Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
\Is that what I said? Perhaps a remedial reading course would help you.
Unless you wish to dispute the idea that white men were prosecuted for their rapes of black women?
Yes.
YOu are disputing that there were white men who raped black women and were not prosecuted for it? Really?
You thought I was disputing that? You really are dumb.
All white men have a long history of rape without prosecution? That's what you said.
No, it is not what I said. In fact, I don't see the word "all" in my posts anywhere.
But, like the incessant fear of black men, the fear of white men stems from the actions of a few.
And when you limit your replies to monosyllabic comments, don't be surprised that people do not know what you mean.
It didn't have to be. When you say "White men", includes all white men.
I don't fear black men. Black males don't act like men.
When you don't include something to make it clear that you didn't mean all, don't be shocked when people believe you meant all. See how that works.
\
Yes.
YOu are disputing that there were white men who raped black women and were not prosecuted for it? Really?
You thought I was disputing that? You really are dumb.
All white men have a long history of rape without prosecution? That's what you said.
No, it is not what I said. In fact, I don't see the word "all" in my posts anywhere.
But, like the incessant fear of black men, the fear of white men stems from the actions of a few.
And when you limit your replies to monosyllabic comments, don't be surprised that people do not know what you mean.
It didn't have to be. When you say "White men", includes all white men.
I don't fear black men. Black males don't act like men.
When you don't include something to make it clear that you didn't mean all, don't be shocked when people believe you meant all. See how that works.
Oh, I'm sorry. I post under the assumption that the people reading it are not idiots. My mistake.
So you are saying that all black males don't act like men? See how ridiculous it is to intentionally misrepresent something simply because there is no qualifier added?
And in the eyes of black women, all white males may be rapists. The way their parents warned them not to be noticed or get caught alone, that is a perfectly logical idea.
Y'all do realize that white men raping black women here in the US virtually never happens, right? Check the FBI statistics. There are probably more cases of necrophilia in a given year. Seriously...
Currently. I don't live in the past.Y'all do realize that white men raping black women here in the US virtually never happens, right? Check the FBI statistics. There are probably more cases of necrophilia in a given year. Seriously...
Is that recently or does that include the entire 20th century?
YOu are disputing that there were white men who raped black women and were not prosecuted for it? Really?
You thought I was disputing that? You really are dumb.
All white men have a long history of rape without prosecution? That's what you said.
No, it is not what I said. In fact, I don't see the word "all" in my posts anywhere.
But, like the incessant fear of black men, the fear of white men stems from the actions of a few.
And when you limit your replies to monosyllabic comments, don't be surprised that people do not know what you mean.
It didn't have to be. When you say "White men", includes all white men.
I don't fear black men. Black males don't act like men.
When you don't include something to make it clear that you didn't mean all, don't be shocked when people believe you meant all. See how that works.
Oh, I'm sorry. I post under the assumption that the people reading it are not idiots. My mistake.
So you are saying that all black males don't act like men? See how ridiculous it is to intentionally misrepresent something simply because there is no qualifier added?
And in the eyes of black women, all white males may be rapists. The way their parents warned them not to be noticed or get caught alone, that is a perfectly logical idea.
Seems you got then point I was making. Without the qualifier it can be taken to mean all. Sorry, son, but it's not my mistake for reading it in a manner you posted because you left out the qualifier.
In the eyes of many, all black men may not act like men. It's a logical idea when you see so many committing crimes, creating bastard children they don't take care of, and acting like savages in their daily routines. It's a perfectly logical conclusion. Perhaps you've heard of the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
Currently. I don't live in the past.Y'all do realize that white men raping black women here in the US virtually never happens, right? Check the FBI statistics. There are probably more cases of necrophilia in a given year. Seriously...
Is that recently or does that include the entire 20th century?
You thought I was disputing that? You really are dumb.
All white men have a long history of rape without prosecution? That's what you said.
No, it is not what I said. In fact, I don't see the word "all" in my posts anywhere.
But, like the incessant fear of black men, the fear of white men stems from the actions of a few.
And when you limit your replies to monosyllabic comments, don't be surprised that people do not know what you mean.
It didn't have to be. When you say "White men", includes all white men.
I don't fear black men. Black males don't act like men.
When you don't include something to make it clear that you didn't mean all, don't be shocked when people believe you meant all. See how that works.
Oh, I'm sorry. I post under the assumption that the people reading it are not idiots. My mistake.
So you are saying that all black males don't act like men? See how ridiculous it is to intentionally misrepresent something simply because there is no qualifier added?
And in the eyes of black women, all white males may be rapists. The way their parents warned them not to be noticed or get caught alone, that is a perfectly logical idea.
Seems you got then point I was making. Without the qualifier it can be taken to mean all. Sorry, son, but it's not my mistake for reading it in a manner you posted because you left out the qualifier.
In the eyes of many, all black men may not act like men. It's a logical idea when you see so many committing crimes, creating bastard children they don't take care of, and acting like savages in their daily routines. It's a perfectly logical conclusion. Perhaps you've heard of the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
YOu really are a nit-picky sort, aren't you? YOu latch on to one tiny bit and won't let go. Not anything pertinent to the topic, but just something you can badger the poster about. Well, you know what I meant now. I think I have made it abundantly clear.
No, it is not what I said. In fact, I don't see the word "all" in my posts anywhere.
But, like the incessant fear of black men, the fear of white men stems from the actions of a few.
And when you limit your replies to monosyllabic comments, don't be surprised that people do not know what you mean.
It didn't have to be. When you say "White men", includes all white men.
I don't fear black men. Black males don't act like men.
When you don't include something to make it clear that you didn't mean all, don't be shocked when people believe you meant all. See how that works.
Oh, I'm sorry. I post under the assumption that the people reading it are not idiots. My mistake.
So you are saying that all black males don't act like men? See how ridiculous it is to intentionally misrepresent something simply because there is no qualifier added?
And in the eyes of black women, all white males may be rapists. The way their parents warned them not to be noticed or get caught alone, that is a perfectly logical idea.
Seems you got then point I was making. Without the qualifier it can be taken to mean all. Sorry, son, but it's not my mistake for reading it in a manner you posted because you left out the qualifier.
In the eyes of many, all black men may not act like men. It's a logical idea when you see so many committing crimes, creating bastard children they don't take care of, and acting like savages in their daily routines. It's a perfectly logical conclusion. Perhaps you've heard of the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
YOu really are a nit-picky sort, aren't you? YOu latch on to one tiny bit and won't let go. Not anything pertinent to the topic, but just something you can badger the poster about. Well, you know what I meant now. I think I have made it abundantly clear.
It's not a tiny bit. It's the entire bit.
I know what you said. You only claim it meant something else when you were busted. I made it clear. You admitted your mistake. Thanks for playing.
It's just the hallmark of cowadice. Just like the rule against discussing conversations with mods about such things in the open board... If they were on the level they'd welcome the scrutiny.A post of MINE was actually deleted from this thread (without the mod who did it identifying him or herself) saying it was too "personal." Lol. After reading through, you can just see how arbitrarily the rules are applied.
If a moderator is going to delete a post, then he or she should have to identify themselves so that if I have a question or a comment, then I know who to direct it to. I am supposed to be able to argue my case with them privately and not have to make a public statement. Hello???
I think when a post is deleted, it should be replaced with a reason and the name of the person deleting it. This "secret" crap is nonsense.
It didn't have to be. When you say "White men", includes all white men.
I don't fear black men. Black males don't act like men.
When you don't include something to make it clear that you didn't mean all, don't be shocked when people believe you meant all. See how that works.
Oh, I'm sorry. I post under the assumption that the people reading it are not idiots. My mistake.
So you are saying that all black males don't act like men? See how ridiculous it is to intentionally misrepresent something simply because there is no qualifier added?
And in the eyes of black women, all white males may be rapists. The way their parents warned them not to be noticed or get caught alone, that is a perfectly logical idea.
Seems you got then point I was making. Without the qualifier it can be taken to mean all. Sorry, son, but it's not my mistake for reading it in a manner you posted because you left out the qualifier.
In the eyes of many, all black men may not act like men. It's a logical idea when you see so many committing crimes, creating bastard children they don't take care of, and acting like savages in their daily routines. It's a perfectly logical conclusion. Perhaps you've heard of the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
YOu really are a nit-picky sort, aren't you? YOu latch on to one tiny bit and won't let go. Not anything pertinent to the topic, but just something you can badger the poster about. Well, you know what I meant now. I think I have made it abundantly clear.
It's not a tiny bit. It's the entire bit.
I know what you said. You only claim it meant something else when you were busted. I made it clear. You admitted your mistake. Thanks for playing.
The only thing my original post said was "white men". That does not mean all white men. It simply means more than one white man.
And since it was brought up to describe why there are fewer black woman/white man couples than there are black man/white woman couples, it was a valid way of saying it. That you think it was the entire point is not my problem. It is yours.
It's just the hallmark of cowadice. Just like the rule against discussing coversations with mods about such things in the open board... If they were on the level they'd welcome the scrutiny.A post of MINE was actually deleted from this thread (without the mod who did it identifying him or herself) saying it was too "personal." Lol. After reading through, you can just see how arbitrarily the rules are applied.
If a moderator is going to delete a post, then he or she should have to identify themselves so that if I have a question or a comment, then I know who to direct it to. I am supposed to be able to argue my case with them privately and not have to make a public statement. Hello???
I think when a post is deleted, it should be replaced with a reason and the name of the person deleting it. This "secret" crap is nonsense.
Oh, I'm sorry. I post under the assumption that the people reading it are not idiots. My mistake.
So you are saying that all black males don't act like men? See how ridiculous it is to intentionally misrepresent something simply because there is no qualifier added?
And in the eyes of black women, all white males may be rapists. The way their parents warned them not to be noticed or get caught alone, that is a perfectly logical idea.
Seems you got then point I was making. Without the qualifier it can be taken to mean all. Sorry, son, but it's not my mistake for reading it in a manner you posted because you left out the qualifier.
In the eyes of many, all black men may not act like men. It's a logical idea when you see so many committing crimes, creating bastard children they don't take care of, and acting like savages in their daily routines. It's a perfectly logical conclusion. Perhaps you've heard of the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
YOu really are a nit-picky sort, aren't you? YOu latch on to one tiny bit and won't let go. Not anything pertinent to the topic, but just something you can badger the poster about. Well, you know what I meant now. I think I have made it abundantly clear.
It's not a tiny bit. It's the entire bit.
I know what you said. You only claim it meant something else when you were busted. I made it clear. You admitted your mistake. Thanks for playing.
The only thing my original post said was "white men". That does not mean all white men. It simply means more than one white man.
And since it was brought up to describe why there are fewer black woman/white man couples than there are black man/white woman couples, it was a valid way of saying it. That you think it was the entire point is not my problem. It is yours.
It implies that it could include all white men. I've had to educate you on the 19th Amendment. Why do you insist on being wrong again.
That you can't communicate does mean the receiver is wrong.
... most black men feel that the addition of white genes gives their children an advantage. Whereas most white men staunchly believe that breeding with blacks would do the exact opposite.
........
Seems you got then point I was making. Without the qualifier it can be taken to mean all. Sorry, son, but it's not my mistake for reading it in a manner you posted because you left out the qualifier.
In the eyes of many, all black men may not act like men. It's a logical idea when you see so many committing crimes, creating bastard children they don't take care of, and acting like savages in their daily routines. It's a perfectly logical conclusion. Perhaps you've heard of the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
YOu really are a nit-picky sort, aren't you? YOu latch on to one tiny bit and won't let go. Not anything pertinent to the topic, but just something you can badger the poster about. Well, you know what I meant now. I think I have made it abundantly clear.
It's not a tiny bit. It's the entire bit.
I know what you said. You only claim it meant something else when you were busted. I made it clear. You admitted your mistake. Thanks for playing.
The only thing my original post said was "white men". That does not mean all white men. It simply means more than one white man.
And since it was brought up to describe why there are fewer black woman/white man couples than there are black man/white woman couples, it was a valid way of saying it. That you think it was the entire point is not my problem. It is yours.
It implies that it could include all white men. I've had to educate you on the 19th Amendment. Why do you insist on being wrong again.
That you can't communicate does mean the receiver is wrong.
I communicate quite well, thank you.
And if by "educating me" you are referring to the fact that prior to the 19th amendment not all women in the US were allowed to vote, you are correct.
YOu really are a nit-picky sort, aren't you? YOu latch on to one tiny bit and won't let go. Not anything pertinent to the topic, but just something you can badger the poster about. Well, you know what I meant now. I think I have made it abundantly clear.
It's not a tiny bit. It's the entire bit.
I know what you said. You only claim it meant something else when you were busted. I made it clear. You admitted your mistake. Thanks for playing.
The only thing my original post said was "white men". That does not mean all white men. It simply means more than one white man.
And since it was brought up to describe why there are fewer black woman/white man couples than there are black man/white woman couples, it was a valid way of saying it. That you think it was the entire point is not my problem. It is yours.
It implies that it could include all white men. I've had to educate you on the 19th Amendment. Why do you insist on being wrong again.
That you can't communicate does mean the receiver is wrong.
I communicate quite well, thank you.
And if by "educating me" you are referring to the fact that prior to the 19th amendment not all women in the US were allowed to vote, you are correct.
You're 0 - 2.
It's not a tiny bit. It's the entire bit.
I know what you said. You only claim it meant something else when you were busted. I made it clear. You admitted your mistake. Thanks for playing.
The only thing my original post said was "white men". That does not mean all white men. It simply means more than one white man.
And since it was brought up to describe why there are fewer black woman/white man couples than there are black man/white woman couples, it was a valid way of saying it. That you think it was the entire point is not my problem. It is yours.
It implies that it could include all white men. I've had to educate you on the 19th Amendment. Why do you insist on being wrong again.
That you can't communicate does mean the receiver is wrong.
I communicate quite well, thank you.
And if by "educating me" you are referring to the fact that prior to the 19th amendment not all women in the US were allowed to vote, you are correct.
You're 0 - 2.
So you say. Remind me in December. I think I have some spare time then. I'll worry about it. And you keep attacking based on trivial nonsense. It suits you.
The only thing my original post said was "white men". That does not mean all white men. It simply means more than one white man.
And since it was brought up to describe why there are fewer black woman/white man couples than there are black man/white woman couples, it was a valid way of saying it. That you think it was the entire point is not my problem. It is yours.
It implies that it could include all white men. I've had to educate you on the 19th Amendment. Why do you insist on being wrong again.
That you can't communicate does mean the receiver is wrong.
I communicate quite well, thank you.
And if by "educating me" you are referring to the fact that prior to the 19th amendment not all women in the US were allowed to vote, you are correct.
You're 0 - 2.
So you say. Remind me in December. I think I have some spare time then. I'll worry about it. And you keep attacking based on trivial nonsense. It suits you.
It can be tracked on the forum.
Keep denying. It suits a coward like you.
So you say. Remind me in December. I think I have some spare time then. I'll worry about it. And you keep attacking based on trivial nonsense. It suits you.
It can be tracked on the forum.
Keep denying. It suits a coward like you.
Jeez dude, you really are hung up on this shit, aren't you? Track whatever you want. My statement stands. You want to keep going on about some nonsense, feel free. I'm going back to the topic.
If you want to stand on an incorrect statement, be my guest. Because it makes sense in the space between your ears doesn't mean it makes sense in the real world.
I'll stand behind what I have posted. You can keep trying to make it a real issue.
You'll stand behind a poorly written statement. That's your choice.
