quote:

---

What amuses me so is how often people outside a movement will try to set a movement’s agenda. If I had a dollar for every time someone told me “what black women need to do is…” or “what feminists need to do is…” or “what blacks need to do is…” or “If you want your little blog to be taken seriously, you need to…”

I’m fine, thanks. Please move along to someone who gives a fuck about your unsolicited opinion. {tee hee - unsolicited editorial snicker}
...
Personally, I came to Racialicious (then Mixed Media Watch) through Addicted to Race because I was feeling really alienated in a majority white environment and needed a PoC space.

---

PS: I was amused to see that while I took a mental health break for a number of weeks, next to no 'anti-racist' stuff was posted. Perhaps I should take that as a good sign. Perhaps the good progressive folk of babble and other good folk have largely eradicated all systemic racism. Perhaps, now, there is really nothing left for malcontents such as I to ramble on about, other than mumbling into the bottom of a beer stein towards last call. Let us raise one final toast to the dream of a glorious post-racial day, shall we?

[ 23 September 2008: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

next to no 'anti-racist' stuff was posted. Perhaps I should take that as a good sign. Perhaps the good progressive folk of babble and other good folk have largely eradicated all systemic racism.

---

[ 23 September 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Did OG ban Makwa?

---

What?? Uh...no. What makes you think that?

oldgoat banned me once. For about five minutes. Just to show he could. I think he's too chicken to do it for longer.

Anyhoo, back on topic. I'd like to leave this question for POC/FN folks to answer, but I just want to say that if this is what people decide they want, then as one of the moderators of the site, I'd be fine with it.

The old boys net is now a lot more pervasive thanks to linked in, face book, etc.

But rising within a corporation past a certain level seems to be a matter of being in certain social circles. Not always by any means, but you do see it.

[ 23 September 2008: Message edited by: bagkitty ]

My answers to your question:

No. There are so few babblers who identify as being of colour/FN/mixed that it would be like 5 of us talking to each other.

Yes. If there were such a space perhaps more lurkers of colour/FN lurkers/mixed race lurkers would come out, join babble and participate.

and having a safe-ish space does allow for ridiculous oppression comments/conversations to not occur here. though creating a safe-ish space, is of course, one of many steps we take (it's true, a few folks may be talking amongst themselves).

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Also, who is being called upon to answer this question?

---

But of course I doubt I'd participate anyway because of what RosaL raised. A very specific type of anti-racist discourse, of US origin I believe, holds sway on this board.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

In fact Makwa specifically stated that he was ok with you asserting that Jews could be racialized and that he had no problem with you making that arguement in this forum.

quote:

---

I've been timing how long it would take for this thread to degenerate into the usual destructive negative reactionary nonsense. I used to post in this forum, until I was told that Jews aren't racialized. Can someone close this thread - unless of course someone out there thinks it's really helping to solve some problem in real life?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

Kropotkin's whining white supremacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
In fact Makwa specifically stated that he was ok with you asserting that Jews could be racialized and that he had no problem with you making that arguement in this forum.

I don't see why ideas and definitions should not be challenged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234567:
I would like to see a POC/FN only board.

---

quote:

---

until I was told that Jews aren't racialized

---

OK. I am not trying to start a fight here but unless someone TELLS me they are Jewish, I can't tell what they are. To me, they look white.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234567:

OK. I am not trying to start a fight here but unless someone TELLS me they are Jewish, I can't tell what they are. To me, they look white.

Unionist, do you mean something else by saying that? I know there are other ways to be racialized but to me the only one that really counts is the visual one as people will judge you IMMEDIATELY upon seeing your skin colour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234567:

OK. I am not trying to start a fight here but unless someone TELLS me they are Jewish, I can't tell what they are. To me, they look white.

---

Jews come in all colours. You should do some reading before stereotyping and generalizing like that.

quote:

---

I know there are other ways to be racialized but to me the only one that really counts is the visual one as people will judge you IMMEDIATELY upon seeing your skin colour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Is there any way to steer this thread back to the original topic? Please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Makwa opened this thread with a question, and he hasn't given his opinion yet. Why?

Also, who is being called upon to answer this question: Just people of colour and First Nations (and Metis I imagine too and other mixed descent??) - or all of us?

---

As for the second, given that Makwa put no limits on it, I'm assuming he's looking for anyone who'd like to answer his question and engage in the discussion.

Or did you mean this question:

quote:

---

Can someone close this thread - unless of course someone out there thinks it's really helping to solve some problem in real life?

---

As for solving problems in real life, a babbler once told me that if we held all threads to that standard we wouldn't have much to talk about!

You are right Unionist that Jews are victims of racism and hate but most of us agree on that here.

The elephant in the room is why we don't want to move forward on POC/FN's issues with the same zeal?

eta: My last line was not directed at you Unionist.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Furthermore, I would ask you please refrain from dredging up the same argument which made this space so toxic in the past in this particular thread.

---

I have no idea what argument you're talking about. You haven't even offered an opinion. An argument requires two sides.

Oh, and by the way, I think you are no slouch when it comes to toxicity. Of course, it's impossible to "argue" that point, because you always seem to be correct, even when you're not offering an opinion.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
This board seems very welcoming to Jews and that is a good thing. Threads on Israel, CJC, B'Nai Brith, etc., proliferate all over the board.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
As for the second, given that Makwa put no limits on it, I'm assuming he's looking for anyone who'd like to answer his question and engage in the discussion.

---

The same cannot be said for POC/FN.

I knew I shouldn't have bothered. My apologies, Unionist, that I so offended you or am so uneducated that I'm not worthy of a response.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

As you can now, see, bcg, your assumption was wrong.

---

So you're the arbitrar of the terms for debate? Interesting.

eya: your to you're

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

If we can't make babble as a whole welcoming, anti-racist, pro-women, etc., then what's the point of having a "safe" corner? Set up a separate board.

Posters are and should be banned from a forum if they persistently refuse to follow the ground rules of that forum (whether it's the FF or others) - and likewise if they don't follow the rules of babble.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
So your the arbitrar of the terms for debate? Interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I don't think there should be any segregated forums on babble.

If we can't make babble as a whole welcoming, anti-racist, pro-women, etc., then what's the point of having a "safe" corner? Set up a separate board.

Posters are and should be banned from a forum if they persistently refuse to follow the ground rules of that forum (whether it's the FF or others) - and likewise if they don't follow the rules of babble.

But to have a discussion forum based on what colour babblers say they are? No thank you. That's not the nature of our board and it's contrary to our rules.

---

I agree with that. Some common ground.

I just feel POC/FN haven't been made to feel welcome.

Perhaps, I should be advocating that some issues are discussed from a North American concept and some from a Global perspective.

I find that is where the breakdown here happens.

Sorry if I sound crude here but I have to ask, do Jews throughout North America face the same burdens as POC/FN's do?

I'm very aware of anti-semitism. We also need to keep a very keen eye on it and it deserves equal play.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
unionist is the honorary Magister of the anti-racist forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Stick to the topic or go open a thread about me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:

Sorry if I sound crude here but I have to ask, do Jews throughout North America face the same burdens as POC/FN's do?

---

Of course they don't. These are totally different phenomenon.

First, what's a POC/FN? Correct, there's no such thing. The endemic racism, marginalization, and disinheritance afflicting Aboriginal people is incomparably more profound and systemic (IMO) than that facing anyone else.

As for POC, which colour do you mean? There are similarities, but vast differences, between the oppression and exclusion faced by North Americans of African, South Asian, East Asian, Latin American (which of course overlaps with Aboriginal), and other origins. All are victims of racism and subordination - but I would very much like to hear how much they have in common with each other which they do not also share with other victims of 21st century imperialism and capitalism.

Going back to Jews - I'm sure you realize that many of them aren't "white", even right here in Canada. So your question gets even dicier to answer.

quote:

---

Thought you had a sense of humour, you make some pretty good jokes yourself.

---

I'm not amused by a poster who opens a thread, offers no opinion on the topic that he raises, then takes potshots at those who do.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

If we can't make babble as a whole welcoming, anti-racist, pro-women, etc., then what's the point of having a "safe" corner?

---

Having thought about the question in the OP and other people's comments I left wondering: why the hell not give it a try?

I don't think that having a "safe space", or whatever, would be a hard thing to try out. I am of course assuming that creating a new sub-forum is not a great deal of work. If there are babblers who are interested I don't see what the harm would be in going ahead with it.

If we keep having discussions about it (i don't think that this is the first thread on the topic) they will inevitably end in fighting about off-topic issues, white people fretting about how we can rest assured that without pictures or blood quantum tests no fellow white folk will slip in and indulge in the decadent orgies and free pizza of a "safe space forum", or any of the other roundabout thread destroyers that tend to surface in the AR forum.

So why don't the mods (or which ever powerful force controls such things) just make the sub-forum? So what if only five people show up? It's not like we're booking a dance hall. The only problem that I see is that Rabble has decided that they should only hire two moderators for the site and that they should both be white. So, like most anti-racist initiative in white-supremacist institutions (sorry to those who don't like using this term in their specific AR theories ), the work of moderating the forum will be entirely on the volunteer labour of POC/FN people. Or more specifically Makwa will have to do it. So if it's cool with Makwa, why not do it? If it's a smashing success maybe Rabble could even find some money to HIRE A POC OR INDIGENOUS PERSON AS A MODERATOR.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Applying this principle to society at large would deny feedom of association.

---

Absolutely disagree with that. In our union (as in many others) we have women's organizations, queer organizations, workers of colour, etc. etc. The initiative comes from them, and we encourage and finance and welcome it (not all of us, not consistently and enthusiastically enough, but you can't dictate who gets to belong to the union...).

Society, like a trade union, is not a purely voluntary organization where likeminded people choose to associate - they're hurled together by virtue of where they live or where they work. In those circumstances, freedom of association, especially for the marginalized, is vital, a sine qua non.

Not so on babble. No one is forced to be here. We don't allow misogynists on any forum - nor homophobes nor racists etc. etc. So I repeat: If babble can't be welcoming to a marginalized group of people, the solution can only lie in changing babble - not adding a discussion corner where "whites" (or whatever) aren't allowed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I will never "debate" with you, Makwa, or anyone else whether Jews are racialized. I have nothing to prove. I do, however, appreciate the open-minded invitation to prove that point. Perhaps some other person will take it up.

---

Well you have, and my point is that your post could be seen to imply that the forum automatically identifies Jews as non-racialized, and talk of them being racialized has been prohibtted in the forum so far. Nothing like that has ever been said. In fact, if I remember correctly, Makaa specifically stated that you were free to continue to make your point of view known, though he disagrees with it.

It his right to disagree with your POV, and so far he has done nothing to limit your expression of your point of view, except to argue with you about it. If you feel uncomfortable arguing this point, perhaps you should consider the point that he may also feel uncomfortable about arguing his.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Of course they don't. These are totally different phenomenon.

---

Agreed

quote:

---

First, what's a POC/FN? Correct, there's no such thing. The endemic racism, marginalization, and disinheritance afflicting Aboriginal people is incomparably more profound and systemic (IMO) than that facing anyone else.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

As for POC, which colour do you mean? There are similarities, but vast differences, between the oppression and exclusion faced by North Americans of African, South Asian, East Asian, Latin American (which of course overlaps with Aboriginal), and other origins. All are victims of racism and subordination - but I would very much like to hear how much they have in common with each other which they do not also share with other victims of 21st century imperialism and capitalism.

---

I'll repeat my concern of Global vs Regional racism. In North America they share in commom representing the most oppressed groups. Not necessarily economically or by education but by white folks attitudes, so socially.

Do all the white folk, victim of 21st century imperialism and capitalism face the same burden in North America?

quote:

---

Going back to Jews - I'm sure you realize that many of them aren't "white", even right here in Canada. So your question gets even dicier to answer.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

How many of them are identifiable?

And of the identifiable, how many get pulled over for driving while like that?

eta: fix bolding

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

But he has done nothing so far to prohibit your activity in the forum, as far as I can see, except provide his point of view, which is at odds with yours.

---

Yeah, I'm quite aware no one has "prohibited" me from posting to this forum. Who said I have been "prohibited" from posting to this forum?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
So, like most anti-racist initiative in white-supremacist institutions (sorry to those who don't like using this term in their specific AR theories ), the work of moderating the forum will be entirely on the volunteer labour of POC/FN people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Is babble really a white-supremacist institution?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:

How many of them are identifiable?

And of the identifiable, how many get pulled over for driving while like that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

If you scroll back, you may notice that I will not debate whether Jews are racialized or not. It's one of those things that you either get, or you don't. If you don't, I'm afraid you're stuck that way for life. No known treatment.

---

No, I'm afraid you're conflating a strawman.

eta: or why did you bring jews of colour into it after saying that you will not debate it?

Flop much?

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
eta: or why did you bring jews of colour into it after saying that you will not debate it?

---

Because you asked whether the burdens facing Jews were the same as those facing persons of colour - I needed to call to your attention that some people are both.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Because you asked whether the burdens facing Jews were the same as those facing persons of colour - I needed to call to your attention that some people are both.

You can continue being snarky, or you can address the topic of this thread. I have no interest in discussing Jews with you, whatsoever.

---

False analogies aside, I apologize for being snarky.

If you're going to say "I have no interest in discussing Jews with you" but also want to add that voice to anti-racism, I think you're being disingenuous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:

If you're going to say "I have no interest in discussing Jews with you" but also want to add that voice to anti-racism, I think you're being disingenuous.

---

Sorry, I guess I'll say it more clearly for the nth time.

I have no interest in discussing with you (or anyone else) whether Jews are subject to racial discrimination and harassment and marginalization in our society.

Just as I have no interest in discussing with anyone whether women are treated as the equals of men in our society.

If you're an adult, and you don't get it, you never will.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Sorry, I guess I'll say it more clearly for the nth time.

I have no interest in discussing with you (or anyone else) whether Jews are subject to racial discrimination and harassment and marginalization in our society.

Just as I have no interest in discussing with anyone whether women are treated as the equals of men in our society.

If you're an adult, and you don't get it, you never will.

I'll try to remember not to abbreviate my thoughts in the future.

---

So why does thou doth protest so much to POC/FN's trying to steer the discourse in the anti-racism forum?

Like I've said before, I enjoy much of your posting Unionist, I just don't understand your stance in this thread.

You brought Jews into it,

quote:

---

I've been timing how long it would take for this thread to degenerate into the usual destructive negative reactionary nonsense. I used to post in this forum, until I was told that Jews aren't racialized. Can someone close this thread - unless of course someone out there thinks it's really helping to solve some problem in real life?

---

if you don't like that, don't bring it up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Here we are at 63 posts and the thread has been almost completely ruined. Nice job guys! I hope that you got a lot out of your little spat because you have derailed yet another thread in the AR forum. Clearly you all feel very comfortable taking up space whether intended for you or otherwise.

---

I said this would happen before you ever popped into this thread. As for who this thread was "intended for", it was intended for all of us. At least, until the opening poster decides to get off his throne and tell us different. Or tell us anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Here we are at 63 posts and the thread has been almost completely ruined. Nice job guys! I hope that you got a lot out of your little spat because you have derailed yet another thread in the AR forum. Clearly you all feel very comfortable taking up space whether intended for you or otherwise.

---

I don't give a shit Le Tele, pardon my ignorance, are we just going to ignore it again?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

What a farce this is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
So why does thou doth protest so much to POC/FN's trying to steer the discourse in the anti-racism forum?

---

Bullshit, RP. My main complaint so far has been that the opening poster, who self-describes as FN, has steered nothing - just lobbed his usual barbs.

And my answer to the opening question was that persons of colour and Aboriginal posters should not be segregated in a forum. I never said they should not try to steer the discourse. I'd like them to steer the discourse in all the forums. You should really try to be more precise when you're asking loaded questions.

quote:

---

Like I've said before, I enjoy much of your posting Unionist, I just don't understand your stance in this thread.

---

My stance? I don't have a "stance". I don't like oblique innuendo masquerading as discourse - that's my "stance" in this thread. My other "stance" is that I don't believe there should be any thread here segregated on the basis of colour or ethnic origin. I explained as carefully as I could why I believe that is the case, in several post. You don't "understand"?? Sorry, tell me which of my explanatory posts puzzles you, and I'll try again.

quote:

---

You brought Jews into it,

---

I explained my reluctance to post in this thread because of incredibly offensive, loathsome, and ignorant statements made, especially by one poster that has mercifully been absent from babble from quite a while. I did not "bring Jews into it" (whatever that means) to try to convince anyone that Jews are racialized. If self-defined progressive people don't understand that Jews are racialized, there's no common ground whatsoever for discussion. Do you understand what I am saying - or do you think I'm exaggerating by drawing an analogy with recognition of the oppression of women?

quote:

---

Whatever, I'd like to build a bridge Unionist not blow it up. Any common ground?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Yeah, I'm quite aware no one has "prohibited" me from posting to this forum. Who said I have been "prohibited" from posting to this forum?

Anyway, what's your view on the question posed in the topic?

---

This post:

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I've been timing how long it would take for this thread to degenerate into the usual destructive negative reactionary nonsense. I used to post in this forum, until I was told that Jews aren't racialized. Can someone close this thread - unless of course someone out there thinks it's really helping to solve some problem in real life?

---

Could easily be seen to imply that discussion about the raciialization of Jews is progibted in one way or another. I was simply clarifying that, in fact, Makwa officially said you had every right to "continue to make the arguement you are making", or something to that effect.

So, the fact that you are so mortally offended that some people have chosen to define racism as specific to people of colour, comes across as mere whining in the face of opposition which, if not always civil, has never attempted to prevent you from taking the view that you have taken.

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

You write about this:

quote:

---

If self-defined progressive people don't understand that Jews are racialized, there's no common ground whatsoever for discussion. Do you understand what I am saying - or do you think I'm exaggerating by drawing an analogy with recognition of the oppression of women?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
No. I don't. I don't even care one way or the other. If FN/POC feel need to have a space where they can speak freely without constant flak from people saying "I am opressed too", then I see no reason why the board should not be open to such, bandwidth permitting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Should Rabble have a POC/FN only space?

I think they should.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Why do you care?

---

[ 24 September 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 25 September 2008: Message edited by: just one of the concerned ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No kidding. How about Afghans? Do you think they should have an Afghan-only space? We could call it... oh, I don't know... Afghanistan, or something like that?

---

I think there should be a space only for unionist.

[ 25 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Such issues can be discussed in a number of threads without denying some members of visible racial minorities their own exchange forum if they want one, as many appear to.

---

"Many"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I feel that the distinction between visible and non-visible racialized groups of people is important. Not being able to reveal one's ethnic or religious background - or sexual orientation - or relative state of ability - without being stared at and marginalized is not a comfortable place to be. Such issues can be discussed in a number of threads without denying some members of visible racial minorities their own exchange forum if they want one, as many appear to. I must say I don't like the straw man notion of a dominant "anti-racism theory on Babble" - I am unaware of one: the situation seems in flux.

[ 25 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

---

quote:

---

"Many"?

Name two.

---

How about nanu and 1234567? They both said that they would like it IN THIS THREAD. Are you reading other people's posts or are you just taking up space fighting the same old fights?

The book is by a Jewish author, of course. ("How Jews became white folks", by Karin Brodkin). The thesis has nothing to do with a denial of antiemitism or the historical persecution of Jews in Christendom.

If you have not understood why, i would suggest you scroll up and click on the link . that links to White Priviledge.

Someday, hopefully soon the majority of babblers will learn to respect the voices of diverse minority.

Babble has rules regarding respect, but seems to be snot be applyined when it comes to the issues that affect racially identifyable peeps.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Whaddya think?

---

[ 25 September 2008: Message edited by: just one of the concerned ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by just one of the concerned:
Cue, imagine that there was a forum where it was continuously up for debate whether or not FN are racialized, in spite of the protest of real...

---

You are getting it. That forum is here. If one asserts that racialization is, by definition, an issue primarily of skin colour and then another group of people are constantly trying to change that definition so that it includes them on the basis of the stygmatization of their religion, they are in effect arguing the root of your definition of race, and by extension your "racialization".

One might then ask: "ok", well I experience racism in a fundamentally different way than these other people who by their definition are also racialized because of their religious heritage, what word am I to use to identify my experience?

There really is not one then.

I think this thread is a perfect object lesson as to why such a space is needed. What I see in this thread is a lot of hostility, ridicule and silencing of the very people Makwa was attempting in his first post to reach out to.

What really gets me is that right after we have one lurker delurk to say she would welcome such a space, we get kropotkin's post directly after it which is sarcastic, and unionist's post which implicitly criticizes Makwa for not answering the question he put out for discussion.

The whole idea of a moderator putting a question out for discussion is to see what kind of responses he or she gets. There was nothing wrong with Makwa's opening post, and I'm getting kind of tired of watching him get dogged at every turn while he tries to moderate this forum.

I have to say, unionist, I'm completely unimpressed with your contributions to this thread. You started out criticizing Makwa when he did nothing wrong, and then in your second post, you claim you were waiting for this thread to degenerate and requested that "someone" close this thread.

And kropotkin, I'm also surprised at your defensiveness right off the bat in this thread. Your second post was even more defensive than your first.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
Cueball, I don't accept your assertion that racialization, is by definition, primarily an issue of skin colour.

---

Precisely, and now you are arguing the point, as happens pretty much constantly here, when someone makes this point, or contexualizes race in this manner. So, having now made your point, please suggest to me a term that describes the "racialization" of people, assuming your definition, that can be used to identify racism as applied to people of colour that expresses the unique form of racialiation based on colour.

Is there one in lexicon? Or are you suggesting that "racialization" of people of colour is the same as the "racialization" of people who are white, but stygmatized for other reasons, for example their cultural heritage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I said this would happen before you ever popped into this thread. As for who this thread was "intended for", it was intended for all of us. At least, until the opening poster decides to get off his throne and tell us different. Or tell us anything. What a farce this is. ... I explained my reluctance to post in this thread because of incredibly offensive, loathsome, and ignorant statements made, especially by one poster that has mercifully been absent from babble from quite a while.

---