In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:55:19 -0500, Harry
wrote:

On 12/17/09 8:50 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:47:08 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:


Thus, you are actually prejudiced because you assumed that Mr. Woods
is black.

Just sayin.

Brings up something I've agonized over for many years regarding race.
If I have an aversion to a certain race, and just automatically make
assumptions - always negative - about a person of a certain race,
without even really knowing that person, am I a racist?
This has occurred many times with me, without exception with this
race, and I can't seem to overcome my deep-seated feeling of
revulsion.
I'm talking about Klingons here.
Absolutely no issues with Vulcans, except wishing they not touch me,
especially in the head area..
It's quite worrisome. Not to the point of seeking therapy, but
worrisome nonetheless.
Any suggestions? Suggestions that would be welcome, of course.

--Vic


Lieutenant Commander Worf probably is the most "familiar" Klingon. He's
played by Michael Dorn, a black actor. Does that explain your revulsion?

Didn't know that. I left with Bill Shatner.
But he got the tribbles.

--Vic

You probably didn't know that. I, on the other hand, know everything.
Just ask me.

--
And now...back to flajim and others who are so obsessed with me, they
use my handle here.

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:24:20 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

Why would an open minded person think that Woods is undeserving of the
award? He is by far the best golfer out there, an brings in billions
to the sport.

Bingo, "Great" translates to "earnings", particularly for the networks
and sponsors.

Sooooo? Lance Armstrong didn't bring in enough money?

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:25:29 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

John, in the past you have made many many bigoted remarks. Show me one
I've made.

"Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two."

Taken out of context, that could be considered bigoted. Mr. Woods does
not consider himself a "black" American as he is of mixed
race/ethnicity, but because his skin color is brown and of relatively
the same hue and tone as President Obama, you assumed he considered
himself a Black American - you've stereotyped Mr. Woods as an African
American when he isn't - by his own description.

To carry this even further as an intellectual exercise, bigoted may be
the wrong word as bigoted is defined as "utterly intolerant of any
creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" which seems a
little out of context.

A better way to have put it would be to substitute biased for bigoted
because bias leads to prejudice which is described as "a person's bias
is based on facts, but prejudice occurs without a person knowing or
examining the facts".

Thus, you are actually prejudiced because you assumed that Mr. Woods
is black.

Just sayin.

Although I did find it mighty interesting that Mr. Woods only "dated"
white women a majority of which were blond.

If THAT isn't stereotypical, I don't know what is. :)

Oh, and before you go all icky balooky, the above was done in jest - a
way to point out the absurdity of placing everything into the
perspective of "race".

Thank you Tom.

On 12/18/09 10:49 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:25:29 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

John, in the past you have made many many bigoted remarks. Show me one
I've made.

"Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two."

Taken out of context, that could be considered bigoted. Mr. Woods does
not consider himself a "black" American as he is of mixed
race/ethnicity, but because his skin color is brown and of relatively
the same hue and tone as President Obama, you assumed he considered
himself a Black American - you've stereotyped Mr. Woods as an African
American when he isn't - by his own description.

To carry this even further as an intellectual exercise, bigoted may be
the wrong word as bigoted is defined as "utterly intolerant of any
creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" which seems a
little out of context.

A better way to have put it would be to substitute biased for bigoted
because bias leads to prejudice which is described as "a person's bias
is based on facts, but prejudice occurs without a person knowing or
examining the facts".

Thus, you are actually prejudiced because you assumed that Mr. Woods
is black.

Just sayin.

Although I did find it mighty interesting that Mr. Woods only "dated"
white women a majority of which were blond.

If THAT isn't stereotypical, I don't know what is. :)

Oh, and before you go all icky balooky, the above was done in jest - a
way to point out the absurdity of placing everything into the
perspective of "race".

Thank you Tom.


Herring has made many racist remarks here in rec.boats. Tom-tom's
obfuscation doesn't change that.

In article , naled24511
@mypacks.net says...

On 12/18/09 10:49 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:25:29 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

John, in the past you have made many many bigoted remarks. Show me one
I've made.

"Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two."

Taken out of context, that could be considered bigoted. Mr. Woods does
not consider himself a "black" American as he is of mixed
race/ethnicity, but because his skin color is brown and of relatively
the same hue and tone as President Obama, you assumed he considered
himself a Black American - you've stereotyped Mr. Woods as an African
American when he isn't - by his own description.

To carry this even further as an intellectual exercise, bigoted may be
the wrong word as bigoted is defined as "utterly intolerant of any
creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" which seems a
little out of context.

A better way to have put it would be to substitute biased for bigoted
because bias leads to prejudice which is described as "a person's bias
is based on facts, but prejudice occurs without a person knowing or
examining the facts".

Thus, you are actually prejudiced because you assumed that Mr. Woods
is black.

Just sayin.

Although I did find it mighty interesting that Mr. Woods only "dated"
white women a majority of which were blond.

If THAT isn't stereotypical, I don't know what is. :)

Oh, and before you go all icky balooky, the above was done in jest - a
way to point out the absurdity of placing everything into the
perspective of "race".

Thank you Tom.


Herring has made many racist remarks here in rec.boats. Tom-tom's
obfuscation doesn't change that.

You're an impostor. I have guns.

--
And now...back to flajim and others who are so obsessed with me, they
use my handle here.

On 12/18/09 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:42:45 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:24:20 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

Why would an open minded person think that Woods is undeserving of the
award? He is by far the best golfer out there, an brings in billions
to the sport.

Bingo, "Great" translates to "earnings", particularly for the networks
and sponsors.

Sooooo? Lance Armstrong didn't bring in enough money?

Chump change compared to Tiger. I wouldn't be shocked if he was worth
more money next year but it will be a different sponsor set.
Maybe E-Harmony.com and Trojan


In this country, "worth" is determined by money. It's a sad commentary,
but it's absolutely true.

On Dec 18, 4:49*pm, Harry wrote:
On 12/18/09 4:46 PM, wrote:





On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:42:45 -0500, I am Tosk
*wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:24:20 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
*wrote:

Why would an open minded person think that Woods is undeserving of the
award? He is by far the best golfer out there, an brings in billions
to the sport.

Bingo, "Great" translates to "earnings", particularly for the networks
and sponsors.

Sooooo? Lance Armstrong didn't bring in enough money?

Chump change compared to Tiger. I wouldn't be shocked if he was worth
more money next year but it will be a different sponsor set.
Maybe E-Harmony.com and Trojan

In this country, "worth" is determined by money. It's a sad commentary,
but it's absolutely true.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This from the person who's told and been caught in lie after lie after
lie about what he owns!

Harry wrote:
On 12/18/09 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:42:45 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:24:20 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

Why would an open minded person think that Woods is undeserving of the
award? He is by far the best golfer out there, an brings in billions
to the sport.

Bingo, "Great" translates to "earnings", particularly for the networks
and sponsors.

Sooooo? Lance Armstrong didn't bring in enough money?

Chump change compared to Tiger. I wouldn't be shocked if he was worth
more money next year but it will be a different sponsor set.
Maybe E-Harmony.com and Trojan


In this country, "worth" is determined by money. It's a sad commentary,
but it's absolutely true.

I just wish it was determined by how much time one spent in front of a
computer in his underwear. i would be a very rich man.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:49:38 -0500, Harry
wrote:

On 12/18/09 4:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:42:45 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:24:20 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

Why would an open minded person think that Woods is undeserving of the
award? He is by far the best golfer out there, an brings in billions
to the sport.

Bingo, "Great" translates to "earnings", particularly for the networks
and sponsors.

Sooooo? Lance Armstrong didn't bring in enough money?

Chump change compared to Tiger. I wouldn't be shocked if he was worth
more money next year but it will be a different sponsor set.
Maybe E-Harmony.com and Trojan


In this country, "worth" is determined by money. It's a sad commentary,
but it's absolutely true.

In publishing, a reasonable measure of worth is the number of books
sold. That is the consensus, and some have non-average taste, of
course.
However, the authors chance at a Hugo award is proportional to number
of readers and so is the writers income. Merit pay.

Casady

On Dec 17, 6:10*am, John H wrote:
...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.
--

Have a Blessed Chrismahanukwanzakah and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

That's fine, now will he be up for a Nobel prize?