Post #580779 by telescopes on Fri, Mar 18, 2011 11:31 AM

On 2011-03-18 10:46, Tom Slick wrote:

On 2011-03-18 09:18, lucas vigor wrote:
Tom, I already edited my post. I reacted angrily, which should not happen. In turn, you should consider editing your posts as well before we both end up looking like asses.

Now you're calling me an ass? wow.

Tell me, how does your shoe really taste, especially when it's on the other foot?
Do you now see how easy it is to misconstrue and twist people's words around, maybe even indirectly to incite trouble?(kinda like what you did to me?)

Look, I'm a firm believer in "say what you mean, and mean what you say".
You weren't too concerned about what you said BEFORE Woof replied with his insightful reply....Just saying. I'm not editing anything to PC up things. If I ever edit, it is because of spelling or grammatical error, or to add something I may have forgot...I don't edit my posts to sugarcoat or cover up my temporary fits of anger. Nobody ever said you had to like what I said, or even add a direct reply to me. That was your choice, however wreckless it may have been.
(Its a good thing I don't take anything said, to heart. But I do feel people should be held accountable for what they say, and stick to it.) If that makes me an "Ass" in your eyes, so be it. I still stand by my posts.

I suppose we will all be taking trailertiki's advice. Dude, lets drink some ASS JUICE at Mohave Oasis!!! Lighten up guys..."

However, their are some things that were stated that are wrong assumptions. First, "Look, I'm a firm believer in "say what you mean, and mean what you say" is not a defense of a logical argument. In fact, it precludes a logical argument because either the maker of the statement has some divine insight into the truth that the other side lacks or you in fact in the possession of something that exists outside the laws of our physical understanding.

Either way, it's a cheap way to make a point.

Secondly, when someone says, "As if nobody has tried to refute my examples, either? That is a two way street. Besides, I always thought that examples were used to prove or elevate points being made, during conversations and debates? "

Examples are anecdotal and neither confirm causation or reject causation. At most, they are postulates. They prove nothing in and of themselves. They only serve as starting points for further examination. Hence, the reason why I stated my examples regarding Donald Trump, the missionaries who went to Hawaii, and the Conquestador (those latins) and Jesuits who went to New Mexico. We can all find examples of generalities in ethnic groups that laid wast to native culture - if indeed poly pop constitutes being labeled a native culture. I am from the midwest and I can tell you, we were almost all white and wow, did we ever destroy native culture - I give the St. Louis Trader Vics and the Mainlander as examples - although it might be argued that the Mainlander was taken out by the Mormons, but saying that would almost certainly get this thread deleted.

Now in closing, when you say (Its a good thing I don't take anything said, to heart. But I do feel people should be held accountable for what they say, and stick to it.) If that makes me an "Ass" in your eyes, so be it. I still stand by my posts.

Ah, why?

Why stand by something just because you said it. Your statement that started this thread, is indeed a statement that is both nativist, prejudicial (based on every definition of prejudice that is found in the dictionary, and is based on observational assumptions (if a and b are in the same room then a and b must be related)

"CEO Sam Nazarian < that name says it all...It's people with names like this one for example, and first generations that have no understanding of American Culture, nor give a shit about it. They only worry about money, not history or context. Same thing happened with the Beverly Hills Hotel/Trader Vic's...First genners come here with money, or enter with construction/redevelopment companies and go from there. Tear it all down and rebuild. Smart business people, but they have no soul."

Above all, it clearly is a statement that many have found offensive. If indeed it were a statement that bespoke the clarity of truth, then don't delete it or retract it. But it doesn't meet the standards required for "I'm just being honest (or truthful).

So why not retract or delate a statement that in the minds of many, might cause you to look like an ass - and from reading other things you have posted, you clearly are not an ass.