I don’t believe he has ever said he has two accounts here at the SDMB. For one it is against the rules as far as I know–and if he had admited that I would have thought he would have immediately been slapped down. That is what has happened every other time I have seen someone admit they had two accounts. What is his other user account?
He said “they” in the post you quoted. Unless he believes that you with the face is teeming with either parasites or multiple personalities, perhaps he didn’t intend his comment to be a direct prediction of her specific desires.
Had, not have. I re-applied when I was out of the country and unable to rely on my always-on login/pass which I can never remember. BTW, the mods yelled at me when I told them this and said the correct solution was to e-mail them for the pass, which I meekly accepted. If you know about this, you also know the stuff I posted under the temp. name was pretty consistent with what I post otherwise and had no other nefarious motive (sock-puppeting or the like, e.g.).
Yes, that’s correct, the styles are consistent (which is how I initially discovered it, as I found it blindingly obvious who it was). As I noted, the second account didn’t seem to prove anything, other than that you had a second account. I also thought initially that it might have been a forgotten password/login issue, and therefore wasn’t going to bring it up, but you used the accounts back and forth in the same thread on at least one occasion. That’s why I was still pondering the purpose of it.
Either way, your answer works for me, so I’ll drop that issue. By the way, as an aside, I have no idea if you intended the irony between the name and the initial thread it was used in, but it was striking, even if unintentional.
I am not without my self-mocking side.
Even if that’s true, it doesn’t make the comment any less stupid or offensive, in my opinion.
Do you feel otherwise?
No.
That’s why I called it “…drastic and distasteful…”
You were one of my favorite posters. No longer.
No, I think he intended his comment to be about black women in general and since I’m a part of that cohort, he was talking about me.
But he was also talking about monstro. And Biggirl. And Urban Chic. He was talking about all black women. I’m not being overly dramatic, either. His usage of “they” says it all.
Read his post again. And then read it again, but this time in the context of the whole thread from start to finish. Then you’ll realize why I can’t even trust you to tell me the right time anymore.
If you follow the posts from me where I started off with the same asssumption, I think you’ll see that **ywtf **was indeed part of the “they”.
Of course **Huerta **could clear that up, but so far has not responded to the numnerous requests that he do so. Why is that?
So fucking what? It’s still a disgusting and misogynist thing to say.
I love how you finally comment on this, after how many pages?
Where were you in the other thread when your buddy posted this “drastic and distasteful” hyperbole? I seem to remember you cheering alongside Shodan and Weirddave. You actually LAUGHED when ywtf got angry about it. You actually accused HER of dealing a low-blow, remember?
It’s too late to detach yourself from what happened in there. It’s easy for you to come in here with soft-spoken admonitions, when you were full witness to what happened. And it happened BEFORE you even created an OP full of praises for the jerk.
That other thread is still going on strong (surprisingly…are we trying to set a new record?) Why aren’t you in there defending Huerta’s stance on statistics? It seemed to appeal to you so much before.
One of his techniques is to couch his insults to individuals in “group” terminology. That was one example. Another is the one I referred to above:
I just noticed the same terminology used by another poster to describe “Jesse Jackson and his ilk.” :rolleyes: Y’all are getting a little obvious.
I want to be an ilk, but I’m white! Does that disqualify me?
John, we don’t have answers to several questions. That’s another “technique” he has. Or maybe we’ll just have to wait for the midnight shift to begin at Mires, Hyers, Smirks, Stilton and Raves Legal Firm.
Well, you could be a member of some other race or gender bravely congratulating yourself for having the audacity to speak out against flagrant ignorance (whether or not said ignorance actually exists). It’s not like there aren’t other non-blacks and/or non-women making haste to align themselves with the oppressed in this very thread and the other. It’s like modern feminists wetting themselves over the burning of nine million witches by male oppressors - you can get the same charge out of it whether you are yourself a witch or not, if you’re on that side of the argument.
I’ll try to live with that, mhendo. I doubt I was very high on your Christmas card list anyway.
Perhaps I should have commented on it in the other thread. Frankly, I did not because it was in the Pit, where insult mixes pretty freely with actual debate. It was clear to me that the comment, while distasteful, was also utterly devoid of any debate value, in either direction. So I simply ignored it. Given that it’s become an issue in its own right here, I commented upon it.
If I had it to do over, I think I would have said something in the original thread.
Actually, you should have just stayed silent. Then you’d still have some credibility. If the concepts go over your head (and it’s apparent that they do), then it’s best to not weigh in on who is “winning” a debate.
You seem sincere in your request for Huerta to change his name, and I still haven’t figured that out. If you don’t think the guy is racist, then why not let the content of his posts speak for themselves? The guy already knows about the connotations so it’s not like he needs fatherly advice from you.
Something tells me that deep down inside you are distracted by him, despite the fact that you agree with his position in the LW thread, but you don’t quite know why so you blame it on his name. Anyone else feel the same way?
I just wish Bricker was doing something useful in the other thread,
like explaining to Contrapuntal there’s nothing unusual about different people not having to post the same amount in bail when the charges are similar,
or
whether witnesses are allowed to give their opinion about events that they admit they did not see,
instead of me the non-lawyer doing it!
CMC fnord!
I understand your frustration, crow. Contra considers articles in which almost every paragraph is prefaced with “defense lawyers said” as being factual accounts. Not even factually accurate accounts, which is worded a tad bit more acceptably. But factual accounts. Like something you could blindly trust is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Campion tried to school him back in the early pages, but she must not be as masochistic as we are.
Thanks, doctor. Shall we discuss my potty-training issues next? :rolleyes:
I didn’t ask that Huerta88 change his name. I asked him to consider that his name may be causing an unnecessary distraction, and, if he found that to be so, consider how he might mitigate that distraction. For example, he might clearly explain what motivated the ‘88’ – with a solid explanation, people’s speculation would be less likely to take root. He might have simply disavowed any perfidious connections. He might have chosen to add a sig that disclaimed any evill ‘88’ connections. There were plenty of options available – I didn’t suggest any, or even say that he must do anything. That was why I said,
I even set the tone for the seriousness of the ‘88’ accusation by telling the Kinison story.
All of this nuance was lost on you.