I've noticed that commercials and sitcoms
love making men look like absoulute baffons,
while women are the brains of the family.
More disturbing, female on male domestic violence
is considered funny, and it has gotten so bad
that they have skits of women plunging forks
into a man's arm, and then they play a laugh track
after it. As for public-service ads, I can't
count the amount of commercials that protray
a man as a violent brute, and the woman
as victim. I can't remember even one commercial
I have seen in my life that showed things the
other way around, even though studies were done
that showed women commit atleast half of all
domestic violence against their man.

This is sick, and it shows the bigotry,
and how clueless the media, and society in
general is about men and women. I want to see
an end to this nonsense once and for all.

That should've read "against their spouse"

You know something Nog, I think you have a point. It's knocking down men for the benefit of women. Although Yorkie (a brand of chocolate bar here in the UK) have fought back with their 'It's Not For Girls' slogan....

We've swung too far the other way. Yes, we needed to get people to realize that men beat up on women and something needed to be done about it, but now it's time to point out that it's not ALL men.

And it's not all men. It's white men. White men have become the whipping posts, I suppose in response to all the oppression that the white men did - you know, those guys that are dead now, not the ones who are trying very hard to play fair? One thing I liked about Home Improvement is that they got away from that. At the beginning, he was an idiot and she was always right - that was his schtick, and it was funny. But, after awhile, they realized that it was cliche, and he got to be right sometimes, and she was wrong. To me, that made it an even better show.

Then again, I was reading an article about Tracy Gold, and she said one of the things that led to her anorexia was all the jokes on her show about her being fat. She was fighting it, the PTB knew she was fighting it, she was winning (which is why she was a little chubby), and every show had a joke about her being fat.
I was watching a blooper show, and one 'overweight' woman was supposed to say, How do I stay so slim. And she said, How do I stay so slim and sexy, and she decided to keep that line. And I agreed; she may have been robust, but she's a very attractive woman.

It sounds like I've gotten off-topic, but I really haven't. It's time to make everybody off-limits as the whipping posts, and make everybody equal targets. We all have things that make us funny - whether it's PC to mention it or not. So let's see some equal opportunity bashing!

First of all, there is little man bashing in the media. Many men act in very juvenile ways. I'll give some examples:

My husband sometimes goes to baseball and basketball games with some of his friends from work. One of those friends is a Republican who is rude and disrespectful to me. My husband tries to excuse his insulting behavior as jokes. Such a insensitive man deserves to be criticised. The Bush voter is also a negative influence; he's vulgar and likes junk food. Is it wrong to criticise someone who likes unhealthy food.? No. When I tell him he's fat and needs to excercise and eat healthy I'm trying to offer good advice. Men shouldn't take constructive criticism as insults.

I also don't like how men don't have intellectual converstations. I 've noticed that my husband and his friends talk about lowbrow things such as sports and cars. When I'm with my girlfriends, we talk about the great issues of the day: politics, international events, breakthroughs in science, and which Republican is the most disgusting. I would appreciate men being a bit more high brow.

Is it wrong to criticise someone who likes unhealthy food? Well, it depends on the context of the conversation. If he solicits your advice or participation in a discussion that pertains to the subject, then you have every right to be honest with him. However, I personally don't find it acceptable to force one's opinions onto someone else who either doesn't want them or didn't ask for them or who has expressed lack of interest in them. I agree that our society is too fat (I lost 20 lbs. since last year, but I would still like to lose another 40), and there's nothing wrong with advising one to consider healthier habits, but I telling someone they're fact and need to exercise, particularly when phrased in that blunt a manner, is an extremely offensive thing to say. I just hope when you offer this advice, you do so in a reasonable manner. Otherwise, it's not constructive.

In a similar etiquette-related vein, I abstain from certain forms of humor if in the company or home of someone who finds it offensive. If this is what your husband's friend is doing, then he should not do this, but you need to inform him of the way you feel first.

Your last paragraph, however, is extremely prejudiced and misandrist. Men most certainly have intellectual conversations, which you can see here at Nitcentral, on TV, on the radio, in the media, etc. I don't see conversations about sports, cars, or what my favorite writer or illustrator is doing in comic books or movies to be "low-brow" (and I'm not even into sports, mind you), but even if it is, why does this preclude also having discussions on politics in society? Why does it have to be one or the other? Can't some men have conversations on both "fluffy" subjects and "hard" ones? Conversely, you're saying that there aren't women that also engage in the sort of superficial conversations you describe? These statements of yours are flat-out sexist, and hardly appear to be very "intellectual".

Luigi, you're fact!

Actually, I think that would be "phact"!

Rona, it's been my experience that the women who have high-brow conversations are the ones who hang around with guys a lot. Girly girls who hang around in groups of other women always seem to be the ones who giggle and talk about nothing but purses and shoes and don't even know who Karl Rove is. BTW before any other women flame me, I'm not trying to be like Rona and say all women are like that, just that seems to be what I see a lot of.

Everyone knows that feminists tend to be intellectuals. That's why men are intimidated by them. Their range of interests is broader than a sweaty man throwing a ball on some sports team.

Incorrect on several counts. "Feminists" are not neccesarily intellectuals, nor do they even have to be female. Anyone who believe that the places of women and men in society should be equal is a feminist. Thus, I am a feminist. Surprise!

Second, if I was intimidated by intellectuals, I probably wouldn't have gone to the college that I chose, but stayed in town and attended the local state college.

Third, would it be worth it at all to point out that a) not all men are interested in sports, and that b) not all men who are interested in sports don't have a wider range of interests? Or are you going to stick to your incredibly broad, and false, set of generalizations?

Rona: Everyone knows that feminists tend to be intellectuals.
Luigi Novi: No, everyone does not know that. It's your assertion, one for which you provide no evidence.

Funny because one of the most independant women who I know is also a big sports fan. She can spend quite a lot of time discussing sweety men throwing a ball while I personally don't spend enough time watching sports to know what she's talking about half of the time. Oh and as for high-brow vs low-brow the two of us can spend hours discussing both cheesy action and horror films, music and even quite a bit about politics. And as an independant women most of her friends are guys because by her own admission she feels that lots of females back-stab, gossip and don't really have that much of interest to say.

First, a passion for baseball? I've been to professional baseball teams' games. They are the most boring things on Earth. The players spend most of the time standing around doing nothing; the games are structured for tv including all those wasted minutes when they do nothing during commercial breaks. Go watch a women's softball game, it's more entertaining. Then we come to the fans; they're loud, rude, and vulgar. Stop assuming that the opinions expressed come from me only. New York magazine published an article listing all the things that are too low brow for Jews. Somethings are low brow. Deal with reality.

I never said that men weren't intellectuals. I just stated that when they are together, their conversations drift towards the low brow. Sociologists acknowledge that women have a civilizing effect on men. Face up to that fact. Men are the ones who rape, commit group violence, start wars. Don't direct hostility towards the innocent and victims. When Andrea Dworkin had the courage to state these views publically, she was viciously attacked by Right-wing males who wanted to maintain the status quo. Why am I attacked for saying the "Old Boys Club" isn't so wonderful? At progressive women's sites, there is no controversy. Some people need to broaden their viewpoints. I shouldn't have to face the same attitudes Andrea faced 30 years ago.

. New York magazine published an article listing all the things that are too low brow for Jews

And that *HAD* to have been a humor piece, because otherwise they would have had their @sses sued off.

Go watch a women's softball game, it's more entertaining.

I do watch them.

Oh and Rona, please feel free to say baseball is boring. Many people have that opinion. I, on the other hand, find it exciting, both the play and the cerebral portion of it (and yes, there is one). You don't like baseball? Don't watch it, but don't begrudge me the things I enjoy.

Watch 20 minutes of cricket on ESPN3. You'll never think anything is as boring as it was before.

Don't forget curling! Watching guys as they brush the ice before the sliding stone... Even when you leave the announcer on instead of muting it, there's no excitment like during a soccer game.

Intellectualism and “Boring”
Rona, the fact that you find baseball boring is a point that is entirely separate from the question of whether it’s enjoyed by intellectuals. Wouldn’t you say that there are many things enjoyed by intellectuals that others might find boring, like chess, debating, or foreign films? I’m not sure how your personal opinion on baseball (one which I share, since I’m not into sports at all myself) translates into whether lends itself to enjoyment by intellectuals. Your statement about woman’s softball being more entertaining is also an opinion, and again, how entertaining it is has nothing to do with whether it is enjoyed by intellectuals. Why does it not occur to you that intellectuals can enjoy diverse types of entertainment, of which baseball may indeed be one?

Structured for Television
Baseball has been around since the mid/late 1800’s, whereas televised baseball only began to concentrate viewers to the sport in the 1950s and 1960s, so the statement that baseball is “structured” for TV would not appear to be borne out by the facts, unless you’re saying that the game was fundamentally changed in some way to accommodate the medium, of which I am not aware.

Fans
The statement “They’re loud, rude and vulgar” is clearly a prejudicial statement, since without any qualifier (“some of them,” “a lot of them”), it implies the whole. Obviously, not all sports fans are like this. Many truly enjoy the sport. What about fathers and families that take their kids to see the games to teach them about the national past time? It’s unfortunate that there are some crude hooligans that fit the description you describe, but why tarnish the entire group with that same brush? Why do you have to judge entire groups by the example of a crude few?

Opinions and Reality
Whether these opinions come “only from you” is not the issue, nor has anyone stated or implied any such thing. The issue of contention seems to be the manner in which you make broad, sweeping statements directed at entire groups of people you’ve never gotten to know, a behavior that most people would find intellectually untenable at best, and offensive at worst. As far as New York magazine, I seriously doubt that they published any article that asserted what is “too low brow for Jews,” or that baseball was one of the things among them, or that it cannot be enjoyed by intellectuals. Even if they did, this does not constitute “reality”, but an opinion. But if you can cite that particular issue, I would definitely like to read it. Should it be shown that the article actually states what you said it does, I will revise my statement and concede that you were correct in that assertion, much as I’ve done in the past when you or someone else has pointed out a mistake I’ve made.

Men and Intellectualism
No, you didn’t say that men weren’t intellectuals, but in your Oct. 18, 7:11pm post, you said “I also don't like how men don't have intellectual converstations.” Can you not see how others may interpret that type of statement? And your insistence that their conversations tend to drift toward the lowbrow when they are together continues to be unsupported by any scientific evidence that you have provided. It is reasonable to state that many men’s and women’s conversations drift toward the lowbrow, and that many men’s and women’s conversations drift toward the highbrow. Individual members of both genders are diverse, after all, different members of both of those genders have conversations that differ not only from individual to individual, but from conversation to conversation. I would curious to know how big a pool of participants you studied to arrive at this conclusion, and what methods you employed when doing so.

Miscellanous
I would not necessarily disagree with the notion that women have a civilizing effect on men, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with your statements about men’s conversations, intellectualism or sports.

Yes, men rape, commit violence and start wars, but also save lives, conduct scientific research, create most of history’s inventions and innovations, produce cures for diseases, etc. And only a small percentage of men do either one of these things. And while I do not know the extent sexual violence committed by women on other adults, we know that many child molesters are female. If men, as a group, are to be criticized for their failings, they should also be judged by their accomplishments as well. It is reasonable to say the same about women.

No one here has directed hostility towards anyone. We’ve merely refuted your statements by explaining why we feel they do not hold up under the scrutiny of logic and evident facts. In the same vein, you were not attacked for saying “the Old Boys Club isn’t so wonderful” for the simple reason that you did not say any such thing in the original Oct. 18 post of yours that began this thread. That phrase doesn’t even appear on this board until your most recent post on October 21. (Had you actually made that statement, I’d imagine many, if not all of those inclined to reply to your posts, such as myself, would’ve agreed with it.) What we’ve said is that we disagree with your statements about men and women, their conversations, intellectualism and baseball. That is not an “attack.” It’s a refutation of a statement. Please stop pretending that having your arguments refuted constitutes an “attack.” It doesn’t. If you cannot handle people pointing out why your arguments are poorly made or fallacious, then it would behoove you to form better-made arguments, perhaps ones that are informed by scientific evidence that directly support the specific statements you make, and to which you can explicitly point us. While whether a majority disagrees with you does not, in and of itself, mean that you are wrong and they are right, it is reasonable to state that when so many people of diverse backgrounds and persuasions take issue with your statements, as has occurred here, that one might consider the question of whether their opposing viewpoints have merit, and whether the statements they take issue with are indeed flawed in some way. Indeed, you yourself pointed out that you are not the only one who holds the opinions that you express here, using New York magazine as an example. But by the same logic, everyone who has replied to your posts here has done so by disagreeing with them. So if the number of people who hold an opinion or disagree with it helps determine its validity, then wouldn’t the fact that everyone disagrees with you here be a valid point of consideration? And do you not acknowledge that conclusions you’ve expressed here are probably not held by the majority of people in general?

I think the people here on this board do a good job of “broadening their viewpoints,” inasmuch as I’ve never seen them making the broad, sweeping prejudicial statements about the opposite sex or about the people of a certain religion that you have, Rona. ScottN, for example, is also a practicing Jew, and likes baseball, but by your estimation (and despite previously declaring your respect for him on another board), he is “low brow.”

I’d like to make clear that I’m not attempting to “attack” you, Rona. I simply disagree with many of your statements here, and attempting to explain why I feel that they do not hold up empirically, and may constitute a severe judgment of entire groups of people.

Rona,
The issue of sports isn't trivial to me. My husband wants my daughter to be a jock. I won't stand for that. She is exceptionally gifted and her teachers praise her for her intelligence. Beyond her own achievements, much of the credit must go to me. I insist on keeping a proper intellectual climate for her. I limit her television and don't let her play video games. I insist that she read science books and visit museums. I will not have her wasting endless hours on mindless sports. It's enough that I allow my husband to go to games and get that sports junk out of his system. I won't allow my daughter to participate in a culture which disrespects women. Most male athletes don't respect women. They think a woman's place in life is to be gagging on a man (Viking's boat trip, exhibit A).

What you say there seriously worries me for your daughter (although I don't know her personally). As a woman, who was dragged into museums and visit operas and the like, because my father considered it high-brow, I know how easy children can learn to hate this stuff if you make them do it. (My mother listens to classic music and watches theater because she likes it, and goes to museums because she's interested in them. That was a valuable balance for me as a child.)

If you want your daughter to develop her existing intellect, then don't force her - show her. Let her develop her interests. Show and entice her natural (for all children) curiosity about things. Make interesting situations. And encourage her to think.

And show her how to think logical by doing so yourself. The daily example of how parents cope with their own life and deal with the many daily problems - and how they treat their partners! - sets up a much bigger example for a child then all the serious lectures and discussions given to them, or serious mottos proclaimed, but not followed.
If your arguing style is flawed, your daughter won't learn logical thinking from you, but running into full hate mode.

As fellow woman, I can understand the frustration at the way men (and the current state of the world) are. As somebody who has a temperament, I can understand about going off. But that makes me an easy target to dismiss, because when I'm upset, I loose the coolness to argue logical and convincingly.
If you want to strengthen your daughter, train with her to stay cool in discussions, how to spot and expose logical fallacies, how to argue rationally. (Yes, that's not a 100% proof way, because many debates are taken over by some yahoos who enjoy shouting - it takes less effort. But the people who count make their opinion based on rational arguments.)

And why should your daughter not play sports? This will make her think she's not able to measure up to the guys. There are many other sports beside baseball. How about soccer? No violence, but lots of tactic. Or some martial arts, like Jujitsu, so she can defend herself? Rock-climbing is recommended to give children self-confidence (with trained instructors from the Alpine Club, of course, and ropes. I liked it). Cycling in the nature? Mountaineering?

If you want your daughter to be strong and self-assured in a still unequal world, teach her encourgament, but not hate. Hate is a waste of time, energy and concentration. It ties you to the object you're hating, instead of moving on. Teach her to discern between man that are bad, and man that are okay, and woman that are bad, and woman that are okay. Otherwise, she'll be betrayed by a back-stabbing woman, and distrust a good guy because he's male.

Lastly, show her how a strong, confident woman is by being one in your own relationship. If you think your husband is a good person, then respect him as fellow human being with good and bad sides, and different interests. If you think your husband is a bad male, then leave him.
(I have experience with both - the marriage between my mother and father was bad, because my father was denigrating my mother, and I always told her to get a divorce, which she's finally done. But my fiance is a good, nice, sensible man. He's interested in soccer, which I find boring, I'm interested in Star Trek, Star Wars, Hulk, and so on, which he finds boring and clichee. But I don't allow him his interests, and he doesn't allow me mine - we are two equal persons. Nobody needs to allow anything, because we know that we have some different interests because humans aren't cookie-cuttered. And most of our interests are similar.)

Hi, Roving Mod here. I dumped a handful of posts and feel like I should explain why and my criteria. I basically tried to pick out the posts that were mostly directed at POSTERS and not concepts. Rona's first few posts I didn't dump despite some requests because I didn't perceive them as dumpworthy. I personally find them offensive and poorly argumented, but that's in itself not criteria for dumping. Calling posters, specific posters, sexist or chauvinist IS.

Note: I may have deleted some innocuous posts that just didn't make sense without the other ones. If you feel like your post got the bum's rush, please e-mail me with pithy comments (the address is available on contact--I'm mcheyne and then add @nitcentral.com). No bloviating, though.

Rona I have a daughter too. My wife and I both want her to grow up with a healthy attitude about life and what interests her. She plays with dolls and her brothers tonka trucks. She likes going to a nature museum or parks and likes goign to the demolition derby at the fair. She likes listening to music of all kinds (We did the play music while in the womb thing, course we played Skynard, charlie daniels and hank jr as well as the usual mozart and stuff) and we consider her to be a wonderful and bright person. She is appreciated by her teachers and considered quite bright for her age (7) as we have never allowed anyone to talk down to her or babytalk her (or our son either). So if our daughter grows up and is happy in her life then we will consider that a great and rousing sucess. Whatever she decides to do if it is be a nurse, ballarena or truck driver.

But forcing a child to go down only one path and ignoring any others is not a great way to bring a child up. It could cause some very major friction. One of my friends had his dad try and force him down the path to take over the family farm after goign through the military and basically force his son to live his life the same way he lived his. From the day he turned 18 to the day my friend's dad died they did not speak or even acknowledge each others existence. And he doesnt miss him or care anything.

Oh a few more rambles before i amble off. My wife and I have many things in common and many things not. I don't "let" her do her thing and she don't "let" me do mine. We understand that we are each adults and while being together is great and wonderful we need a bit of space on occasion to do our own thing. I'm not a big sports fan except nascar. All my wife knows about nascar is that the cars go fast turn left. She reads romance novels, all i do is look for the naughty bits in them, but I do read quite a bit of other stuff (right now methuselahs children by RAH) and she has been branching out a bit since we got married.We both like target shooting and she has her own 9mm. (What is funny is she is joking about getting her CCW and getting a derringer for her to keep in her bodice, though she could carry a 9mm in there :-) )
But anyhow basically I wanna try and explain or state that not all men are the hulking uncultured brutes that you are broadly painting and not all women are the figures of refinement and culture that you are extolling. I am a very complex and mutlifaceted person with many diverse interests. So is my wife. And if I did try and control her or tell her what to do or she tried to tell me what to do it could be rather unpleasant to be around as we both are also posessing of quite strong tempers. So we have our lives and have over time worked out a method by which we love and care and would give each other anythign and everythign we can.

And as for our children we show them the world, we guide them into things that are safe and appropriate for their ages (right now firearms and blades for them are no touch items, when they get older we'll get them involved in arms training) and basically try and put the world in front of them like a buffet and see what they choose. Hopefully they'll go the way we would like them to but as long as they are able to stand on their own two feet and be able to be happy and comfortable in their lives doing what they wanna do then thats great.

Heck I am an aethiest and hate religion with a passion but my mother teaches the kids the bible stories and we get them veggietales (which I actually do approve of as they are not pushy with their religion) but I want my kids to be able to make their own minds up about that. I do not hide my feeligns about religion and try to explain why I feel the way i do as does mother and my wife. Basically communication is the most vitally important thing.

And sorry for going so far from topic but i was in the middle of a thought stream and thats just the way thigns went.

Rona: I won't allow my daughter to participate in a culture which disrespects women. Most male athletes don't respect women. They think a woman's place in life is to be gagging on a man.
Luigi Novi: You do not know what most male athletes respect or think. You have not met them, interviewed or studied them, and are classifying the entire group on the basis of a few miscreants whose questionable activities have made the news. Judging an entire group of people in this way is wrong, and hardly "intellectual."

I probably need to be more mindful of the cultural divide in this country. Sometimes I don't know where someone is coming from. For instance, one individual was very outspoken in defending the violent schlock film "Kill Bill". I later learned that the individual was a "Dukes of Hazzard" fan. I guess we all have our own ideas of culture. He lives in a different cultural world. While I would walk by DVDs of "Hee-Haw" in a store, he would stop and salivate. Is it wrong to be honest? No.

Don't attack me as if I'm being unfair. Many commentators wrote about the nature of sports and male athletes, espescially after the basketball brawl earlier this year in which several athletes attacked fans. Some questioned why we are idolising adult men for playing "children's games". Let's be honest, most professional sports are just adult men playing children's games. Just because it is so commercialised and people are making tons of money from it doesn't make it any better.

The culture of male sports has been examined by commentators from all walks of life. Many feminists have denounced the extremely sexist attitudes that are prevalent. Am I to applaud Wilt Chamberlin for sleeping with 20,000 women? Why is it wrong for me to feel that the man is disgusting? The disrepect for women extends beyond their "groupies". I remember reading about an incident in the locker room when a male athlete put his crotch in the face of a seated female reporter. Obviously, he was hoping for a "gagger". Why did he never feel the need to put his crotch in a male reporter's face. The sexist athlete couldn't even respect a woman doing her job. Bigot are bigots. Professional male athletes are also notoriously homophobic.

Many young school age athletes are continuing the trend. The news has been filled with reports of male students raping female students. One particulary ugly incident involved male athletes targeting an emotionally troubled girl to abuse. It will only get worse. Many young males (as shown on Oprah) now openly express the attitude that women exist only to orally gratify men.

Please don't expect me to be deferential, and say how wonderful male athletes are. They most definately aren't in my eyes. My friend Julie is a genius, she also agrees with me.

First of all, I would like to point out that sports are not "children's games". Yes, they're games, but that doesn't automatically mean children should be the only ones playing them. In fact, I'd say children shouldn't even be playing some of the rougher ones (e.g. rugby).

And another thing, the attitudes that some males have on women is not unique to athletes. There are many men, both athletes and not, who view women as you described. We hear the stories about the athletes because those events are of note. If an average, off of the street male rapes a woman it's less likely to be widely reported because it's a more common event.

A great majority of male athletes and non-athletes, however, view and treat women with the proper respect to which they are entitled.

Agreed Josh. There are quite a few more stories that don't make the big time news or even the small time news because which sells more air time job bob nobody beats and rapes a woman for the third time this year. Or Big name athlete/celebrity rapes woman/beats woman.

Remember the news is a business. Its not just about telling you what happened, its about telling you the most sensational bit of what happened that falls within the spin the media owners have and want.

And rugby shouldnt even really be considered a game, more of an organized street brawl. (My friends and I tried it once in high school when we had an exchange student from britain. It didnt go too well.)

Rona: One individual was very outspoken in defending the violent schlock film "Kill Bill". I later learned that the individual was a "Dukes of Hazzard" fan. I guess we all have our own ideas of culture. He lives in a different cultural world. While I would walk by DVDs of "Hee-Haw" in a store, he would stop and salivate. Is it wrong to be honest? No.
Luigi Novi: And yet you deliberately state a falsehood here. I stated quite clearly that I liked Dukes of Hazzard when I was a kid. I have not seen it since, nor have I seen the recent film version.

Nor have I ever seen Hee Haw, though I wouldn't disparage anyone else's taste if they did, for that very reason.

So much for it being wrong to be "honest" Rona. Keep trying to trollishly misrepresent what I say, and I'll keep exposing your lies. Not to mention the fact that you also made a veiled insult toward me on that board in that same post, and refused to respond when I asked you why you did so on the War of the Worlds board, after you commented on that board that I had somehow insulted you.

You're not being “attacked.” Your statements are merely being refuted. Stop pretending that having your arguments refuted or your lies exposed makes you a victim of some sort. It doesn't. You have now repeated an unsupported lie about me, and you’re being held responsible for it.

As for other miscellaneous points:

-None of the commentators you mention said anything about “male athletes not respecting women,” or “thinking a woman’s place in life is to be gagging on a man.” Those are your words, not theirs.

-Whether professional sports are children’s games is an opinion you’re entitled to (though I wonder why children’s games are the equivalent of race car driving, the triathalon, the decathalon, marathons, the Tour de France, martial arts, skydiving, kayaking, skiing, swimming, etc.) But holding that opinion doesn’t make on “honest,” nor does not sharing it make them dishonest. It just means I have a different opinion than yours.

-You’re not wrong to feel that Wilt Chamberlain is disgusting. You’re wrong for assuming that all athletes are just like him, since that’s nothing more than a prejudiced assumption.

-You say “bigots are bigots” in regard to male athletes disrespect toward women and homosexuals. And yet you have no problem displaying the same attitude towards male athletes yourself, since you assume they all act that way.

-In what area has the news been “filled” with reports of male athlete rape? If it’s been thus filled in Massachusetts, perhaps you should consider that it’s not that way in the rest of the country. Though I suspect it’s just another gross exaggeration on your part.

-Arguing that your arguments have merit because have a friend who’s a genius who agrees with you is an example of argumentum ad verecundiam, which is a logical fallacy.

arguwhatum ed verehuh? What the heck is that Luigi. Please enlighten us ignoramus' who haven't swallowed a latin dictionary.

My friends agree with me so I'm right quit arguing. ;-) Veeery looosely translated.

Go here, Rodney.

I probably need to be more mindful of the cultural divide in this country. Sometimes I don't know where someone is coming from. For instance, one individual was very outspoken in defending the violent schlock film "Kill Bill". I later learned that the individual was a "Dukes of Hazzard" fan. I guess we all have our own ideas of culture.

Said the Desperate Housewives fan. BTW I'm not trying to be insulting when I say that. Just pointing out that as you say everyone has there own idea of culture and while mine does include styalized violence like Kill Bill yours includes a trashy show about rich snooty women backstabbing each other.

The culture of male sports has been examined by commentators from all walks of life. Many feminists have denounced the extremely sexist attitudes that are prevalent.

Yes and quite a few people from all walks of life are fans of pro sports as well. Does that make all of those people wrong for enjoying them?

My friend Julie is a genius, she also agrees with me.

And my friend Laura likes sports and is as well. So what? I'm stimply trying to show that some smart independant women like sports and you are trying to show that because you and a few other folks have a negative opinion of them that automaticaly makes them a compleat waste of time that no one who's worth a dang should care about.

Oh dear, Luigi is at it again. You continually attack me. You deliberately misrepresent what I say and distort it too. A good example would you bringing up( on different boards) my mentioning Tobey Keith as evidence I'm a "bigot". I never even elaborated on him. I mentioned him in a list of things with narrow-minded fans. Tobey Keith had been the subject of protests for anti-Muslim lyrics and shouting out "Let's kick some Arab a-ss" at his concerts. And I'm the bigot for criticising Tobey Keith! After stating that the South has a shameful history of racism, I was also called a bigot by you. This is especially offensive to me. My parents lived and traveled in the South during the early sixties. The segregation (separate bathrooms, water fountains, and even seating sections in movie theaters) and racism they saw caused them to join the Civil Rights movement. From the earliest age I was taught the importance of fighting racism and bigotry. I'm a member of the NAACP today, even though the organization is vicously attacked by right-wing bigots such as the FOX News pundits. Rosa Parks was a member of the NAACP when she refused to give up her bus seat. George W. Bush's refusal to speak at the NAACP was a slap in the face to her and every one of its members. From reading Luigi's various posts over different boards, I'm really fed up with being called a bigot by him. If he has a problem with feminism, that's his problem.


The only place "man-bashing" exists is in the minds of right wing men.

Or in any conversation with you on these political boards.

I have not attacked you. I have responded to the specific statements you have made, and only the statements you have made, and have criticized you for hostile, dishonest behavior towards others, exhibiting paralogia in your argumentation, and for offensive statements about other groups of people. Criticism of this behavior does not constitute an "attack," no matter how many times you try to play the part of the false victim.

I have not distorted one single comment of yours, but have plenty of examples of you doing so with my statements, as you well know.

You have made broad, sweeping comments on different groups of people, including Toby Keith fans. I never said you "elaborated" on him personally.

I do not recall any instance of calling you a bigot after you stated that the South has a shameful history of racism. But if you can produce this exchange, then please do so. I have, on the other hand, criticized you for making prejudicial statements about others, which you have, as when you recently did so with men, husbands, sports fans, male athletes, and so forth.

We are not talking about feminism or feminists. We are talking about you. It is you who deliberately distorts my words, and lobs insults at both me and other groups of people. Not "feminism." The idea that criticizing you means that therefore, ipso facto, I'm somehow criticizing all feminists, is simply a logical fallacy, one that you've employed before. It didn't work then, and it's not going to work now, no matter how many times you attempt to employ it. Stop pretending that criticism directed at you is therefore directed at every member of a group to which you belong. It doesn't.

Over and over, you refer to me as a bigot and bigoted. You even accuse me of being a liar. You said you think I made up a story about New York magazine. Your're dead wrong. It also proves how ignorant you are. It's obvious that you've never read the magazine. New York magazine regularly publishes provacative articles on ethnic issues (such as race, religion, race relations etc). Last week's (Oct 24th issue) cover story was on "The Jewish Brain" by Jennifer Senior. It raises questions whether Jews are smarter, and it featured interviews with genetic researchers (since you belittle everything I say as being based on opinion and rhetoric). Again, you prove that one can argue about something without knowing anything about it. You've never read any of Andrea Dworkin's books, yet you are an expert on her (because you read a paragraph obit in TIME!!!) HA, HA, HA. Still, I was exposed to the quality of what you read, when you posted a link to pornographic material on that board.

You said I made up a story. You lied, but that's not a "distortion". You said I've made bigoted remarks about Toby Keith fans and Southerners. Don't tell me that you haven't. An entertainer uses RACIST rhetoric and I'm the BIGOT for criticising him.

Do you think you are proving anything by criticsing me. What it proves is that you are petty. There are errors is some of your posts. Just because no one feels compelled to write lengthy posts saying "I gotcha on this, and I gotcha on that" about your posts proves nothing. It only shows that you are petty and anal about criticising others.

Sweetie, I will most definately criticise you for watching "Dukes of Hazzard". Even at 8 and 9 years of age, I knew it was inappropriate to watch a show about "good old boy's" who ride around in a car with racially offensive symbols painted on it. That's part of the cultural divide in this country. Parents who were liberals involved with the Civil Rights Movement teach their children about racism. If you are going to play naive about the Confederate flag, I will be glad to post some material from the NAACP. Of course, you would respond that they're "bigots". Earlier, when I said that most of the men who criticise Andrea Dworkin are "Archie Bunker" types, I was right on the mark. I need not even criticise the "Dukes" on that ground. The show is simply an insult to anyon'e intelligence. Sorry, it is "low-brow".

And lastly, about sensitivity. You have said that you're 60 pounds overweight. I would have thought that you would be more sensitive than to criticise Andrea Dworkin for her appearance.

You're also totally disrespectful. I asked you not to respond to my posts if you can't refrain from personally attacking me. I can define for myself what an attack is. You are not a dictionary to tell everyone else what something is.

We would if you'd stop telling everyone what they *should* do, and how your opinions are correct beyond reproach, and I quote:

---

Quote:

"My choices can't be disputed"

Nitcentral's Bulletin Brash Reflections: The Kitchen Sink: They Don't Have a Board Yet, But...(aka Create-Your-Own-Discussion): Sci-fi Television Hall of Shame: The Worst Shows

---

---

Quote:

"I expect everyone to watch this important show."

Nitcentral's Bulletin Brash Reflections: The Kitchen Sink: They Don't Have a Board Yet, But...(aka Create-Your-Own-Discussion): Commander in Chief

---

Rona what would you say when I tell you about a friend of mine I worked with who liked and used to watch the Dukes of Hazard and he was Black?

I asked him if he thought there was anythign wierd about that and he said na. He watcdhed it for Diasy, General Lee and to see the cops go in the pond. Basically the three main reasons most people watched the show. Yeah it was low-brow but lowbrow in a fun way.

Archie Bunker wasn't low-brow. If you look at it from an open minded perspective. Archie may have been a loudmouthed bigot but he did have a brain and heart deep down and might talk big but wouldnt go through with it. (There was an episode where he joined the Klan but backed out and tried to stop a cross burning)

And basically ScottN already pointed out the force issue.

Rona: Over and over, you refer to me as a bigot and bigoted.
Luigi Novi: Over and over, I point out that you make prejudicial statements, which is factually true. Do you deny that you make broad, sweeping statements about large groups of people, such as men, husbands, male athletes, sports fans, Republicans, Democrats, Southerners, etc.?

Rona: You even accuse me of being a liar.
Luigi Novi: I have pointed out that you deliberately distorted my words on numerous occasions, which you have. That is a fact, and I can furnish you with a list of examples to that effect, some of which come from this very board.

Rona: You said you think I made up a story about New York magazine.
Luigi Novi: I said no such thing. The statement in question was:

As far as New York magazine, I seriously doubt that they published any article that asserted what is “too low brow for Jews,” or that baseball was one of the things among them, or that it cannot be enjoyed by intellectuals. Even if they did, this does not constitute “reality”, but an opinion. But if you can cite that particular issue, I would definitely like to read it. Should it be shown that the article actually states what you said it does, I will revise my statement and concede that you were correct in that assertion, much as I’ve done in the past when you or someone else has pointed out a mistake I’ve made.

As you can see, nowhere in that passage did I ever indicate that you made it up, and I even asked you to cite the issue so I could read it.

Rona: Your're dead wrong. It also proves how ignorant you are. It's obvious that you've never read the magazine.
Luigi Novi: Which is why I asked you to cite it, so that I could do so. I did, for my part, go out and buy the current issue of New York magazine after you mentioned it (thinking perhaps you were referring to the current issue) and it did have a cover story on a controversial study on whether Jews are smarter, but that article didn’t have a list of “all the things that are too low brow for Jews,” as you stated in your October 21, 3:35 pm post.

Rona: New York magazine regularly publishes provacative articles on ethnic issues (such as race, religion, race relations etc). Last week's (Oct 24th issue) cover story was on "The Jewish Brain" by Jennifer Senior.
Luigi Novi: Ah, so it IS that issue, huh? But that article does not list “all the things that are too low brow for Jews”, as you stated earlier. Jennifer Senior’s article, “Are Jews Smarter?” (not “The Jewish Brain,” which was just the cover blurb), does contain a look at Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran’s paper on the “fabled intelligence” of Ashkenazi Jews, but does not touch at all upon matters of taste that are “highbrow” or “lowbrow.” That was either a mixup on your part with another article, or a sheer invention of yours.

And if anyone wants to read that article themselves, I scanned it:

Cover
Page 1 (Actually the first two pages of the article.)
Page 2
Page 3 (Just a photo collage of famous Jews.)
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7

Rona: It raises questions whether Jews are smarter, and it featured interviews with genetic researchers (since you belittle everything I say as being based on opinion and rhetoric).
Luigi Novi: It should be pointed out that the article indicates that Harpending and Cochran’s paper did not meet the standards of traditional scientific scholarship, and thus attracted a barrage of criticism from geneticists, historians and social scientists for this reason. Says Harry Ostrer, head of New York University’s human-genetics program:

“It’s bad science—not because it’s provocative, but because it’s bad genetics and bad epidemiology.”

And geneticist Neil Risch:

“I see no positive impact from this. When the guys at the University of Utah said they’d discovered cold fusion, did that have a positive impact?”

And Emory University historian Sander Gilman:

“I’d actually call the study bull*** if I didn’t feel its idea were so insulting.”

Rona: Again, you prove that one can argue about something without knowing anything about it. You've never read any of Andrea Dworkin's books, yet you are an expert on her (because you read a paragraph obit in TIME!!!) HA, HA, HA. Still, I was exposed to the quality of what you read, when you posted a link to pornographic material on that board.
Luigi Novi: You have not established that I have not read any of Dworkin’s books, nor have I ever said that I was an “expert” on her. My comments about Dworkin were based largely on her public statements in both print and on TV, and not solely from a Time obituary. I have been familiar with Dworkin since the early 90’s, and the idea that I cannot criticize her public statements unless I read her books is obviously false, as is the idea that the wide range of material I read can somehow be gleaned by one page with inappropriate material that I was negligent in linking to, and for which I apologized. Would you agree that you cannot respond to any of my statements unless you read entire books by me? Of course not. The idea that you can know the wide range of my reading material by one website that I didn’t read carefully enough before linking to it further proves that you make snap judgments with only superficial information.

Rona: You said I've made bigoted remarks about Toby Keith fans and Southerners. Don't tell me that you haven't.
Luigi Novi: Why would I say that I haven’t? Of course I did. You have made prejudicial remarks about many people, including those two. That is a fact. The only statements I will deny making are those that I did in fact not make. Since you did make unqualified comments about those groups, I most certainly criticized you for it. Why wouldn’t I?

Rona: An entertainer uses RACIST rhetoric and I'm the BIGOT for criticising him.
Luigi Novi: Can you quote the lyrics you’re referring to? I tried looking for the phrase "Let's kick some Arab a-ss" that you mentioned above in your Nov. 1 post, assuming that it was part of his song Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue, but that phrase never appears in that song. Which song is it in?

Even if they are in one of his songs, Keith has been criticized by for them, presumably by some of his fans, and not all Southerners are necessarily fans of his. Thus, tarring all Southerners with that brush is wrong.

Rona: Do you think you are proving anything by criticsing me. What it proves is that you are petty. There are errors is some of your posts. Just because no one feels compelled to write lengthy posts saying "I gotcha on this, and I gotcha on that" about your posts proves nothing. It only shows that you are petty and anal about criticising others.
Luigi Novi: Whether I am proving anything to anyone is difficult to ascertain, as you’d have to ask others that question. I can say that I have often received compliments on my posts by some of the others here, who have told me that they look forward to reading them. I post here not necessarily to “prove” anything to anyone, but in order to respond to statements by others that I feel are deserving of a response. When I see a statement or claim that is false, fallacious, inaccurate, or internally inconsistent, I tend to respond in order to point it out. This has nothing to do with pettiness or analness or “proving” anything. It merely shows that I tend to look at claims and statements made by others with a critical eye. As far as there being errors in (or “is”) some of my posts, I am aware of that I sometimes make errors of spelling or syntax. But if you spot something more substantial, feel free to point it out to me.

Rona: Sweetie, I will most definately criticise you for watching "Dukes of Hazzard".
Luigi Novi: Go right ahead. But what you will not do—not without a response, that is—is confuse the statement “I was a kid when I watched it on TV” with “...so Luigi likes The Dukes of Hazzard.”. You make that distortion, I’m going to call you on it. You try running away from answering me when I ask you why you didn’t accept my correction, I’m going to point it out. You keep repeating that falsehood, I’m going to be there to remind you of it. If you don’t like that, then stop misquoting me, okay, Sweetie?

Rona: Even at 8 and 9 years of age, I knew it was inappropriate to watch a show about "good old boy's" who ride around in a car with racially offensive symbols painted on it.
Luigi Novi: But would you criticize others for not knowing that at the age of 6 and 7 (which is how old I was when you were 8 and 9)? Don’t you think educating someone who doesn’t know what that flag means would be better than judging them, particularly at such a young age? Me, I know what that flag means now, and I think it should be done away with as a relic from a shameful era in our nation’s past. But don’t you think it’s just a tad judgmental to criticize me for the something as silly as the TV shows I watched as a child, simply because I didn’t know something about an emblem in one of them that you did? Why is it my fault if I was simply not informed of a certain piece of info that you were privy to? That is judgmental, and highly prejudiced.

Rona: I will be glad to post some material from the NAACP. Of course, you would respond that they're "bigots".
Luigi Novi: No, and you do not know how I would respond to them. That you choose to pretend otherwise simply reinforces that fact that you judge people and make assumptions about them without knowing them. Me, I only respond to what you actually say and do here. I don’t attempt to make public predictions about how I think you “would respond” to things.

Rona: Earlier, when I said that most of the men who criticise Andrea Dworkin are "Archie Bunker" types, I was right on the mark.
Luigi Novi: You were making a prejudicial statement, and with an ad hominem argument. The idea that legitimate criticism of Dworkin—or anyone, for that matter—cannot be made unless the person is an Archie Bunker type, is false. You yourself said that you didn’t agree with all of Dworkin’s statements. So why can’t men?

Rona: I need not even criticise the "Dukes" on that ground. The show is simply an insult to anyon'e intelligence. Sorry, it is "low-brow".
Luigi Novi: In your opinion. Not a fact. To each their own.

Rona: And lastly, about sensitivity. You have said that you're 60 pounds overweight. I would have thought that you would be more sensitive than to criticise Andrea Dworkin for her appearance.
Luigi Novi: Rona, I know how to comb my hair when I go out in public. It was on that basis that I criticized her appearance. Not her weight.

Rona: You're also totally disrespectful. I asked you not to respond to my posts if you can't refrain from personally attacking me.
Luigi Novi: First of all, you didn’t “ask.” You told me not to respond to your posts.

This is your statement in your August 13, 2005 8:27am post on the War of the Worlds board: “Don't respond to my posts anymore.”. Doesn’t sound like “asking” to me.

Second, I will tell you know what I told you then: Nitcentral is an open and public discussion site, and all its visitors are free to respond to whichever posts they want. We don’t require your permission for this. If you don't like my posts, then don’t read them. If that’s not good enough for you, and you don’t like having your arguments refuted by myself or others, then I would suggest you not make such poorly-made arguments, or go to some other site where your behavior will received uncritically.

However, if you really subscribe into this idea that one is required to respect the requests of another poster on these boards, then let’s try this:

-Please do not misquote me or anyone else ever again.

-Please respond to others when they make specific counterarguments that refute your claims.

-Please do not make assumptions about others here or judgmental comments about entire groups of people if those comments do not describe all members of those groups.

-Please do not use ad hominem arguments or any other logical fallacies in your posts.

-Please do not use words apart from their actual definitions. As an example, stop pretending that having an argument refuted is an “attack,” since we all know that it is not.

If you “respect” these requests on my part, then I won’t ever point out when you commit these infractions. And if you continue to exhibit these behaviors, then that will simply show that you to be just as “disrespectful,” right?

Rona: I can define for myself what an attack is. You are not a dictionary to tell everyone else what something is.}
Luigi Novi: Words are not defined “for yourself.”

An attack is something with a specific definition according to reference sources and usage patterns. They are not defined for “yourself” or “myself.” The idea that you can arbitrarily define a counterargument that refutes your claims as an “attack” is no more valid than Brian Webber’s notion that he could decide that any ol’ statement he disagreed with was a deliberate “lie,” or Peter Cuthbertson’s argument that an a priori agenda was the same thing as a “hypothesis,” or John-Boy’s assertion that nitpicking or critiquing an inanimate object like a TV show constitutes “flaming.”

Even if we entertained this notion of yours, then by the same token, I can define what a personal attack is too. What then, makes your definition correct and mine incorrect? When you consider this, you begin to realize that your linguistic relativism does not work, because it essentially makes words and their meanings completely meaningless.

While I’m not a dictionary, I can reference dictionaries (as well as common usage patterns) when I argue such a point. And refuting someone’s poorly-made arguments, and calling their statements and their behavior into question doesn’t qualify as an “attack.” A personal attack is just that: Personal.

I have never made any “personal” statement about you, outside of pointing out the way you behave here and the lack of cogent reasoning and consistency in your arguments. If you feel that I’ve attacked you, then why don’t you simply quote one statement by me in which I do this? Instead, all you do is deliberately reword the statement to turn it into a completely different one, thus doing yourself what you accuse me of. Me, when I respond to what someone says, I do just that: I respond to what they actually say. You, on the other hand, do not. Thus, pointing out that it is prejudicial to assume that all male athletes are the same as the few offensive ones who make the headlines is not an attack, but a valid counterargument to a judgmental statement. By contrast, putting words into my mouth as you do (as when you claim that I said you “made up a story”, when I said no such thing), most certainly is an attack.

The above proves you're anal.


And from the arguments I've read between you and Brian Webber, you lost every one of them.


If you need someone to argue with, get a spouse.

Rona:
And from the arguments I've read between you and Brian Webber, you lost every one of them.
That's certainly your opinion, because I know I wouldn't agree with that.

The above shows that your arguments fall apart with the slightest bit of critical scrutiny, and you resent having your falsehoods and double-standards exposed.

As for your comments about Webber, all I have to say is: LOL!

I'd ask you to provide at least one instance of a point that Webber "won," but then that would require you to directly cite specific examples, and we all know that you don't do that, since none of them support your assertion.

Nobody can "win" a NitC argument any more than you can win an earthquake. :-)

You got that one right snick.

Hey Rona, if Webber beat Luigi by refusing to see logic when arguing with him than who won your arguments with Webber?

Rona and Webber had arguments with one another? I thought Webber was banned before (or roughly around the same time) that Rona first appeared here. On what boards did they interact?

Snick,

what do you mean you can't win an Earthquake? I got all the cards filled out for the grand drawing...

Although I doubt that the discussions at NitC, even though there are quite interesting, are that shattering or moving...

They argued because Webber didn't support a lot of what Israel has been doing and Rona accused him of hating Isreal and wanting to see it destroyed.

Oh yeah, I think I remember that. I remember someone alluding to Webber being Anti-Semitic because of his criticism of Israel, and his making the legitimate point that one doesn't necessarily mean that other, but I didn't remember who made that accusation in the first place.

The above shows me that you can be anal and still be right.

Rona, you also slammed NASCAR fans along with the Toby Keith fans (for liking lowbrow stuff). If Toby Keith used anti-Muslim lyrics, I can sort of understand although a. you didn't give examples and b. some of his fans may actually disagree with those aspects of his music. Life isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. But what's wrong with NASCAR? Are the drivers bigots? Do they stereotype groups of people? What's the basis for looking down on them and their fans?

Why did I mention NASCAR?
Because NASCAR officials publicly proclaimed NASCAR to be "the most Christian sport in America". That certainly sends a most welcoming message to Jews and Muslims, doesn't it?

That's it?

No, but if I mention where I got that list of things (New York magazine), I risk offending. NASCAR is also a big supporter of the Republican Party, so NASCAR could be considered part of Bushworld. During their television broadcasts, they should run a warning at the bottom; "This is a Republican event".

Then I had better tell that to my pro union, democrats are sent by heaven to save earth redneck friend. I mean I ahvent watched NASCAR since the passing of Saint Dale Sr. (Take yer hat off when you say that pardner....) so I'm not up on what is currently goign on but things couldnt have changed that much in so short a time.

NASCAR has its roots firmly in southern redneck gasoline inspired male size of their blocks competition. Over the years they have tamed it down and businessed it up more but it still has a lot of the same ego and good ol boy attitude from what I can see.

Because NASCAR officials publicly proclaimed NASCAR to be "the most Christian sport in America".

That's a strange thing to say. I have a hard time seeing how wasting fossils fuels by driving around in a circle, with occasional deaths due to the high speeds, is a christian sport. It's not in itself healthy for the body (like cycling or swimming); it doesn't show alternative methods good for the planet (like solar car races) - although Christians are commanded to take care of it, and getting killed during a race seems to be a wasteful death.

I think the reference is due to the fact that most of the drivers are self-professed Christians, not that racing is inherently Christian.

Funny, since I went to a NASCAR race a few weeks ago here in Atlanta and I don't think the fans seem espically christian. In fact the night before at the campsites outside of Atlanta Motor Speedway I saw more bare boobs this side of Mardi Gras because as my friend Melissa put it "I'll bet there were some trashy white girls there."

In that case, I have a problem with how they reconcile their christian beliefs with that sport. (Yes, I know, different priorities for American Christians... conserving the Earth isn't important, etc.)

A rather less humorous fact has been shown on NBC news; military recruiters go to races because they consider them prime targets for recruits. Poor white males, Bush wants you to die in Iraq. And before you criticise me, I have a family member in Iraq now. I don't want any young serviceman or woman to go there. Let Bush's daughters and Jeb's crackhead son go, if Bush believes in the War so much.

Rona, citing New York magazine did not offend anyone. I merely pointed out that it did not contain the material you claimed it did when you first brought it up on October 21st. Stop misrepresenting what the exchange was, okay?

And in what way is the crowd that enjoys NASCAR (the people at which you directed that comment last year that Nove is taking issue with) responsible for what NASCAR officials say? NASCAR fans do not necessarily agree with everything its officials say, after all. Citing a magazine doesn’t change this, and I doubt that New York magazine ever stated that you can judge millions by the statements of a few.

Also, can you cite a source for that official’s comment? I’m asking because I’d like to read it.

And I just want you to know that I loved reading the last two sentences of your post; I agree with them, and I was LOL when I read it.

I hope your family member comes home safe and soon.

To clarify the situation, I never said that issue featured the list of low-brow things (that was from a couple of years ago). I said that New York magazine does publish provocative articles on ethnicity. As a good example, I pointed out the Oct issue. I was responding to some earlier posts, particularly one that speculated that New York mag would be sued if it published an offensive article. The magazine publishes such articles all the time. Please don't misrepresent what I say either.

Sometimes, I just forget that many people don't read the same magazines and newspapers I read. Also, I still enjoy watching the nightly news (I know that makes me a minority nowadays). Sometimes when I state something, I assume that everyone had seen the same thing on the news.

Two points.

First, you were not responding to a post that speculated that New York magazine would be sued, because that post, which was made by ScottN, was after you made assertion about the "lowbrow" article. Just scroll up and you'll see that Scott's post is right after yours. (Both are on October 21; yours at 3:35pm and his at 3:47pm.)

Second, I did not mean to misrepresent what you say, but it is reasonable that a reader who read this thread would understand that that's the issue that you were talking about. It was, after all, made in response to my question of which issue it was, wasn't it? After you first made that assertion, I asked you to cite that issue, because I wanted to read it myself. Your only response was this:

You even accuse me of being a liar. You said you think I made up a story about New York magazine. Your're dead wrong. It also proves how ignorant you are. It's obvious that you've never read the magazine. New York magazine regularly publishes provacative articles on ethnic issues (such as race, religion, race relations etc). Last week's (Oct 24th issue) cover story was on "The Jewish Brain" by Jennifer Senior. It raises questions whether Jews are smarter, and it featured interviews with genetic researchers (since you belittle everything I say as being based on opinion and rhetoric).

So no, you did not explicitly say that the current issue was the one you were referring to, but that's what understood you to mean. If it wasn't, then why did you just say then and there that it the issue in question was from a few years ago? Barring that, it seemed that the issue in question was the one you were talking about.

(And this is apart from your accusation that I claimed you "made it up", which anyone who reads my posts can see is factually untrue, as I never said any such thing. I simply asked you to cite the issue because I was skeptical, and because I wanted to read it. Given this falsehood of yours about my saying you "made it up," as well as numerous other instances, it seems that misrepresenting others' words seems to be a far greater problem for you.)

Please don't try to enter other people's minds and interpret what they mean. Even with the quote you bring up, NOWHERE does it say that the "low brow baseball" comment is from the Oct 2005 issue. In response to 2 different posts questioning whether New York magazine would publish controversial articles (on ethnicity), I stated that indeed New York does publish controversial articles. A good example being that of the previous week. This week they're at it again, with an interview with Maureen Dowd, author of "Are Men Necessary?"

But I don't anticipate any such misunderstandings in the future. I will no longer discuss any controversial topics at NitCentral. This discussion is the final straw for me. I'm tired of the smears.

Rona: Please don't try to enter other people's minds and interpret what they mean. Even with the quote you bring up, NOWHERE does it say that the "low brow baseball" comment is from the Oct 2005 issue.
Luigi Novi: I didn't say that it did. I just made it clear in my last post that that was simply the meaning that it appeared to convey, which has nothing to do with entering anyone's mind. But the interpretation did seem reasonable to me at the time. I already explained why. You simply ignored what I said, as you always do.

Rona: In response to 2 different posts questioning whether New York magazine would publish controversial articles (on ethnicity), I stated that indeed New York does publish controversial articles.
Luigi Novi: No one questioned whether the magazine would publish controversial articles per se. Scott simply questioned whether they published one with the content you claimed it did. You are again confusing the general with the specific.

Rona: I'm tired of the smears.
Luigi Novi: As are we of yours. Take care.

Why are all the messages underlined?

They aren't. What's your browser and platform?

I apologize. It's the computers at work.
The board is fine on my home computer.

No apologies needed. I was trying to get enough info to diagnose.

Personally, watching sports is mostly boring, I prefer to play and participate. Not much thrills watching others have fun.

White males are portrayed alot as goofs especially in sitcoms, in fact Everyone loves Raymond is typical with a goofy husband and a know it all wife. In ALF too.
Hmmmm even the bald guys are usually portrayed as dummys.

Good thing Oprah cant blame the straight white male for the incedent in her South African school.

Wow. Now that it's two years later I just read through the entire set of posts on this board. I know that I was a participant in some of it but I just noticed something that I found rather ironic.

Rona: he's vulgar and likes junk food. Is it wrong to criticise someone who likes unhealthy food.? No. When I tell him he's fat and needs to excercise and eat healthy I'm trying to offer good advice. Men shouldn't take constructive criticism as insults.

Rona: And lastly, about sensitivity. You have said that you're 60 pounds overweight. I would have thought that you would be more sensitive than to criticise Andrea Dworkin for her appearance.

Rona: My husband wants my daughter to be a jock. I won't stand for that.

So it's fine for her to criticise some dude that her husband hangs around with for being fat, but it's not OK for anyone to criticize Andrea Dworkin for being fat or even for having messy hair (much easier to fix than a weight issue)? The kicker is that she does not want her daughter to be AT ALL involved in sports when lack of physical education and participation in sports is one of the leading causes of obesity in kids. It really does take all kinds. We've created such an interesting place here filled with such stimulating debate. I love this place, wouldn't waste my time anywhere else.

And for the record, I never criticized Dworkin for her weight, merely that she didn't bother to comb her hair.

For the record I believe Mr Novi argued extremely well, Spock would be proud of that logic!

Thanks. Are you Josh Gould or Josh Mastin, or are you a new Josh around these parts, Josh?

Not me.