang apparel, obviously ignore the racial profiling about purple people and watch the guy more likely to commit a crime, the gang banger as opposed to the business man.

    That is absolutely the stupidest reasoning I've heard since grade school. Nothing exist in a vacuum. If purple skinned people commit more crime, and purple people are disadvantaged because of racism, then racial profiling only adds to the racism.

    Read up on American history .... Blacks, Hispanics, and Natives have been subjugated since the get go. They have always been the poorest segment of the population, received the least justice, the least education, and have been lynched, raped, pillaged etc. etc. This has way more to do with crime than the colour of their skin! Crime is only related to skin colour in so far as skin colour affects the way that people are treated.

    Racial profiling is just another arrow in the quiver of a racist mentality! People like you think that they know the answer to the chicken egg question ... and it is usually the answer the facilitates the continuation of their own racist tendencies.

    It constantly shocks me what come out of your head!

    BTW, who changed the title from one that was descriptive to this totally innocuous one that means ABSOLUTELY nothing! I can guess ... and I bet it is more politically motivated than it is an effect of sound moderating. I'm not a fan of this puckish style of modding!


  8. brilliant comment. :clap: :clap: :clap:

    people are so f**kin quick to play the racist card when it comes to montreal and its french players. didn't lapierre go down to hamilton?? didn't latendresse, brisebois and begin sit for a game?? is grabovski being treated unfairly due to his name ?? perhaps its just because kostisyn deosn'T give much to stay in the lineup, period.

    I'm not quite happy at kostitsyn play, nor am I happy about him not playing but I'm not going to play the language card, it'd be too easy. I hate when francophones use it, I hate when anglophones use it. IT 's just stupid.

    It's not the racist card, it is the local favorite card ... and lets not beat around the bush here ... the local french media is way more in love with local boys ... especially over anyone from the former Soviet Union! If you don't realize that, then your head is in the sand.

    Latendress should have been sat at this point ... but, i'm pretty sure that the Franco media would grill the administration for stunting Latendresses career! (Latendress will get it though ... and he won't get 3 games, that's for shizzle (unless he does something completely stupid like screw Carbo's wife or something)).


  9. If by 7,251 you mean 17,021, then yes.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2008

    LOL ... your know-it-all response reminds me of the comic book guy from the Simpsons:

    506.gif

    The insecure comic geek who attempts to prop himself up at the expense of others by rattling of factoids that only the most obsessive fan would know :

    Bart: Who's gonna play Radioactive Man?

    CBG: I will tell you in exactly seven minutes.

    (He moves to his computer)

    CBG: Okay, here we are, alt dot nerd dot obsessive. Need

    know star RM pic.

    Do you think the guy who posted is being serious about the number of people in attendance at another team's arena? I, personally, think he is being sarcastic.

    aabf18_sarcasm_detector.jpg

    Go HABS go!!!


  10. Ok, so we all know that Scott Neidermeyer, Teemu Selanne, and Peter Forsberg are all supposedly contemplating retirement. Personally, I think this whole Roger Clemens type stuff is pure crap. If I were GM of a team, I wouldn't want these guys on my team. I want guys who are willing to do the work and help out the team all season long. This type of thing totally destroys the concept of a team. I feel bad for the kids who are working their tails off to help their team but will eventually lose their spot to these guys who obviously care more about themselves than the team. Only in sports like tennis and golf should guys pick and choose when to play, since they don't have a whole team's worth of guys relying on them.

    Just my two cents.

    Good thing your not a GM then ... if any of these guys came up at the trade deadline, a GM would jump at the chance to have them. Therefor, it reasons that getting them at anytime during a season would be a boost for the team ... so rejecting them because they need extra time would only damage the team's chances of getting the actual goal: the stanley cup.

    Now, look at it from the player's perspectives: these guys are warriors who have battled often and have the scars and concussions to prove it. They have to weight both their commitment to the team, their health, and their commitments to their families. They are not invincible ... there is not a button that says "start again".

    And then there is the real concern that they may not be able to perform at an adequate level, and thus they will not take a contract until they know they can fulfill it adequately (quite honorable IMO).

    These guys aren't 1st year rookies trying to make an impression ... these guys are at the dusk of their careers, and the are now contemplating what they can actually do. If all they can do is show up late and help a team win Stanley, then that is all they can do. And if some team is stupid enough to reject them because they aren't team players, then that team probably won't win anyways.

    My 2 cents.

    as for Neidermyer and Selanne .. they're both healthy and will only play if they feel like it.

    There are reports that Neidermyer has been concealing concussion problems -- the guy is old ... he has achieved all of his goals ... maybe he has new goals ...

    Also, Selanne is a UFA ... why does he have to do anything? His contract is up.


  11. Many people want to see the Pleks-Higgi-#### line again, as would I ... but the thing is what do you do with Kovalev? There seems to be an issue with Kovy playing with Koivu, since they both like to control the puck ... so Tender would probably go on the first line, and then Kovy is on the third, where is muchos unhappy! It is too bad, because those lines ripped last year.

    Anyway, go Habs GO!

    Any word on Price vs Huet to start tonight?

×
×
  • Create New...