Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 03:47 Post subject: Re: Leo Felton
Powell wrote:
Salsasin wrote:
Quote:
But he choose a European identity, not a mixed one And his African ancestry was more than his European identity. But yes we know how you love that African ancestry. He was predominantly of African ancestry.
Sorry, but 46% is NOT a majority! Felton's European identification in and of itself is fine. Salsasin is quick to defend the "choice" (which they never claimed to have until their lies were challenged) of people who claim to be "black" with with only a minority of that dreaded sub-Saharan DNA. Hell, Latinos in the U.S. have a history of getting themselves classified as "white" or "Spanish" even if they have little or no European ancestry.
I don't know, presidential elections were decided by a smaller margin so quibbles over slight proportions might be in order in these matters as well. 46 is bigger than 41 or 13. Sounds like a majority to me.
Although I assume your use of "dreaded sub-Saharan ancestry" is sarcastic, it doesn't exactly sit well with me. Who dreads it? You? Felton? Most people here do not.
The inclusion of quotes around "choice," as if to say that the choice of a multiracial person to identify as Black isn't valid, really irritates me. It is abundantly clear how you feel about multiracial people who identify as Black at this point, but that is a valid choice. So is choosing to identify as White or anything else.
It should be obvious to us all that racial classification in this country is far from scientific, logical or based SOLEY on proportional ancestry (and not appearance, culture or other ways of classifying people). What is the point, therefore, of challenging the legitimacy of identification based on proportional ancestry? It's ridiculous.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 04:30 Post subject: Re: Leo Felton
sagascend wrote:
46 is bigger than 41 or 13. Sounds like a majority to me.
I do not know if there is any such rule in genetics, but in election politics and shareholder control, a majority must be greater than 50 percent. If no faction has a majority, the largest faction is called a "plurality."
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 05:32 Post subject: Re: Leo Felton
Powell wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Powell wrote:
So 54% of his DNA was not of African origin.
But he choose a European identity, not a mixed one And his African ancestry was more than his European identity. But yes we know how you love that African ancestry. He was predominantly of African ancestry.
Sorry, but 46% is NOT a majority! Felton's European identification in and of itself is fine. Salsasin is quick to defend the "choice" (which they never claimed to have until their lies were challenged) of people who claim to be "black" with with only a minority of that dreaded sub-Saharan DNA. Hell, Latinos in the U.S. have a history of getting themselves classified as "white" or "Spanish" even if they have little or no European ancestry.
So let's see which part of the hypocricy when it comes to AD should we ignore.
I did not state majority. She used it as a simile to for my predominance. African is his predominant ancestry. Of course to her anything But African is better. So she conflates European and Native Ancestry and says that African is not predominant. He should identify as White instead of the predominant African ancestry.
predominant
Having greatest ascendancy, importance, influence, authority, or force. See synonyms at dominant. 2. Most common or conspicuous; main or prevalent: the predominant color in a design.
Tell me wich is the most predominant ancestry? African, European or Native American?
Now frank, you want to use majority definition and base it on an election simile. OK. I'm game. 3rd definition of Majority.
The political party, group, or faction having the most power by virtue of its larger representation or electoral strength.
If you had three parties in an election, African 46% of the votes. European, 41% of the votes, and Native American 13 % of the votes. Which party has the most power by virtue of its larger representation?
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 06:10 Post subject: Re: A Letter From Leo Felton
I wrote:
In it, the author attacks the tendency among his comrades to posit ideas about race that are in conflict with modern science and our growing knowledge of the human genome. He states categorically that there is non-White admixture in the gene pools of every European ethnicity, and that to require 100% racial purity of every member of their proposed White nationalist state, and of those Whites who advocate the creation of such a state, is not only pointless but destructive of their own cause.
Personally, the notion that some white supremacists are reconciled to accepting "mixed-blood" into this far-fetched white nationalist state is far more interesting than Leo's 46, 41, 13 breakdown.
I think it's fascinating that Felton, who is majority non-white, has such a white phenotype. Felton assumes that his Native American ancestry comes from his mom even though it's obvious that his father is mixed.
There's much discussion on this board about criticizing people who have largely white phenotypes but call themselves "light-skinned" blacks. However, as Felton DNA shows, it is possible for a mixed person who looks "white" to have more African/black associated DNA than European/white.
Hopefully, people will be able to call themselves whatever they want without having to be admonished for not choosing the politically "correct" racial/ethnic identity.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 13:49 Post subject: Re: A Letter From Leo Felton
chasbyrd wrote:
I wrote:
In it, the author attacks the tendency among his comrades to posit ideas about race that are in conflict with modern science and our growing knowledge of the human genome. He states categorically that there is non-White admixture in the gene pools of every European ethnicity, and that to require 100% racial purity of every member of their proposed White nationalist state, and of those Whites who advocate the creation of such a state, is not only pointless but destructive of their own cause.
Personally, the notion that some white supremacists are reconciled to accepting "mixed-blood" into this far-fetched white nationalist state is far more interesting than Leo's 46, 41, 13 breakdown.
Encouraging though it is that the more intelligent members of these movements are resigned to dealing with reality, (IMO) the rank and file supremacists are too ignorant to accept anything other than fairy tales or pure, unsullied whiteness as a goal. Alternatively, this definition of whiteness reflects reality of white racial identity as it is generally understood: That people who are "legitimately" White are also multiracial and include multiracial people of African descent.
The side discussion on Felton's admixture percentages is actually compelling. One could speculate as to whether nationalists would desginate a tolerable percentage of, say, African admixture and draw a line in the DNA sand. Sort of an ODR nouveau.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 14:03 Post subject: Re: A Letter From Leo Felton
sagascend wrote:
Encouraging though it is that the more intelligent members of these movements are resigned to dealing with reality
On a similar note, I have read articles by the LDS staff of the Mormon genealogical database, that one of the pressures that led the LDS to accept A-A's into the priesthood was the incontrovertible evidence uncovered in the database that so many eminent White LDS members have distant A-A ancestry. It takes many generations for new factual knowledge to percolate down to the lower rungs of the education ladder, but eventually it does get there despite ideological attempts to suppress such knowledge.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 14:18 Post subject: Salsassin
Quote:
don't know, presidential elections were decided by a smaller margin so quibbles over slight proportions might be in order in these matters as well. 46 is bigger than 41 or 13. Sounds like a majority to me.
Add 41 and 13. Felton has 54% non-sub-Saharan DNA. I've pointed out that this country has a history of people with NO European ancestry calling themselves "white." Think of Mexican-Americans who are racially American Indian. Think of Asian Indians. There is a double standard.
Quote:
Although I assume your use of "dreaded sub-Saharan ancestry" is sarcastic, it doesn't exactly sit well with me. Who dreads it? You? Felton? Most people here do not.
Of course it is sarcastic. Of course, people like Salsassin harass people over alleged "hatred" of said ancestry. Come on! The guy is pushing to preserve the ODR for ANGLOS only. I don't harass people over "hatred" of their white ancestry (and they are legion). When they are media darlings, however, I will point out the fact that they tell falsehoods about choice AND no alternative views are presented.
Quote:
The inclusion of quotes around "choice," as if to say that the choice of a multiracial person to identify as Black isn't valid, really irritates me. It is abundantly clear how you feel about multiracial people who identify as Black at this point, but that is a valid choice. So is choosing to identify as White or anything else.
I have pointed out many times that "white blacks" who are promoted by the media usually say that they had "no choice" but to be "black." After that falsehood, is pointed out, they whine that their "choice" is being taken from them. Were they deliberately lying before?
Quote:
It should be obvious to us all that racial classification in this country is far from scientific, logical or based SOLEY on proportional ancestry (and not appearance, culture or other ways of classifying people). What is the point, therefore, of challenging the legitimacy of identification based on proportional ancestry? It's ridiculous.
There is no argument about that. Salsassin simply likes to contradict anything I say. If I say that 54% is greater than 46% in any math class, he says otherwise. Oh, yes. Salsassin claims that I am motivated by hatred of "blacks" no matter what I say. If you think that is acceptable, let me say that Salsassin is motivated by hatred of Anglos of mixed ancestry. I am the victim here. I don't chase Salsassin and harass him over everything he says. He's not important to me and I have a life. Salsassin spends so much time on the computer posting messages that I doubt he has one.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 14:24 Post subject: Re: A Letter From Leo Felton
chasbyrd wrote:
I wrote:
In it, the author attacks the tendency among his comrades to posit ideas about race that are in conflict with modern science and our growing knowledge of the human genome. He states categorically that there is non-White admixture in the gene pools of every European ethnicity, and that to require 100% racial purity of every member of their proposed White nationalist state, and of those Whites who advocate the creation of such a state, is not only pointless but destructive of their own cause.
Personally, the notion that some white supremacists are reconciled to accepting "mixed-blood" into this far-fetched white nationalist state is far more interesting than Leo's 46, 41, 13 breakdown.
DId they accept him after they found out though? I could care less if he was raised Black, White or Native. If that is what he was raised as, its cool. But to me it seemed he was raised confused, and was forced in to a specific identity in prison for safety thus radicalizing him.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 14:24 Post subject: mixed ancestry in whites
Frank said:
Quote:
On a similar note, I have read articles by the LDS staff of the Mormon genealogical database, that one of the pressures that led the LDS to accept A-A's into the priesthood was the incontrovertible evidence uncovered in the database that so many eminent White LDS members have distant A-A ancestry. It takes many generations for new factual knowledge to percolate down to the lower rungs of the education ladder, but eventually it does get there despite ideological attempts to suppress such knowledge.
Exactly! I keep saying the obvious. The stigma attached to African ancestry will diminish to the extent that it is acknowledged in the white population. Look at American Indians. When is the last time someone wrote a "Bell Curve" expose "proving" that American Indians are "inferior"?
I think it's fascinating that Felton, who is majority non-white, has such a white phenotype. Felton assumes that his Native American ancestry comes from his mom even though it's obvious that his father is mixed.
There's much discussion on this board about criticizing people who have largely white phenotypes but call themselves "light-skinned" blacks. However, as Felton DNA shows, it is possible for a mixed person who looks "white" to have more African/black associated DNA than European/white.
Hopefully, people will be able to call themselves whatever they want without having to be admonished for not choosing the politically "correct" racial/ethnic identity.
THat's because all genes do not just control Phenotype. He may have a majority of the genes that control Phenotype (and more specifically skin color) be European.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 14:35 Post subject: Re: mixed ancestry in whites
Powell wrote:
The stigma attached to African ancestry will diminish to the extent that it is acknowledged in the white population.
Yes. That point is among the many where I agree with AD (there are others where I do not). Around here, we see much discussion of self-destructive Black hostility towards mainstream (White) society. And it is sadly true that many Americans who self-identify as Black shoot themselves in the foot by attacking anything White. But, when push comes to shove, African Americans lack the demographic power to weaken (much less erase) the endogamous color line. Acceptance will come only when Whites are ready, and no sooner. Knowlege is power, to coin a phrase, and the spread of the knowledge that African slave ancestry is common among White Americans will have a powerful impact in our g-g-grandchildren's generation.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 14:59 Post subject: Re: A Letter From Leo Felton
chasbyrd wrote:
I wrote:
In it, the author attacks the tendency among his comrades to posit ideas about race that are in conflict with modern science and our growing knowledge of the human genome. He states categorically that there is non-White admixture in the gene pools of every European ethnicity, and that to require 100% racial purity of every member of their proposed White nationalist state, and of those Whites who advocate the creation of such a state, is not only pointless but destructive of their own cause.
Personally, the notion that some white supremacists are reconciled to accepting "mixed-blood" into this far-fetched white nationalist state is far more interesting than Leo's 46, 41, 13 breakdown.
Yeah, even the racists are being enlightened. I have read on other sites (sorry, don't remember exactly) where some 'White Power Groups' are against random large-scale DNA testing of Americans. I guess they would not like to see the truth of such reults.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 15:05 Post subject: Re: A Letter From Leo Felton
sagascend wrote:
chasbyrd wrote:
I wrote:
In it, the author attacks the tendency among his comrades to posit ideas about race that are in conflict with modern science and our growing knowledge of the human genome. He states categorically that there is non-White admixture in the gene pools of every European ethnicity, and that to require 100% racial purity of every member of their proposed White nationalist state, and of those Whites who advocate the creation of such a state, is not only pointless but destructive of their own cause.
Personally, the notion that some white supremacists are reconciled to accepting "mixed-blood" into this far-fetched white nationalist state is far more interesting than Leo's 46, 41, 13 breakdown.
Encouraging though it is that the more intelligent members of these movements are resigned to dealing with reality, (IMO) the rank and file supremacists are too ignorant to accept anything other than fairy tales or pure, unsullied whiteness as a goal. Alternatively, this definition of whiteness reflects reality of white racial identity as it is generally understood: That people who are "legitimately" White are also multiracial and include multiracial people of African descent.
The side discussion on Felton's admixture percentages is actually compelling. One could speculate as to whether nationalists would desginate a tolerable percentage of, say, African admixture and draw a line in the DNA sand. Sort of an ODR nouveau.
I have visted 'White Power' sites on-line and when this topic comes up
1/8 Native American is considered 'lily white'. Some will say 0 Black ancestry, but most others will allow anything less than 1/8.
Many agree that 1/2 of 'mudd' races (Jew, Arab, Asian) is a no-no, but most will accept 1/4 -1/8 if they look exclusively white and have adopted Euro-culture.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 15:14 Post subject: Re: mixed ancestry in whites
Powell wrote:
Frank said:
Quote:
On a similar note, I have read articles by the LDS staff of the Mormon genealogical database, that one of the pressures that led the LDS to accept A-A's into the priesthood was the incontrovertible evidence uncovered in the database that so many eminent White LDS members have distant A-A ancestry. It takes many generations for new factual knowledge to percolate down to the lower rungs of the education ladder, but eventually it does get there despite ideological attempts to suppress such knowledge.
Exactly! I keep saying the obvious. The stigma attached to African ancestry will diminish to the extent that it is acknowledged in the white population. Look at American Indians. When is the last time someone wrote a "Bell Curve" expose "proving" that American Indians are "inferior"?
I have found this to be true and agree. Once 'being Black' or 'part Black' has no special stigma attached, the closets will be opened. Looks alone will determine race as it should be. After that happens, we will only be Americans, period. Color will still matter, but ancestry won't. A big leap in progress.
Google DNA/genetics. I have come across several Whites admiting sub-saharan ancestry and yet, they still wake up still White every day.
Oprah did a show on this years ago. Many declined to be on air, but I rememeber a White man who found out and was on the show. At the end, he said he discovered that this information didn't change him, his life, etc. It was an interesting side note in his family tree, but that such information did not impact his life. He was still White.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 15:35 Post subject: Re: continuation
Powell wrote:
Actually, my views have been so distorted by the likes of Salsassin and Triguy, I have no idea what I'm said to believe.
I discount Jaime's and Triguy's ad hominem claims of AD's motives, their irrelevant assertions that she wrote this or that in some venue other than the thread under discussion, and their semantic quibbling over her text (Majority versus plurality, indeed, Sheesh! use a dictionary, people.). My two main disagreements with AD regard the motivation and demographics of ODR advocacy.
First, AD suggests that African Americans more strongly and more prevalently support the ODR than do Euro-Americans. I do not. In her favor, that Black political leadership strenuously advocates the ODR (and demands its enforcement by Blacks among Blacks) and has done so with remarkable tenacity and consistency for nearly 200 years is indisputable. I present the evidence of this in chapters 15, 16, 20, and 21 of Legal History of the Color Line. Also, that everyone who has ever studied the ODR scientifically has come to AD's conclusion (that Blacks believe it more than Whites) is also on her side. But I have never seen peer-reviewed raw data -- demographic statstics -- measuring this discrepancy. That a greater fraction of Blacks than Whites believe the ODR may seem very plausible, but I cannot agree with AD (nor with any of the half-dozen other scholars and researchers who also say this) until I personally see some raw data.
Second, while I agree with AD (and nearly everyone else) that Whites who believe in the ODR associate it with a wish for White "racial purity," I do not agree that Blacks who support the ODR do so because of self-hatred or "dread" of "black blood." AD's suggestion may seem plausible because it is a symmetrical mirror-image of White "racial purity." (The way that much Afrocentrist thought is obsessed with Europeans and defines Afrocentrism as the mere negative of Eurocentrism -- hence, Tamils and Melaniesians are "black.") But Black-White attitudes towards the color line are not symmetrical. African-Americans have never been as obsessed with "racial purity" (in either direction) as Whites have. On the contrary, careful study of the times, places, and events where Black politicians have demanded enforcement of the ODR within their consituency shows a very different motivation. It is motivated by the goal of political solidarity, not by self-hate nor dread of "black blood." Such ethnic-border-policing solidarity is indistinguishable historically from similar border control by Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, German-Americans, and Jews.
In sum, I do not agree with AD that more Blacks than Whites support the ODR, because I have seen no raw data showing this. (I admit that I am probably the only race-scholar on the planet who feels this way.) And I do not agree with AD that Black suppprt of the ODR is related to "racial purity," or "dread of black blood," but suggest that it is merely an ethnic border patrol strategy just like every other socio-political ethnicity.
I must stress, however, that the above are mere differences in conclusions and "spin" put on the same factual evidence. I consider AD to be one of the most knowledgable and well-read scholars of the "race" notion alive today, and I have learned to rely on her factual evidence without question. I urge anyone who seriously wants to study the unfolding of the "race" notion in America to take her very seriously indeed.
Last edited by fwsweet on Wed 24 Jan 2007 18:46; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 17:30 Post subject: Re: A Letter From Leo Felton
Salsassin wrote:
chasbyrd wrote:
I wrote:
In it, the author attacks the tendency among his comrades to posit ideas about race that are in conflict with modern science and our growing knowledge of the human genome. He states categorically that there is non-White admixture in the gene pools of every European ethnicity, and that to require 100% racial purity of every member of their proposed White nationalist state, and of those Whites who advocate the creation of such a state, is not only pointless but destructive of their own cause.
Personally, the notion that some white supremacists are reconciled to accepting "mixed-blood" into this far-fetched white nationalist state is far more interesting than Leo's 46, 41, 13 breakdown.
DId they accept him after they found out though? I could care less if he was raised Black, White or Native. If that is what he was raised as, its cool. But to me it seemed he was raised confused, and was forced in to a specific identity in prison for safety thus radicalizing him.
I don't believe he took the test in order to then present the results before a White Supremacist Admissions Review Board. At least, I didn’t get that from his letter. I think he did it merely to satisfy his innate curiosity. Growing up mixed and confused (no sin to admit) many of us played the "stupid numbers game," as we called it. Often you contemplate your background percentages as if that will give you some mystical sense of just "who you are."
Prison is a sort of deviant microcosm of the larger society, and since a formal recognition of mixedness doesn’t exist in one, we can't expect it to exist in the other. I think he felt he had no choice but to align with either the white supremacists or the Hispanic marauders. In the end, he chose the white power rangers -- yes, likely out of a sense of maintaining personal safety. We all act on that basic survival impulse, though.
Posted: Wed 24 Jan 2007 21:22 Post subject: Re: Salsassin
Powell wrote:
Add 41 and 13. Felton has 54% non-sub-Saharan DNA.
Fact:
I stated :
Salsassin wrote:
So he was even less European in ancestry than he was African.
No conclusion, just a statement. It was an irony that he claimed one side and hated the rest when genetically it seems that was not his predominant side.
Powell wrote:
I've pointed out that this country has a history of people with NO European ancestry calling themselves "white."
Per the rules. please show where someone with only Native American and African ancestry claiming White. I have yet to see such a person.
if not this claim is a strawman as WHite does not only include Europeans.
Powell wrote:
Think of Mexican-Americans who are racially American Indian.
I have yet to meet a Mexican who is not at least mestizo with European phenotypes consider himself Blanco.
Powell wrote:
Think of Asian Indians.
Asian Americans do not go calling themselves White. Some Eurasians do.
Powell wrote:
There is a double standard.
No, what there is, is a strawman.
Fact: After I declared he was predominantly African (in a comparison to Native and European ancestry) Powell stated, in obvious imitation of my post:
Powell wrote:
So 54% of his DNA was not of African origin.
Which did not change the fact that, of the three ancestries, African was predominant.
Fact: It was Powell who tried making it an African vs. Non-African issue.
Fact: I stated:
Salsassin wrote:
But he choose a European identity, not a mixed one And his African ancestry was more than his European identity.
The Non African Ancestry was mixed in majority and European in minority.
My statement, again, was a matter of fact.
Powell then stated:
Powell wrote:
Sorry, but 46% is NOT a majority!
I have already shown, that of the three alternatives it was.
Fact, Powell then presents a strawman
Powell wrote:
Felton's European identification in and of itself is fine.
At no point did I ever say it wasn't. Although I will say it would be. As being White is quite different than being European. Felton was never European. That is a fact.
Powell wrote:
Salsasin is quick to defend the "choice" (which they never claimed to have until their lies were challenged) of people who claim to be "black" with with only a minority of that dreaded sub-Saharan DNA.
Fact. This is a violation of the rules and inaccurate. She attributes actions that she does not back up. I have never defended the choice of any person with any DREADED Sub-Saharan DNA. I have never defended anyono that had lies challenged. So it is up to Powell to show this accusation to be true.
Powell wrote:
Hell, Latinos in the U.S. have a history of getting themselves classified as "white" or "Spanish" even if they have little or no European ancestry.
Another strawman and innacurate. I will wait for Powell's sources of people with little or no European ancestry classifying themselves as White in Latin America. Spanish is a nationality. You can have all your DNA point to Africa and still be Spanish.
Powell wrote:
Of course it is sarcastic. Of course, people like Salsassin harass people over alleged "hatred" of said ancestry.
I will await Powell's evidence that anyone has challenged her for what she claims. SHe is the one who constantly attacks people who choose to identify as Black even if it is not their predominant ancestry (even though it may be the ethnicity they were raised in.) That is a fact. If anyone wants to challenge that fact, I will gladly present quotes from other sites.
Powell wrote:
Come on! The guy is pushing to preserve the ODR for ANGLOS only.
This is a statement of fact. I will await for Powell to point out, on any site where i have defenced the ODR for ANY group.
Powell wrote:
I don't harass people over "hatred" of their white ancestry (and they are legion).
No, Powell harasses them for embracing their Black ethnic roots.
Powell wrote:
When they are media darlings, however, I will point out the fact that they tell falsehoods about choice AND no alternative views are presented.
Fact: The attacks against these people would never have been allowed if they were members of this board and, in fact, one is. David Mathews. She has stated that he is lying about his personal experience, and categorized him as one more of the ODR people on the board. That is an Ad Hominem. I disagreed with him as well, contrary to Powell's claims. But I attacked his points, not the man himself. That is a fact. Furthermore, he is not stopping anyone from presenting their own experiences, nor has anyone else. Only Powell has challenged any person's identity and made claims of beliefs of that person on these threads. The responses have been to expose the hypocrisy.
Quote:
I have pointed out many times that "white blacks" who are promoted by the media usually say that they had "no choice" but to be "black." After that falsehood, is pointed out, they whine that their "choice" is being taken from them. Were they deliberately lying before?
I will await the evidence of Powell that Danzy Senna or Davifd Mathews ever mentioned they did not have a choice but to be Black. In fact, David Mathews chose to be White for quite some time, until he felt that choice was incongruous to his self-identity. That is a fact.
Powell wrote:
Salsassin simply likes to contradict anything I say.
Fact: It was Powell who first posted a supposed rebuttal to a comment I made. Fact: there are a ton of posts of Powell's on this board which i have never challenged. In other word, this is a blatantly false claim.
Powell wrote:
If I say that 54% is greater than 46% in any math class, he says otherwise.
False claim again. I stated that 46 was greater than either 41 or 13. It was Powell who made it a point to challenge that fact by conflating the second two into one and making it into a African vs Non-African strawman.
Powell wrote:
Oh, yes. Salsassin claims that I am motivated by hatred of "blacks" no matter what I say.
Powell has a history of negative remarks against Blacks. If requested I can provide quotes for that as well.
Powell wrote:
If you think that is acceptable, let me say that Salsassin is motivated by hatred of Anglos of mixed ancestry.
In the same way I can provide quotes, I request Powell present any evidence whatsoever of hatred of Anglos of mixed ancestry.
Powell wrote:
I am the victim here. I don't chase Salsassin and harass him over everything he says.
Another falsehood. It is quite obvious who posted in response to whom on this thread.
Powell wrote:
He's not important to me and I have a life.
Another Ad Hominem. Yet no evidence presented that she has such a life. or that I don't.
Powell wrote:
Salsassin spends so much time on the computer posting messages that I doubt he has one.
Again, another value judgment. Another Ad Hominem. The difference is that I can back up my claims. Can Powell back up hers?
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
or that I don't.