Whoa Bruce...

[ChicosBailBonds]

Just one small edit, people are allowed to say whatever they want. (Except fire in a crowded theater...), but people have to deal with consequences of what they say, and what forum they choose to say it.  Freedom of speech is very misunderstood.  I am free to call my boss a jag, but I have to deal with his response.

Correct...I'm referencing the consequences....some people can say things with no or little consequences that if another person said the same thing would suffer severe consequences

[MR.HAYWARD]

Correct...I'm referencing the consequences....some people can say things with no or little consequences that if another person said the same thing would suffer severe consequences

please stop baiting the idiot.  unfortunately at the peak of the recruitng period when recruits are most assuredly looking at this board the village idiot insists on making post after retarded post and keeping this string at the top of the page.  if you stop responding to chicos he might hopefully go away and stop making marquette by extension look so unappealing

[Marquette84]

1. Never, anywhere do I or would I claim that accusations against the KKK are merely bogus claims of racism.

Fine.  You don't think the charges against the KKK were bogus.  Then you think that claims of faux outrage justify jokes about legitimate racism.   Its one or the other.  

Or is there some other reason you find the KKK and its actions funny enough to joke about?

2. Again, I never suggested that real racial injustices perpetrated by the KKK (or any other racist group) be ignored. Quite the contrary. Racism is a terrible blot on our coutry's history and the KKK is an integral part of that history.

And nobody said that you are claiming that racism should be ignored.

It's actually much worse--you claim we should JOKE ABOUT IT!!!!!

"Seems to me we could use more jokes and less posturing and faux outrage."

We actually COULD use less posturing and faux outrage.

But frankly, I can't see how someone would use that as their excuse to justify turning legitimate racism (not bogus racism or faux outrage) into a joking matter.

As to what subjects should be banned from any jokes/humor, you tell me. A list of what books to ban would also be helpful.

Well, lets start with the KKK and their actions.  You're having problems even finding THAT subject beyond joking.

Oh, and thaks for the lecture even if you (as is your wont) totally misinterpreted and mis represented my earlier posts.

I misreprestented nothing.  You think the KKK and its racism are acceptable matters for joking, and are taking people to task for suggesting otherwise:

+1000. There is far too much feigned outrage today. Those with a sense of humor understand that someone or some group is the butt of every joke and we all take turns. Unfortunately people looking to be offended or angry will usually find an excuse.

Now, I thought you said: "Never, anywhere do I or would I claim that accusations against the KKK are merely bogus claims of racism."

And yet, responding in a thread about the KKK, you claim that there is "far too much" feigned outrage.

People who are truly "un-PC" are comfortable with the fact that their jokes, opinions, etc are neither mean spirited nor bigoted. They understand that those (professional victims, race hustlers, the profoundly and excessively "guilty", etc) who point fingers at them are, in fact, trivializing true racism, bigotry, and cruelty. Thus the true "un-PC" cares not at all about these perceptions (misperceptions).

You, on the other hand, are VERY concerned with perceptions and are usually the first to point out how things might "look". Not the modus operandi of a true "non- PCer".

We're talking about the KKK, and you respond with a rant about professional victims, race hustlers, etc.).  Again, I thought you never said that the KKK was bogus.

While I agree with elements of your rant, the idea that any subject is off limits to humor is epitome of PC. There is nothing funny about alchoholism, drug addiction, sexual dysfunction, etc, etc, etc, but I've heard (and told) more than a few what I consider to be funny jokes on these and a myriad of other "unfunny" topics.

Perhaps this explains why you think legitimate racism is a laughing matter.

[Marquette84]

unfortunately at the peak of the recruitng period when recruits are most assuredly looking at this board the village idiot insists on making post after retarded post

Yet you're still here!

If you are truly concerned about recruits reading the rantings of the village idiot making post after stupid post, would you please go to Badgermaniac until recruiting season is over.  And take PRN with you.

Thank you in advance.

[Pakuni]

[Lennys Tap]

Fine.  You don't think the charges against the KKK were bogus.  Then you think that claims of faux outrage justify jokes about legitimate racism.   Its one or the other.  

Or is there some other reason you find the KKK and its actions funny enough to joke about?


And nobody said that you are claiming that racism should be ignored.

It's actually much worse--you claim we should JOKE ABOUT IT!!!!!

"Seems to me we could use more jokes and less posturing and faux outrage."

We actually COULD use less posturing and faux outrage.

But frankly, I can't see how someone would use that as their excuse to justify turning legitimate racism (not bogus racism or faux outrage) into a joking matter.


Well, lets start with the KKK and their actions.  You're having problems even finding THAT subject beyond joking.


I misreprestented nothing.  You think the KKK and its racism are acceptable matters for joking, and are taking people to task for suggesting otherwise:


Now, I thought you said: "Never, anywhere do I or would I claim that accusations against the KKK are merely bogus claims of racism."

And yet, responding in a thread about the KKK, you claim that there is "far too much" feigned outrage.


We're talking about the KKK, and you respond with a rant about professional victims, race hustlers, etc.).  Again, I thought you never said that the KKK was bogus.


Perhaps this explains why you think legitimate racism is a laughing matter.

Once more, slowly so you might understand. I don't find  racism to be a laughing matter. Nor do I fall down laughing about alchoholism, drug addiction, homophobia, famine, misogeny, or any crime considered a felony. But to suggest there is no humor to be found skewering racists (or race hustlers for that matter) is nonsense. Check out Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle's act sometime if you think race/racism is off limits.

One of your more annoying habits is to restate someone's remarks and claim they mean something that everyone else on the board knows they don't mean. ]Maybe that's why you engender so much scorn and so many IGNORES from the board.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yet you're still here!

If you are truly concerned about recruits reading the rantings of the village idiot making post after stupid post, would you please go to Badgermaniac until recruiting season is over.  And take PRN with you.

Thank you in advance.

Did Hayward really say this?   I wonder what recruits think about a MU graduate that is incapable of proper grammar?  A MU graduate that is so lazy he is incapable of capitalizing "I" when speaking about himself?  A MU graduate incapable of spelling the most simple of diction or to lazy to click on the button below that says "Spell Check".

Yes Hayward, you certainly are the poster boy of why recruits want to become a Marquette graduate.  

[MU B2002]

This story is now being talked about more on the scoop than the main news outlet in TN. I dont even remember seeing one editorial comment about it, which is rare for the Tennessean.  



Edit: Corrected my grammar.

[StillAWarrior]

I'm just curious, do you think the person who created this graphic intentionally misspelled "immediately" as part of the joke, or is that just some nice irony?  I don't know if you created the graphic Pakuni, so I don't know if you can answer that.

P.S. - I don't disagree with the sentiment expressed in the graphic.

[PE8983]

"A MU graduation incapable of spelling the most simple of diction or to lazy to click on the button below that says "Spell Check"."

You're lecturing people on grammar??? 

[Pakuni]

I'm just curious, do you think the person who created this graphic intentionally misspelled "immediately" as part of the joke, or is that just some nice irony?  I don't know if you created the graphic Pakuni, so I don't know if you can answer that.

P.S. - I don't disagree with the sentiment expressed in the graphic.

Didn't create it and didn't notice the spelling error.
Just liked the sentiment.

[MR.HAYWARD]

"A MU graduation incapable of spelling the most simple of diction or to lazy to click on the button below that says "Spell Check"."

You're lecturing people on grammar??? 

no different than any other string chicos........ is a running string of hypocrisies, feigning outrage, and completely bankrupt of any wisdom whatsoever.  Simply diarrhea of the mouth/keyboard  making himself look all the dumber in the process and anyone that reads his refuse dumber for reading it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

"A MU graduation incapable of spelling the most simple of diction or to lazy to click on the button below that says "Spell Check"."

You're lecturing people on grammar???  

Touche, though Hayward is guilty of it on nearly every post.  What do three question marks mean?   

[ChicosBailBonds]

This story is now being talked about more on the scoop than the main news outlet in TN. I dont even remember seeing one editorial comment about it, which is rare for the Tennessean.  



Edit: Corrected my grammar.

Rest assured, if the coach at Kentucky, Florida or Vanderbilt had said it, they would be commenting considerably.  The Tennessean protects their own.   All one needs to do is visit other SEC sites and they think Pearl is an idiot for saying this, but much of that is tied to their own hatred of another SEC school.

[MU B2002]

Rest assured, if the coach at Kentucky, Florida or Vanderbilt had said it, they would be commenting considerably.  The Tennessean protects their own.   All one needs to do is visit other SEC sites and they think Pearl is an idiot for saying this, but much of that is tied to their own hatred of another SEC school.

I disagree to an extent.
Because the Chicago papers never bash the Bears/Bulls/Cubs?  In fact there are 2 stories today on the front of the Tennesean blasting Fisher and the Titans.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I disagree to an extent.
Because the Chicago papers never bash the Bears/Bulls/Cubs?  In fact there are 2 stories today on the front of the Tennesean blasting Fisher and the Titans.

In my travels, large newspapers always take on their home teams whether it's Chicago, L.A., New York (especially NY).  Part of the game is the agitation between the media and the home team.  Smaller newspapers in smaller towns typically do not because they don't want to be squeezed out of access.  Granted, this happens more often in college towns but Nashville is a pseudo pro town.  They have the Titans and Predators, both barely a decade old in the city.  I just don't put Nashville in the typical large media category who attacks the home team all the time, they are much more lenient.  I expect that the Knoxville paper probably is doing handstands over Pearl and how great he is.

[MU B2002]

In my travels, large newspapers always take on their home teams whether it's Chicago, L.A., New York (especially NY).  Part of the game is the agitation between the media and the home team.  Smaller newspapers in smaller towns typically do not because they don't want to be squeezed out of access. 

Funny you bring this up...  my inside sources tell me the Titans have recently banned the local CBS affiliate for one year due to the situation regarding David Givens and his lawsuit. 

But this is obviously non-mu basketball related so I am done sidetracking this thread.

[MR.HAYWARD]

Funny you bring this up...  my inside sources tell me the Titans have recently banned the local CBS affiliate for one year due to the situation regarding David Givens and his lawsuit. 

But this is obviously non-mu basketball related so I am done sidetracking this thread.

yet another example of chicos saying one thing in one thread and then absolutely contadicting himself in his next.  this makes about 15 times he has done that in this thread alone.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Funny you bring this up...  my inside sources tell me the Titans have recently banned the local CBS affiliate for one year due to the situation regarding David Givens and his lawsuit. 

But this is obviously non-mu basketball related so I am done sidetracking this thread.

Interesting.

[Marquette84]

Once more, slowly so you might understand. I don't find  racism to be a laughing matter. Nor do I fall down laughing about alchoholism, drug addiction, homophobia, famine, misogeny, or any crime considered a felony. But to suggest there is no humor to be found skewering racists (or race hustlers for that matter) is nonsense. Check out Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle's act sometime if you think race/racism is off limits.

Why is it that you never explain yourself--you simply attack the messenger?

Earlier you said:
"Seems to me we could use more jokes and less posturing and faux outrage."

And now you say "I don't find racism to be a laughing matter."

Without attacking me, could you simply explain how you believe both these statements.  

How can you call for more jokes about something that you don't think is a laughing matter?

[Lennys Tap]

Why is it that you never explain yourself--you simply attack the messenger?

Earlier you said:
"Seems to me we could use more jokes and less posturing and faux outrage."

And now you say "I don't find racism to be a laughing matter."

Without attacking me, could you simply explain how you believe both these statements.  

How can you call for more jokes about something that you don't think is a laughing matter?

A sense of humor about life's vagarities (among them sickness, intolerance and even death) does not mean that one considers these or other serious subjects as "laughing matters". If you don't think these matters can be subjects that we can laugh at I suggest you stay in your room (with the tv and radio off). That way you won't be offended by every joke  that is not totally about the trivial. (almost every one there is). You are the epitome of PC, a scold who feels outrage on behalf of people who mostly couldn't care less. Your outrage stems not from a high moral ground but from a lack of a sense of humor.

[StillAWarrior]

A sense of humor about life's vagarities (among them sickness, intolerance and even death) does not mean that one considers these or other serious subjects as "laughing matters". If you don't think these matters can be subjects that we can laugh at I suggest you stay in your room (with the tv and radio off). That way you won't be offended by every joke  that is not totally about the trivial. (almost every one there is). You are the epitome of PC, a scold who feels outrage on behalf of people who mostly couldn't care less. Your outrage stems not from a high moral ground but from a lack of a sense of humor.

So...it's not a "laughing matter" but is it a "matter [that] can be [a] subject that we can laugh at."  I'll keep that in mind.

[Marquette84]

A sense of humor about life's vagarities (among them sickness, intolerance and even death) does not mean that one considers these or other serious subjects as "laughing matters". If you don't think these matters can be subjects that we can laugh at I suggest you stay in your room (with the tv and radio off). That way you won't be offended by every joke  that is not totally about the trivial. (almost every one there is). You are the epitome of PC, a scold who feels outrage on behalf of people who mostly couldn't care less. Your outrage stems not from a high moral ground but from a lack of a sense of humor.

Let the record show that you couldn't answer a simple question without turning it into a personal attack.


You say:
"A sense of humor about life's vagarities (among them sickness, intolerance and even death) does not mean that one considers these or other serious subjects as "laughing matters"."

So the KKK and its actions were just one of "life's vagarities" to you?   

Why do you continue to redefine the terms in order to defend the indefensible.  Pearl did not joke about sickness, intolerance or death.  He joked about the KKK. 

So we use the actual subject--not your redefinition--we get:
"A sense of humor about life's vagarities (among them the KKK, "wearing the hood" and even the lynching they committed) does not mean that one considers these or other serious subjects as "laughing matters"."

Doesn't allow you to be quite so smug, does it?

What does this mean, anyway?  They're not laughing matters yet one should have a sense of humor about them?  Sorry--I just don't get how those two can coexist.  That's what I asked you in the last post--you simply repeated them and launched into another personal attack.


We can do the same thing with this next statement of yours:  "If you don't think these matters can be subjects that we can laugh at I suggest you stay in your room"

Well, what matters do you think we're talking about here?  I think we're talking about the KKK and "wearing the hood."

Make the substitution yourself on this one.  Still willing to defend that statement? 



The bottom line is that every time you try to defend yourself, you water down the actual words with some less-offensive substitution. It's not racism--you use "these matters."   Its not the KKK, is "race hustlers".  Its not lynching and cross burning, its "sickness and intolerance and death". 

[Lennys Tap]

Let the record show that you couldn't answer a simple question without turning it into a personal attack.


You say:
"A sense of humor about life's vagarities (among them sickness, intolerance and even death) does not mean that one considers these or other serious subjects as "laughing matters"."

So the KKK and its actions were just one of "life's vagarities" to you?   

Why do you continue to redefine the terms in order to defend the indefensible.  Pearl did not joke about sickness, intolerance or death.  He joked about the KKK. 

So we use the actual subject--not your redefinition--we get:
"A sense of humor about life's vagarities (among them the KKK, "wearing the hood" and even the lynching they committed) does not mean that one considers these or other serious subjects as "laughing matters"."

Doesn't allow you to be quite so smug, does it?

What does this mean, anyway?  They're not laughing matters yet one should have a sense of humor about them?  Sorry--I just don't get how those two can coexist.  That's what I asked you in the last post--you simply repeated them and launched into another personal attack.


We can do the same thing with this next statement of yours:  "If you don't think these matters can be subjects that we can laugh at I suggest you stay in your room"

Well, what matters do you think we're talking about here?  I think we're talking about the KKK and "wearing the hood."

Make the substitution yourself on this one.  Still willing to defend that statement? 



The bottom line is that every time you try to defend yourself, you water down the actual words with some less-offensive substitution. It's not racism--you use "these matters."   Its not the KKK, is "race hustlers".  Its not lynching and cross burning, its "sickness and intolerance and death". 

You want it simple without analogies. Fine. Racism = not funny. Lynching = not funny. Murder = not funny. Making racists, lynchers, hood wearers or murderers the butt of a joke? This can be funny. If you don't believe me watch "Blazing Saddles", "O Brother, Where Art Thou?", or go to a Dave Chappelle or Chris Rock concert. Bruce Pearl's joke was a play on words (the hood vs hoods). In no way was he condoning the KKK or any of their actions. You certainly have the right to think his joke was unfunny or inappropriate. But your apoplectic reaction is way over the top.

[Lennys Tap]

So...it's not a "laughing matter" but is it a "matter [that] can be [a] subject that we can laugh at."  I'll keep that in mind.

Exactly. Watch "Blazing Saddles" as an illustration.