[quote]Professor X wrote:
No, that isn’t what I wrote. I wrote you
REFUSE to understand. Whether you actually CAN understand it has yet to be seen.[/quote]
You wrote both. Before writing that I refuse to understand, you wrote: ‘I personally wouldn’t expect you to be able to respond to any of it with any amount of understanding worth reading.’
‘with any amount of understanding’ indicating that whatever amount of understanding I have is insufficient; in other words, that I don’t understand. Or at least don’t understand sufficiently.
Apparently you have trouble understanding what you write yourself. Maybe if you didn’t confuse being articulate with using as many words as possible, you’d encounter less confusion from your readers.
My experience where some act has not occurred?
That sure makes a whole lot of sense.
Do you have a lot of experience based on acts that haven’t occurred?
Oh, but I guess you do. You have plenty of experience, it appears, at being insulted and offended when none of those acts really happened.
So basically I can’t understand what you’re saying because I don’t get my experiences through make believe.
Well then, you’re entirely right.
Who gives a shit about a random experience you had? We are discussing whether calling a black man ‘articulate’ is de facto condescending.
Your tales about being a smarter entity who battles idiotic opponents are not relevant in any way, except to show how far backwards you’re willing to bend to claim victimhood. While ‘articulate’ has at least some meanings that can be construed as insulting, ‘eloquent’ doesn’t.
Your tale also begs the question: If those patients are such hateful racists, why the Hell do they see a black doctor in the first place?
No one I guess, since mine apparently haven’t received enough creative interpretation to make a good story.
We aren’t discussing anything. You’re playing semantic games to achieve… I don’t really know what you’re trying to achieve. I guess you’re waiting for us to tire of your childish stupidity to claim some kind of victory?
You call that an explanation? Maybe you should organize your thoughts a bit before writing. Of course, I understand the convenience contradicting yourself constantly affords you, as you can later claim to have said A or B depending on whether someone claims you’ve said B or A.
Yes, moron. You want quotes, here we go:
Harris said:
There is very little as condescending as referring to a black man as “articulate.”
I asked:
How should we indicate that a black man can speak eloquently and express his thoughts clearly then?
Still unanswered, by the way…
Harris then answered:
[i]How about just assuming that a man who graduated as Valedictorian of his high school, earned cum laude honors at his college while playing football, and is now a well-paid and sought-after broadcaster and speaker might, you know, be able to string a sentence together.
A white man with these credentials would never be referred to as articulate or someone who “speaks so well”.[/i]
And later, Harris said:
[A little HeadHunter bashing here…]
I stand by what I’ve said.
And still later, Harris said:
[i]Please ask black people if they find being called “articulate” condescending.
Most that I know class it with being asked to touch their hair.
I wasn’t offended, merely pointing out…[more Headhunter bashing here.][/i]
Oddly, Harris here points out that he wasn’t offended. Apparently once you jumped in, he decided that he was, after all, offended. Being victims is apparently easier as a group activity.
The YOU came in and said:
You’re right. Any minority with half a brain would have agreed with you.
You said: ‘You’re right.’ And you’ve clearly indicated to Thunderbolt that YOU MEAN EXACTLY WHAT YOU WRITE.
So, to recap, Harris claims that ‘articulate’ is an offensive word to a black man; with the implication that it is always the case. He’s asked for clarification, he stands by what he says. You come in and say ‘You’re right.’
Of course, you were, as usual, so eager to share with us another one of your life experiences where you dominate hapless opponents, you probably didn’t even care what stance you were taking.
And since then you’ve been dancing around like a centipede on a hot plate; contradicting yourself from one post to the next; asking for quotes because apparently you’re as confused about what you write as everyone else.
‘some sort of truthful sense’ what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Why don’t you just write clearly instead of bending english in a pretzel in some pathetic attempt to pass yourself off as a smarter entity than you actually are?
No, fuckwit, your very first fucking words to Harris were: ‘You’re right,’ not ‘Well, Harris, we have to take context into account here’ which would’ve been entirely reasonable.
I know you’ll spend another ten pages if you must trying to convince everyone that CONTEXT was always the issue; no one expects you to be man enough to admit it when you fuck up. Your ridiculous insecurities trip you up every time.
We understand what you write as well as can be expected, given the level of confusion and contradiction in your posts.
You couldn’t prove that water is wet. Give us all a break.