Is this commenter serious? Wow! It’s not surprising that some backwards extremist still think like this. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that they can’t keep their mouth shut. Oh and a side note you write a great blog and I enjoy your tweets. Keep up the great work and the good fight.
-J. Andy Lambert (soon to be CP)
Aspiring Attorney
north dallas lawyer
April 2, 2009 at 8:41 am - Reply
Anon, 7:02
It is extremely inappropriate for you to associate that type of language with the [redacted]. And if you are going to do it, have the balls to post your actual name. Don’t be a coward.
Ya know, when I was growing up here in Texas – 65 years ago – my granny used the term “NIgger” quite frequently, as did the rest of my family. The definition of the word that I learned from them, aunts, uncles, mother and grandmother, was that a nigger was a no-account, lazy, shiftless, bum who refused to work. Race or color didn’t enter into it.
I learned something else from my rural family too, the important thing is character and attitude. Color, religion, nationality or a persons social status was something that made that person just that much more interesting.
When I think of it, the people that I went to church with were a lot like that too.
Too bad we aren’t like that today.
Sorry, but that “[r]ace or color didn’t enter into it” dog just won’t hunt. No white child ever came home from school crying after being called a nigger.
Dear Collin: “It is extremely inappropriate for you to associate that type of language with the [redacted]. ” Huh? There was no inaprropriate language used in the post and the post merely trails preceded it. You made an inappropriated assumption of what Bennett redacted. In addition, Bennett’s comment was disengenuous in that it supported your mistaken presumption. Also, I don’t work for HCDA and and I won’t respond to the foul and inappropriate language that is apparently endorsed by Bennett and other blog hosts.
You are welcome to say just about anything you want here, provided that you sign your name to it. If you choose to remain anonymous, you’re generally still welcome to comment as long as you refrain from ad hominem attacks.
Collin reasonably read your post as associating Ms. Redacted and her husband with the type of language used by the commenter. As did I. I’d love to see another explanation for the implication you intended, but the ruling stands.
north dallas lawyer
April 2, 2009 at 12:43 pm - Reply
Dear Still Anonymous:
Give me a break. Your post clearly insinuated (even if jokingly) that the aforementioned people could have posted the comment made the basis of Mark’s thread on this subject.
No other explanation is necessary and I did not ask for a ruling. Your assumption of what was intended by the comment is reaching and it remains in error, but further discussion is fruitless. We’lll have to leave it a disagreement. Let’s move on, shall we?
Another case of “good old days” syndrome. As discriminating (ahem) as your family might’ve been back then with that term, I can promise you that most of the people who used it then generally overapplied it to include all blacks, and that anybody who uses it today probably does the same.
As to the commentator who prompted this post…imagine that guy getting on a jury somewhere. Do you think he’s a free with his opinions about various races before judges, as he is on the intertubes?
Is this commenter serious? Wow! It’s not surprising that some backwards extremist still think like this. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that they can’t keep their mouth shut. Oh and a side note you write a great blog and I enjoy your tweets. Keep up the great work and the good fight.
-J. Andy Lambert (soon to be CP)
Aspiring Attorney
On the bright side, it’s nice to know that Henry Wade reads your blog.
And [redacted] and her husband!
Anon, 7:02
It is extremely inappropriate for you to associate that type of language with the [redacted]. And if you are going to do it, have the balls to post your actual name. Don’t be a coward.
Collin Dean Kennedy
[Point well taken. Thanks, Collin. MB.]
Ya know, when I was growing up here in Texas – 65 years ago – my granny used the term “NIgger” quite frequently, as did the rest of my family. The definition of the word that I learned from them, aunts, uncles, mother and grandmother, was that a nigger was a no-account, lazy, shiftless, bum who refused to work. Race or color didn’t enter into it.
I learned something else from my rural family too, the important thing is character and attitude. Color, religion, nationality or a persons social status was something that made that person just that much more interesting.
When I think of it, the people that I went to church with were a lot like that too.
Too bad we aren’t like that today.
Sorry, but that “[r]ace or color didn’t enter into it” dog just won’t hunt. No white child ever came home from school crying after being called a nigger.
It’s scary to remember that people who believe that could end up on a jury. (If they don’t talk about it during voire dire).
Dear Collin: “It is extremely inappropriate for you to associate that type of language with the [redacted]. ” Huh? There was no inaprropriate language used in the post and the post merely trails preceded it. You made an inappropriated assumption of what Bennett redacted. In addition, Bennett’s comment was disengenuous in that it supported your mistaken presumption. Also, I don’t work for HCDA and and I won’t respond to the foul and inappropriate language that is apparently endorsed by Bennett and other blog hosts.
You are welcome to say just about anything you want here, provided that you sign your name to it. If you choose to remain anonymous, you’re generally still welcome to comment as long as you refrain from ad hominem attacks.
Collin reasonably read your post as associating Ms. Redacted and her husband with the type of language used by the commenter. As did I. I’d love to see another explanation for the implication you intended, but the ruling stands.
Dear Still Anonymous:
Give me a break. Your post clearly insinuated (even if jokingly) that the aforementioned people could have posted the comment made the basis of Mark’s thread on this subject.
No other explanation is necessary and I did not ask for a ruling. Your assumption of what was intended by the comment is reaching and it remains in error, but further discussion is fruitless. We’lll have to leave it a disagreement. Let’s move on, shall we?
Too bad we aren’t like that today.
Another case of “good old days” syndrome. As discriminating (ahem) as your family might’ve been back then with that term, I can promise you that most of the people who used it then generally overapplied it to include all blacks, and that anybody who uses it today probably does the same.
As to the commentator who prompted this post…imagine that guy getting on a jury somewhere. Do you think he’s a free with his opinions about various races before judges, as he is on the intertubes?