proho goes international

carnivore

Jack wrote: [quote=Carnivore]It sounds like the only difference between under-covered "reverse racism" and over-hyped "photogenic white foreigner attacked by thug" is how much sympathy you personally have for the victim. It's not a very sound argument.

Didn't realize I was in a debating match. Are you a professional reprobate?This is my opinion and the opinion of a few others. Who cares what you think? You don't agree, then don't agree.

So grow up a bit a realize not every discussion is a debate or pissing match. Knowing you Carnivore you're probably hound me with pathetic "Just admit you're wrong!" bullshit PMs until the lithium kicks in.

Have a great night!
Is anyone else seeing the irony here?

jack

Carnivore wrote: Is anyone else seeing the irony here?

Actually Carnivore, how many times have I actually engaged you in any discussion positive/negative/otherwise since our last tussle months ago? It's independently verifiable as ZERO. Check my posting record and even PM record. Haven't come near you--or care to--in weeks. I've definitely gotten over that.

Say what you will about me, but your desire to 'mix things' up and provoking pissing contests is really proven by your posts.

Chew on that for a while, fine sir.

carnivore

Jack wrote: Say what you will about me, but your desire to 'mix things' up and provoking pissing contests is really proven by your posts.

Again, I say, is anyone else seeing the irony here?

whyfi

You two make such a cute couple!!! :P

bluedove

Jack wrote: [quote=bluedove]...you are lending sinister the-media-only-cares-about-pretty-white-people intentions to the fact that his blog entry was picked up by a newspaper, and I take issue with THAT.

That actually is an issue that exists in modern media and is so pervasive even fictional shows like "Law & Order" disucss the issue of race playing into coverage. Let alone real news programs such as "Nightline".

If you want to blind yourself to that fact, that's your choice. But there's little doubt in my mind that someone who is white, photogenic and a victim will always get press over someone else who is not. And in the case of Glen Waterhouse, I think it's quite a valid and real point. And a correct point.

Not one person has said that media bias doesn't exist. Just that it's not necessarily pertinent in this case, and more importantly is no excuse for bashing the victim of the crime! Which please don't even bother to deny that you did. Repeatedly and with great fervor.

Jack wrote: [quote=bluedove]Get over it.

Same straight back at you. Denial is tough to deal with.

:roll: Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're in denial, Jack. Most of your retorts don't even answer my (or anyone else's) points.[/i]

jack

Guest Ian wrote: In any case, I keep noticing that you can't get over how photogenic my friend Glen is. I'm sorry to report that he's taken at the moment, but I'll PM you as soon as anything changes.

Sorry for the mixup on that. I'll let you toss his salad on your own, chief.

All in good fun, ponce!

anonymous

Subject: I would never do that!

Sorry daveb - I wasn't congratulating myself. I couldn't log in properly. And I can't quote properly - so to clarify - that was Jack's sarcastic response (nice anonymous retort) to my mistakenly anonymous post.

I don't think I'm ready for messageboards. But that would be a funny thing to do - log in as a guest and give props to your own post. Ha! [MOD daveb] I read the post wrong, sorry, All better now [/MOD NOTE]

jack

bluedove wrote:
Not one person has said that media bias doesn't exist. Just that it's not necessarily pertinent in this case, and more importantly is no excuse for bashing the victim of the crime! Which please don't even bother to deny that you did. Repeatedly and with great fervor.

Don't betray yourself...

bluedove wrote:
Damn, I swore I wouldn't respond to this b.s. anymore. [*slaps own hand*]

carnivore

Jack wrote: If you attempt debate based on superficially generalities, I guess you're right. But you're wrong.

Jack wrote: Didn't realize I was in a debating match. Are you a professional reprobate?This is my opinion and the opinion of a few others. Who cares what you think? You don't agree, then don't agree.

bluedove

Jack wrote: [quote=bluedove]
Not one person has said that media bias doesn't exist. Just that it's not necessarily pertinent in this case, and more importantly is no excuse for bashing the victim of the crime! Which please don't even bother to deny that you did. Repeatedly and with great fervor.

Don't betray yourself...

bluedove wrote:
Damn, I swore I wouldn't respond to this b.s. anymore. [*slaps own hand*]

Yet again, way to actually answer my point.

Fine, Jack. Have a nice life alone with your cynical self-importance.

anonymous

Jack, just for the record, the editor for the Herald had never met me. He read the blog, got my contact details and I gave him permission to print it. Surprising as this may be to you, when he read my blog, emailed me, spoke to me, he never knew what colour I am. He didn't even ask if I was "photogenic". Imagine?!

They requested a photo and I sent one. I wish I hadn't now a) as I saw people labelling me in a box as a hipster, mocking my appearance etc and b) as it has led you to write some of the most narrow minded, uncompelling tripe I have ever read.

Your arguments about it being printed because I am a white/photogenic young male are absurd.

The NEW ZEALAND Herald printed it because I am a NEW ZEALANDER. Pure and simple.

carnivore

Sorry for the hipster comment- it was meant in good fun (before all the ugliness started).

Come out to the Happy Hour tonight. I think we all owe you drinks!

whyfi

(Shit! Did I say anything bad about him?!?! I don't think I did... :? )

guest ian

Subject: Glenda

Sven - what's your deal - are you in Crookers tonight? Do you want to hit Mooney's for a pint? Throw me some spit on the ringa box when you get a sec, you photogenic white bitch - still at work.