In article 2c2b75e4-abf4-43f2-914e-
, says...

On Dec 17, 9:21*am, Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:

...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.

Travesty. *Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.

Golfers aren't atheletes.

It might be too early to say definitively, but there seems to be a trend
* emerging. First Obama Then Woods. Who will get the next prize.

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

Funny, being open minded as I am, the first thing that struck me was two
folks who got prizes they may not have deserved in comparison to the
competition... Never even thought of the color thing till you mentioned
it..

I am Tosk wrote:
In article 2c2b75e4-abf4-43f2-914e-
, says...
On Dec 17, 9:21 am, Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:
...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.
Travesty. Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.
Golfers aren't atheletes.
It might be too early to say definitively, but there seems to be a trend
emerging. First Obama Then Woods. Who will get the next prize.
Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two.

Funny, being open minded as I am, the first thing that struck me was two
folks who got prizes they may not have deserved in comparison to the
competition... Never even thought of the color thing till you mentioned
it..
Kind of puts Loogie in the same boat with Harry, doesn't it. Racists,
both of them.

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:02:48 -0500, Jim wrote:

I am Tosk wrote:
In article 2c2b75e4-abf4-43f2-914e-
, says...
On Dec 17, 9:21 am, Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:
...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.
Travesty. Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.
Golfers aren't atheletes.
It might be too early to say definitively, but there seems to be a trend
emerging. First Obama Then Woods. Who will get the next prize.
Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two.

Funny, being open minded as I am, the first thing that struck me was two
folks who got prizes they may not have deserved in comparison to the
competition... Never even thought of the color thing till you mentioned
it..
Kind of puts Loogie in the same boat with Harry, doesn't it. Racists,
both of them.

I wouldn't put Loogy in the same boat as Harry. I'm not that cruel.
But Loogy does come up with some strange associations at times.
--

Have a Blessed Chrismahanukwanzakah and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

On Dec 17, 1:06*pm, John H wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:02:48 -0500, Jim wrote:
I am Tosk wrote:
In article 2c2b75e4-abf4-43f2-914e-
, says....
On Dec 17, 9:21 am, Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:
...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.
Travesty. *Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.
Golfers aren't atheletes.
It might be too early to say definitively, but there seems to be a trend
* emerging. First Obama Then Woods. Who will get the next prize.
Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two.

Funny, being open minded as I am, the first thing that struck me was two
folks who got prizes they may not have deserved in comparison to the
competition... Never even thought of the color thing till you mentioned
it..
Kind of puts Loogie in the same boat with Harry, doesn't it. Racists,
both of them.

I wouldn't put Loogy in the same boat as Harry. I'm not that cruel.
But Loogy does come up with some strange associations at times.
--

Have a Blessed Chrismahanukwanzakah and a Spectacular New Year!

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

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".

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

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?

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 ,
says...

I am Tosk wrote:
In article 2c2b75e4-abf4-43f2-914e-
, says...
On Dec 17, 9:21 am, Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:
...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.
Travesty. Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.
Golfers aren't atheletes.
It might be too early to say definitively, but there seems to be a trend
emerging. First Obama Then Woods. Who will get the next prize.
Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two.

Funny, being open minded as I am, the first thing that struck me was two
folks who got prizes they may not have deserved in comparison to the
competition... Never even thought of the color thing till you mentioned
it..
Kind of puts Loogie in the same boat with Harry, doesn't it. Racists,
both of them.

Yeah, kind of like that other guy this morning with his "you guys"
painting a huge group of us with one brush as the nutty group he married
into... grin.

I still like that other guy though, I do trust he is being honest and
probably more informed than I