Frosch (
4 Feb 95 11:44:32 GMT

<> writes:

> (Frosch) wrote:

>> i don't know how you anticipate meaningful conversation when
>> you arbitrarily change your definitions from one post to the next.
>> as before, i am left with the impression that you post without
>> thinking, and are left looking for ad hoc explanations to justify
>> yourself afterwards.

>Think what you like. I no longer care. Nevertheless, you are

>> >Furthermore I was e-mailed a description of the
>> >terms used by Australians for aborigines, and the main term
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >given was "abos", with a second, more polite term "natives".
>> i am aware of derogatory terms used in australia to refer to
>> aborigines. i imagine your distinction here between "australians"
>> and "aborigines" would be received with about as much gratitude.
>> you have in any case missed the intent of my post.

>A distinction? You give me credit for more knowlege of the
>society than I have. Naturally you do this so as to justify
>yet another attack. How tiring. When I say that Americans

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_? you wrote "australian" and meant
"non-aboriginal australian", 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".

>use the term "black" for a certain group, I am not drawing
>a distinction between Americans and blacks. Use your brain for

if you had written "americans use the term black to mean a
certain group", i would have had no objections. but that's not
what you wrote.

>once, and not your spleen. In general I've found your
>interpretations dull bordering on cracked, and your insistence
>on them downright idiotic.

> i wrote about
>> a term that australian aborigines use for _themselves_.

>That's odd; I would have thought they used tribal names, as
>Native Americans often do.

so: according to the chronology of posts received at this site,
we had first your claim that australian aborigines are not referred
to as blacks. in a separate post, i explained that they are, and
after being queried on deleting that information uncommented, you
said, yes, you accepted the point. then we had your last post, in
which you implied that the real terms were A and B, which did not
include "black". in this one, you state first that your knowledge
of australian society has been overestimated, and then, 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. honey sweet, do you still find it surprising that i criticize
you for backpedalling?

>> whether you believe it or not, i haven't called you "a racist".

>Okay, I'll accept that you think differently than I do on what
>racism amounts to.

if it makes you happy to think i think you a racist, despite
my explanations, i guess you should pursue your personal happiness.
i would not have otherwise recommended it.

>> i am saying that you are writing things which spread pre-conceived
>> ideas about relations between ancestry, religion, matters of culture,
>> matters of nationality and a good few other things.

>It's very hard, nay, absolutely impossible to talk about anything,
>let alone a religion, without spreading ideas.


>As to whether the
>ideas are "pre-conceived", I deny that claim. The relations are
>there. Of course they are not absolute; nor are they by any means

you have done nothing but reiterate the very pre-judgments i
am criticizing (and which you previously interpreted as "racism").
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.

> any of those
>> things can be insulting and hurtful to the people you are talking
>> about, regardless of how good your intentions may be.

>Of course, anything at all can be insulting and hurtful. You
>don't seem to care yourself about insulting others. On a
>personal level, I'm far more considerate and polite than you
>are. I would suggest redirecting your alleged consideration for
>groups, towards individuals with whom you actually deal.

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