Carl J Lydick (
4 Feb 1995 14:11:59 GMT (Frosch) wrote:

> you don't understand the point, do you? or are you so naive
> that you thought the derogatory terms were ones that aborigines in
> australia use for _themselves_?

I was not informed in the e-mail that "abo" is derogatory. And
as to whether I would be surprised by aborigines calling
each other by a derogatory term, no, I would not. Your
experience of the world, as you term it, shows its limits
on this question. Did you know that American blacks often
use the word "nigger" to refer to each other?

you wrote "australian" and meant
> "non-aboriginal australian"

That is pure guess on your part, and false. Once again,
you show an almost morbid inability to accept that you
less than telepathic.

, just like you wrote "hindu" in two
> posts (even after several objections) and meant "from the indian
> subcontinent", not "an adherent of the hindu religion".

Wrong again. Here's an idea: when you read something, try
assuming that the writer meant what he said.

> that you find
> the claim odd that aborigines refer to themselves as "black", from
> which i infer that you do not, after all, accept the information i
> gave.

Of course I accept it. I find it odd, that's all. You infer
incorrectly--and this has been your problem all along.

honey sweet, do you still find it surprising that i criticize
> you for backpedalling?

No, treacle, I don't find it surprising, because I don't expect you
to make much sense.

> and none of your posts have given me the impression that you have
> a broad enough experience of the world to make those judgments in
> any informed way. indeed, more information tends to lead one to
> abandon the pre-formed judgments altogether, in my experience.

Then teach me facts. The criticism, "you don't know enough to
talk" isn't good for anything except annoying someone who may
know much more than you.

> now, if my consideration is merely alleged, it would scarcely
> help the individuals, would it?

That's right.