IMO, when people are presented with ideas they never thought about themselves (such as the racial continuum in which "white" and "mixed race" are NOT mutually exclusive), they project their own thoughts and experiences unto the person with the new ideas. For example, I have never argued about "light-skinned blacks" versus "dark-skinned blacks.' I don't use those terms unless quoting others.
I don't know who you are referring to in the above, but you proliferate the following terms (and their synonyms) ad nauseum:
"real" Blacks - likely people too SSA-looking to be considered as mixed
"Blacks" - likely people who SHOULD NOT identify as AA, but do to the consternation of some
There is also ample evidence of your belief, impervious to any logic or evidence refuting it (or at least highlighting its unevenness), that "real" Blacks (who are curiously only male) hold the "White blood" of genetically and visibily mixed AAs (which is curiously embodied only within females) captive within "the race." Simple observation in the mating behavior of generations of AAs and other Afrodescendant populations renders this belief questionnable.
If its your contention that this is an idea that is new and original, I guess I am mistaken in assuming that you have consumed any popular literature, music or film produced in the last 100 years or so. Maybe it's new to you, but it's hardly groundbreaking or novel.
In any case - If thinkers are required to originate all ideas that they can opine on, no one could opine on anything. What's new here? Nothing from what I can see. Joel Williamson refuted it in the 80s.
My perspective is that Ms. Powell takes a lot of heat for her controversial views...most of which I agree with.
I don't agree with ALL of her statements, but I see a good deal of truth in them.
With that said, she is not the most politically correct person. She can be brutally frank in what she says. I don't believe she comes from a position of denigrating blacks in general, but it seems that she speaks from a perspective that many are afraid to talk about.
At times she is guilty of making blanket statements about AA's, but some of what she says is viable. I'm not as thin-skinned about certain issues as I once was and there are members of this forum that have had problems with my views on some things. I simply moved on.
Maya, the issue here is that you and A.D. come from completely different perspectives. That is all there is to it. Both of you are highly intelligent ladies with much to contribute. I appreciate your unique experiences and ideas as much as I do hers. She is brilliant but comes across as somewhat unkind (if partially honest) in some of her statements. It seems you're both more alike in positive ways than you realize.
Posted: Mon 07 Jul 2008 01:42 Post subject: My opponents
My opponents do not argue based on what I've actually written, but on strawman arguments they attribute to me. For example, Maya claims that I've said that all "blacks" are male. That is totally false. They pick a word or two here and there and take it out of conext. They are shocked, shocked, that I sometimes use educated generalizations or cite social trends that have been acknowledged countless times in numerous book. As we all know, no one generalizes except the evil A.D. Powell. Meanwhile, when others say that "whites" in general are this way or "blacks" are that way, their generalizations are not deemed so offensive - probably because they don't identify as white.
I believe that I am simply the target of projection for racial feelings that go back to childhood. Again, it is not what I say that offends; it is who I am.
Posted: Mon 07 Jul 2008 01:59 Post subject: Experience
Salsassin wrote:
lsgh2 wrote:
if u were powell wouldn't have to fight u all everyday.
if u were there would be no dispute.
if u were mulattos and blacks would be socio-politically separate [again].
but 'til then Powell and the rest of us WAR ON!!!
Maybe if Powell's experiences matched more those of the majority of this board on the same issues, then she wouldn't have to defend some of her posts as much. Maybe we were "there" but got a different view of the issues and problems. Even before Jim Crow all people of Mixed ancestry did not separate into Mulato communities and many either mixed into the Black or White communities. So even then, The Black and White communities would have expanded their parameters. But no laws challenging the ancestries of Black people. Just Whites with suspected admixture. That means that even if Mulatto communities still existed, there would still be multiracial Blacks and Multiracial Whites given free choice.
"What have YOU done to win the war?" said the draft dodger to the war hero. I have literally put my well-being and very life on the line during the years of writing for "Interracial Voice" and "The Multiracial Activist." I have worked to make people aware of historical research showing that the ODR is NOT some kind of natural, universal belief going black hundreds of years. I have reached out to other groups that independently discovered their mixed ancestry and the effect of the ODR on their ancestors, such as Melungeons and Redbones. I have spoken at their conferences. When you consider that Charles Michael Byrd, James Landrith and other comrades in the movement are people of modest means, we have managed to accomplish miracles DESPITE the power of the black-identified elites. I find the vast majority of my critics far inferior to me in knowledge, experience and activism.
Posted: Mon 07 Jul 2008 05:45 Post subject: Re: Experience
Powell wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
lsgh2 wrote:
if u were powell wouldn't have to fight u all everyday.
if u were there would be no dispute.
if u were mulattos and blacks would be socio-politically separate [again].
but 'til then Powell and the rest of us WAR ON!!!
Maybe if Powell's experiences matched more those of the majority of this board on the same issues, then she wouldn't have to defend some of her posts as much. Maybe we were "there" but got a different view of the issues and problems. Even before Jim Crow all people of Mixed ancestry did not separate into Mulato communities and many either mixed into the Black or White communities. So even then, The Black and White communities would have expanded their parameters. But no laws challenging the ancestries of Black people. Just Whites with suspected admixture. That means that even if Mulatto communities still existed, there would still be multiracial Blacks and Multiracial Whites given free choice.
"What have YOU done to win the war?" said the draft dodger to the war hero. I have literally put my well-being and very life on the line during the years of writing for "Interracial Voice" and "The Multiracial Activist." I have worked to make people aware of historical research showing that the ODR is NOT some kind of natural, universal belief going black hundreds of years. I have reached out to other groups that independently discovered their mixed ancestry and the effect of the ODR on their ancestors, such as Melungeons and Redbones. I have spoken at their conferences. When you consider that Charles Michael Byrd, James Landrith and other comrades in the movement are people of modest means, we have managed to accomplish miracles DESPITE the power of the black-identified elites. I find the vast majority of my critics far inferior to me in knowledge, experience and activism.
LOL. Sorry, if I'm not impressed. So you spoke at a few conferences, and you complained a lot online and you published a book based on many of those essays. What has your approach actually changed? I don't see the miracles you describe. Not impressed with your knowledge, your grandstanding, your supposed experience, and while very active, I'm not really impressed with the output that has come from your activism. But hey, If it got a few people to approach you to have you sign their copy of your book, more power to you.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 443 } Location: Īle-de-France
Posted: Mon 07 Jul 2008 09:53 Post subject:
Quote:
I find the vast majority of my critics far inferior to me in knowledge, experience and activism.
I think that is part of the problem. IMHO, you do much better when you show respect for your adversary-the"black-identified elite and white liberals" regardless of whether you think they deserve it. If the goal is really to affect change, rather than to preach to the choir and upset your opponents, I think it is more effictive to make arguments without ascribing motives or guilt.
Last edited by MisterLawyer on Mon 07 Jul 2008 15:36; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Mon 07 Jul 2008 15:30 Post subject: Respect
MisterLawyer wrote:
Quote:
I find the vast majority of my critics far inferior to me in knowledge, experience and activism.
I think that is part of the problem. IMHO, you do much better when you show respect for your adversary, regardless of whether you think they deserve it.
People who give me respect receive it in return and always have. I think you know this.
Posted: Mon 07 Jul 2008 15:32 Post subject: Re: Experience
Salsassin wrote:
Powell wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
lsgh2 wrote:
if u were powell wouldn't have to fight u all everyday.
if u were there would be no dispute.
if u were mulattos and blacks would be socio-politically separate [again].
but 'til then Powell and the rest of us WAR ON!!!
Maybe if Powell's experiences matched more those of the majority of this board on the same issues, then she wouldn't have to defend some of her posts as much. Maybe we were "there" but got a different view of the issues and problems. Even before Jim Crow all people of Mixed ancestry did not separate into Mulato communities and many either mixed into the Black or White communities. So even then, The Black and White communities would have expanded their parameters. But no laws challenging the ancestries of Black people. Just Whites with suspected admixture. That means that even if Mulatto communities still existed, there would still be multiracial Blacks and Multiracial Whites given free choice.
"What have YOU done to win the war?" said the draft dodger to the war hero. I have literally put my well-being and very life on the line during the years of writing for "Interracial Voice" and "The Multiracial Activist." I have worked to make people aware of historical research showing that the ODR is NOT some kind of natural, universal belief going black hundreds of years. I have reached out to other groups that independently discovered their mixed ancestry and the effect of the ODR on their ancestors, such as Melungeons and Redbones. I have spoken at their conferences. When you consider that Charles Michael Byrd, James Landrith and other comrades in the movement are people of modest means, we have managed to accomplish miracles DESPITE the power of the black-identified elites. I find the vast majority of my critics far inferior to me in knowledge, experience and activism.
LOL. Sorry, if I'm not impressed. So you spoke at a few conferences, and you complained a lot online and you published a book based on many of those essays. What has your approach actually changed? I don't see the miracles you describe. Not impressed with your knowledge, your grandstanding, your supposed experience, and while very active, I'm not really impressed with the output that has come from your activism. But hey, If it got a few people to approach you to have you sign their copy of your book, more power to you.
What have YOU done to fight the ODR - if anything?
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 443 } Location: Īle-de-France
Posted: Mon 07 Jul 2008 15:48 Post subject:
Quote:
LOL. Sorry, if I'm not impressed. So you spoke at a few conferences, and you complained a lot online and you published a book based on many of those essays. What has your approach actually changed? I don't see the miracles you describe. Not impressed with your knowledge, your grandstanding, your supposed experience, and while very active, I'm not really impressed with the output that has come from your activism. But hey, If it got a few people to approach you to have you sign their copy of your book, more power to you.
While in my earlier post I was speaking generally about the fight against the one drop rule, I think this personal disrespect for someone's life's work is also counterproductive towards any useful dialog. I think both of you overreact to one another.
My perspective is that Ms. Powell takes a lot of heat for her controversial views...most of which I agree with.
I don't agree with ALL of her statements, but I see a good deal of truth in them.
With that said, she is not the most politically correct person. She can be brutally frank in what she says. I don't believe she comes from a position of denigrating blacks in general, but it seems that she speaks from a perspective that many are afraid to talk about.
At times she is guilty of making blanket statements about AA's, but some of what she says is viable. I'm not as thin-skinned about certain issues as I once was and there are members of this forum that have had problems with my views on some things. I simply moved on.
Maya, the issue here is that you and A.D. come from completely different perspectives. That is all there is to it. Both of you are highly intelligent ladies with much to contribute. I appreciate your unique experiences and ideas as much as I do hers. She is brilliant but comes across as somewhat unkind (if partially honest) in some of her statements. It seems you're both more alike in positive ways than you realize.
I don't wish to derail this thread so I will keep it short.
Mindy I appreciate your comments and compliments. Even when others have come after you unfairly you've always stood your (higher) ground. Much respect for that!
I find that sometimes, "respect" is confused with "deference." I can and do respect people who have a different point of view but I do not have to defer to an individual simply because of his or her background, age, or rhetoric.
I'm known to be rather caustic at times and certainly wouldn't be accused of avoiding a vigorous discussion, but I do not believe that any of my personal experiences justify the vitriolic and even hateful expression of my perspectives. I object to such expressions in posters no matter their perspectives. All it does is close minds to what one has to say, and the brilliance of leaders of social movements is that they know how to open minds of the opposition and the apathetic. Anyone can rally the likeminded with harsh words and bravado. Anyone can appeal to the "reptilian" impulses we all have. But when have harsh words and base impulses uplifted anyone?
Posted: Tue 08 Jul 2008 21:53 Post subject: Re: My opponents
Powell wrote:
My opponents do not argue based on what I've actually written, but on strawman arguments they attribute to me. For example, Maya claims that I've said that all "blacks" are male. That is totally false. They pick a word or two here and there and take it out of conext. They are shocked, shocked, that I sometimes use educated generalizations or cite social trends that have been acknowledged countless times in numerous book. As we all know, no one generalizes except the evil A.D. Powell. Meanwhile, when others say that "whites" in general are this way or "blacks" are that way, their generalizations are not deemed so offensive - probably because they don't identify as white.
I believe that I am simply the target of projection for racial feelings that go back to childhood. Again, it is not what I say that offends; it is who I am.
A.D. - I'm not your opponent (are we competing???) but I am highly skeptical of any perspective that seems inaccurate, is not supported by evidence, or is presented with too much vitriol to be taken seriously. Now I am going to tread carefully here but I don't think that you have any cause to cry "projection." From my perspective you simply seem unable to accept criticism of your ideas without personalizing it and turning anyone who disagrees with you into an "enemy." I am sorry that you have been attacked for your beliefs and for upolding the cause of multiracialism, but I have to say that it seems to me that you are either so embittered by past experiences that you cannot distinguish between sympathetic criticism and demonization, or you are so thin-skinned that you perceive any refutation of your ideas as threatening and personal.
I've read your book and your various articles. I find it interesting that you would perceive racialized projection from others but not perceive that you might perhaps be the pot calling the kettle black (NO PUN INTENDED).
You and Jaime have your own longstanding issues. Leave me out of it, please. I have no problem engaging in further dialogue about our perspectives, but I have no wish to engage in this race-based posturing of yours! I could care less how you identify, what you look like and what your ethnic background is. It's funny. The last time you and Jaime got into it you claimed there was a sexist bias against you because you are a woman. If you cannot handle a difference of opinion unless it comes from a White woman (or a woman from your professed identity/ethnic background) that is not my problem. Again, please leave me out of all of this. It is beneath both of us.
Posted: Tue 08 Jul 2008 22:46 Post subject: Re: My opponents
sagascend wrote:
Powell wrote:
My opponents do not argue based on what I've actually written, but on strawman arguments they attribute to me. For example, Maya claims that I've said that all "blacks" are male. That is totally false. They pick a word or two here and there and take it out of conext. They are shocked, shocked, that I sometimes use educated generalizations or cite social trends that have been acknowledged countless times in numerous book. As we all know, no one generalizes except the evil A.D. Powell. Meanwhile, when others say that "whites" in general are this way or "blacks" are that way, their generalizations are not deemed so offensive - probably because they don't identify as white.
I believe that I am simply the target of projection for racial feelings that go back to childhood. Again, it is not what I say that offends; it is who I am.
A.D. - I'm not your opponent (are we competing???) but I am highly skeptical of any perspective that seems inaccurate, is not supported by evidence, or is presented with too much vitriol to be taken seriously. Now I am going to tread carefully here but I don't think that you have any cause to cry "projection." From my perspective you simply seem unable to accept criticism of your ideas without personalizing it and turning anyone who disagrees with you into an "enemy." I am sorry that you have been attacked for your beliefs and for upolding the cause of multiracialism, but I have to say that it seems to me that you are either so embittered by past experiences that you cannot distinguish between sympathetic criticism and demonization, or you are so thin-skinned that you perceive any refutation of your ideas as threatening and personal.
I've read your book and your various articles. I find it interesting that you would perceive racialized projection from others but not perceive that you might perhaps be the pot calling the kettle black (NO PUN INTENDED).
You and Jaime have your own longstanding issues. Leave me out of it, please. I have no problem engaging in further dialogue about our perspectives, but I have no wish to engage in this race-based posturing of yours! I could care less how you identify, what you look like and what your ethnic background is. It's funny. The last time you and Jaime got into it you claimed there was a sexist bias against you because you are a woman. If you cannot handle a difference of opinion unless it comes from a White woman (or a woman from your professed identity/ethnic background) that is not my problem. Again, please leave me out of all of this. It is beneath both of us.
Again, the issue is that I am asked to "defend" arguments I did not make.
Can you actually state my perspective? You haven't done so, yet. Your statements regarding Jaime's attacks on me are inaccurate as well. You failed to mention the sexist and racial attacks on both Susanne Heine and myself. THAT was only the beginning of lies and personal insults, as you well know. It is said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. For most of the life of this forum, the "good people" did little or nothing to reign in evil and then were shocked, shocked, when people were forced to defend themselves.
Posted: Tue 08 Jul 2008 23:47 Post subject: Re: My opponents
Powell wrote:
sagascend wrote:
Powell wrote:
My opponents do not argue based on what I've actually written, but on strawman arguments they attribute to me. For example, Maya claims that I've said that all "blacks" are male. That is totally false. They pick a word or two here and there and take it out of conext. They are shocked, shocked, that I sometimes use educated generalizations or cite social trends that have been acknowledged countless times in numerous book. As we all know, no one generalizes except the evil A.D. Powell. Meanwhile, when others say that "whites" in general are this way or "blacks" are that way, their generalizations are not deemed so offensive - probably because they don't identify as white.
I believe that I am simply the target of projection for racial feelings that go back to childhood. Again, it is not what I say that offends; it is who I am.
A.D. - I'm not your opponent (are we competing???) but I am highly skeptical of any perspective that seems inaccurate, is not supported by evidence, or is presented with too much vitriol to be taken seriously. Now I am going to tread carefully here but I don't think that you have any cause to cry "projection." From my perspective you simply seem unable to accept criticism of your ideas without personalizing it and turning anyone who disagrees with you into an "enemy." I am sorry that you have been attacked for your beliefs and for upolding the cause of multiracialism, but I have to say that it seems to me that you are either so embittered by past experiences that you cannot distinguish between sympathetic criticism and demonization, or you are so thin-skinned that you perceive any refutation of your ideas as threatening and personal.
I've read your book and your various articles. I find it interesting that you would perceive racialized projection from others but not perceive that you might perhaps be the pot calling the kettle black (NO PUN INTENDED).
You and Jaime have your own longstanding issues. Leave me out of it, please. I have no problem engaging in further dialogue about our perspectives, but I have no wish to engage in this race-based posturing of yours! I could care less how you identify, what you look like and what your ethnic background is. It's funny. The last time you and Jaime got into it you claimed there was a sexist bias against you because you are a woman. If you cannot handle a difference of opinion unless it comes from a White woman (or a woman from your professed identity/ethnic background) that is not my problem. Again, please leave me out of all of this. It is beneath both of us.
Again, the issue is that I am asked to "defend" arguments I did not make.
Can you actually state my perspective? You haven't done so, yet. Your statements regarding Jaime's attacks on me are inaccurate as well. You failed to mention the sexist and racial attacks on both Susanne Heine and myself. THAT was only the beginning of lies and personal insults, as you well know. It is said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. For most of the life of this forum, the "good people" did little or nothing to reign in evil and then were shocked, shocked, when people were forced to defend themselves.
1. Who has asked you to defend arguments that you did not make?
2. I was not a member of this community when Susan was an active poster. If you are referring to what happened in the Yahoo days please remember that I was not there.
3. Defend yourself all you like, by all means. At times your outrage has been justified. But in the situation I am referring to you declared that the entire moderator board (which has 3 female moderators) was sexist because of your suspension. I believe your post in Site Management expressing this sentiment is still there, unless I am mistaken and it was expressed in a PM.
4. I can state your perspective and did in my earlier post in this thread. Since my opinion hasn't changed it is still there. But I don't mind stating it again at all: You fixate on lightskinned women as objects of rape and fantasy for "Blacks" (Black men) who hate Whites but love the skin/eyes/features they produce. I have already outlined my issues with this stance.
Posted: Wed 09 Jul 2008 00:22 Post subject: Re: My opponents
Powell wrote:
sagascend wrote:
Powell wrote:
My opponents do not argue based on what I've actually written, but on strawman arguments they attribute to me. For example, Maya claims that I've said that all "blacks" are male. That is totally false. They pick a word or two here and there and take it out of conext. They are shocked, shocked, that I sometimes use educated generalizations or cite social trends that have been acknowledged countless times in numerous book. As we all know, no one generalizes except the evil A.D. Powell. Meanwhile, when others say that "whites" in general are this way or "blacks" are that way, their generalizations are not deemed so offensive - probably because they don't identify as white.
I believe that I am simply the target of projection for racial feelings that go back to childhood. Again, it is not what I say that offends; it is who I am.
A.D. - I'm not your opponent (are we competing???) but I am highly skeptical of any perspective that seems inaccurate, is not supported by evidence, or is presented with too much vitriol to be taken seriously. Now I am going to tread carefully here but I don't think that you have any cause to cry "projection." From my perspective you simply seem unable to accept criticism of your ideas without personalizing it and turning anyone who disagrees with you into an "enemy." I am sorry that you have been attacked for your beliefs and for upolding the cause of multiracialism, but I have to say that it seems to me that you are either so embittered by past experiences that you cannot distinguish between sympathetic criticism and demonization, or you are so thin-skinned that you perceive any refutation of your ideas as threatening and personal.
I've read your book and your various articles. I find it interesting that you would perceive racialized projection from others but not perceive that you might perhaps be the pot calling the kettle black (NO PUN INTENDED).
You and Jaime have your own longstanding issues. Leave me out of it, please. I have no problem engaging in further dialogue about our perspectives, but I have no wish to engage in this race-based posturing of yours! I could care less how you identify, what you look like and what your ethnic background is. It's funny. The last time you and Jaime got into it you claimed there was a sexist bias against you because you are a woman. If you cannot handle a difference of opinion unless it comes from a White woman (or a woman from your professed identity/ethnic background) that is not my problem. Again, please leave me out of all of this. It is beneath both of us.
Again, the issue is that I am asked to "defend" arguments I did not make.
Can you actually state my perspective? You haven't done so, yet. Your statements regarding Jaime's attacks on me are inaccurate as well. You failed to mention the sexist and racial attacks on both Susanne Heine and myself. THAT was only the beginning of lies and personal insults, as you well know. It is said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. For most of the life of this forum, the "good people" did little or nothing to reign in evil and then were shocked, shocked, when people were forced to defend themselves.
Uh Frank. Personal attack and false claims. Thank You.
Posted: Wed 09 Jul 2008 01:22 Post subject: Re: My opponents
Powell wrote:
You failed to mention the sexist and racial attacks on both Susanne Heine and myself. THAT was only the beginning of lies and personal insults, as you well know. It is said that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. For most of the life of this forum, the "good people" did little or nothing to reign in evil and then were shocked, shocked, when people were forced to defend themselves.
A.D., Jaime stopped baiting you when I asked him to. Why bring up now his transgressions from years ago, from before we even had rules in place?
You asked the moderator why she dissents from your position. She told you why. Why bring up now your bad experiences with others who are not even in this group? Maya had nothing to do with your past.
If you do not cool down and listen to her advice, Maya will wind up having to suspend you and I will fully back her up.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Wed 09 Jul 2008 02:26 Post subject:
...I'm confused, how does this work - isn't Powell a moderator herself? With the Lieutenent Commander insignia, does she not outrank Maya?
Either way, I don't think that this is fair... yes, Jaime was ordered to stop baiting Powell, but this thread itself serves no purpose other than to bait her. And then, she gets threatened with suspension when she answers those who are baiting her.
I think that it's pure load of crap that she's taking punches, but is being denied the ability to fight back.
...I'm confused, how does this work - isn't Powell a moderator herself? With the Lieutenent Commander insignia, does she not outrank Maya?
See this thread for an explanation of the roles and insignias. In short, forum moderators are O-3, at-large moderators are O-5 and I am O-6. AD's rank, (O-4), is reserved for "gurus." These are people who are highly respected in the field of racialism studies but have no line command authority in this site.
Richard Miller wrote:
this thread itself serves no purpose other than to bait her.
I agree (in a sense). The thread started by presenting old AD editorials from Interracial Voice, a venue with a very different goal and tone from this one. These hard-hitting messages attracted praise from some and criticism from others, but the thread somehow wound up crossing back and forth over the line from criticising any particular piece of writing to criticising the individual. I see no purpose in continuing it, and suggest that the moderator continue counseling AD in private.
Richard Miller wrote:
And then, she gets threatened with suspension when she answers those who are baiting her. I think that it's pure load of crap that she's taking punches, but is being denied the ability to fight back.
Them's the rules. Read 2.1 carefully. Punishing retaliation is the only way to maintain order. Anyone who cannot take punches and trust the moderators to control things will be suspended.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Wed 09 Jul 2008 05:03 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
And then, she gets threatened with suspension when she answers those who are baiting her. I think that it's pure load of crap that she's taking punches, but is being denied the ability to fight back.
Them's the rules. Read 2.1 carefully. Punishing retaliation is the only way to maintain order. Anyone who cannot take punches and trust the moderators to control things will be suspended.
But is Powell really "retaliating against the moderator"? From what I see, Maya was not speaking ex cathedra in her original post - which, at least in most settings, would leave her comments/criticisms open for debate... unless less that doesn't matter in this particular setting.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
