Ban (sorry, I meant Fire) 'em all, I say!

[mnaz]

Agreed Jimbo. I basically agreed to this earlier in the thread, and I shifted the talk more toward asking why people felt this particular shock jock should be silenced by his employer versus all the others. Sorry to be so sloppy in framing my question(s). I'll try to be more careful next time.

[mtmynd]

eyelid said: "Two points first... one, a dictionary is not a valid substitute for a rich, complex understanding of the language therein; one could read the OED for years and never become competent with the English language. Two, like most dictionary entries for disputed or heavily weighted social phenomena, these definitions are extremely broad and conservative."

If we cannot agree with a common definition of a word, we cannot expect to have a valid conversation/debate.

Enjoy your day, eyelid.

[Doreen Peri]

eylidless - ya gotta admit... you said to mtmynd, "it depends on your definition," he provided definitions, and instead of saying, "let's agree that this one definition is the definition we'll work with," (because you did say there was one of them which was the definition you were referring to)... what you did was to dismiss the other dictionary definitions in a rather abrupt tone.

I don't know if Cecil even read the rest of your reply from reading his last post.

Sighhhh...

To summarize it, Cecil, in case you're reading this, eyelidless said that he is not Deb and is not saying the same thing as Deb and asked that you don't bring baggage from other threads when talking to someone new. He also said that you've misinterpreted his posts.

I'll leave it there other than to say to eyelidlessone - Your method of debate can be perceived by readers as sometimes abrupt, and argumentative. That's just my perception after reading this thread and seeing people reply to you.

I get the feeling that this is the manner you're used to .... quoting every word the other person says.... then replying to it line by line. Maybe that's why I'm perceiving that other people may take it as abrupt like when you quote a line and say, "So?" I mean sorta sounds dismissive in text, no? It could, right? Like in "so what?" Though, I know what you mean by "So?" is probably, "Please elaborate on your point."

As everyone here knows and as you know, too, I'm sure, I'm not very good at confrontation and debate. I usually state my case then when people start arguing with me, get up and leave. LOL! That's because I can't stand arguing. Plays havoc with my nerves.

None of my business other than the fact that our only rule is to be kind to each other (and I know that's really subjective) and my comments are simply replying to how your style of debate on the net may be perceived as more abrupt than you intend.

When you said "If you think nappy-headed ho is funny, then you're a bigot dude!" ... well I realize that's a conversational style but just making a point that it could border on name calling. "People who think nappy-headed ho is funny are probably bigots" is really what you're saying. (not to put words in your mouth, just to say that it seems to me the more polite way to say it.... not to say you're concerned about being polite or anything. Maybe you're mother didn't bring you up to care about being polite, hehe... but that's what we try to do here, even during heated debates).

Sighhhh.... again... Just saying that I understand how Cecil could have misinterpreted your comments since he had, on a previous thread, been wrongly accused of bigotry just for liking a frickin TV show!!!!

Though I agree people should leave their baggage at the door in new discussions, since we're human, it's not all that easy to do sometimes.

Peace 'n' love. Sorry to butt in. Just my 2¢ about conversational styles.

Carry on .... and as I always say around here... be nice ok? LOL! But I KNOW you are!

[Doreen Peri]

one more comment...

It really IS a frickin TV show, IMO. Even though I didn't watch it, it's just a frickin TV show. There are way more important issues..... as we all know and I'm sure, agree.

[jimboloco]

Since I was "educated" in the AFROTC program at Michigan, 1965-69, I was excused from taking a required civics course, so had to research Wikepedia this morning and found out that freedumb of speech is a 1st amendment right. 4th amendment is about unlawful searches and seizures.

Fortunately I also learned about dissent.

Anyhow, Doreen, am not upset that you describe this Imus deal as a freediom of speech matter. You made me think about it.

Mnaz, if the issue is about the right of MSNBC to fire Imus, then we will get to see this play out as he has been good enough to file suit.

I remember a clip on Hardball last summer, during the Israeli-Hezbollah war. Amy Goodman stated Phil Donahue was fired because he presented an anti-war view, which Chris Matthhews denied.
You're right it's show biz. And Matthews did ask why American pop culture was more interested in shit can't remember his name, the anti-Semetic drunkenness of the macho dude who made Passion of Kerizrt, than the air war on Lebanon.

Show biz.
A little hard to follow thhe numerous quotes. I wound up skipping the quotes and tried to read the posts inbetween.

I was struck by Doreen's assertion about freedom of speech and so responded to that.

K.I.S.S.

tarbaby didn't watch the show
was sad to see him go
i watched the show
was glad to see him go

go figure
at least i had a spiritual awakening.
the lotus flower has roots in the mud.

[mnaz]

btw...

I guess I'm not so quick to allow that other shock humorists using heavily racial material laced with racial slurs and stereotyping to make irreverent satirical points about racism constitute "good" racial humor. Perhaps at times. But a lot of it is pretty low grade stuff, especially from Carlos Mencia.