"White Privilege Conference" In Colorado?

[Nova]

Edward Norton naked anywhere works for me! (I block out the rest of that scene, too, Nova.)

Ain't he fine?! After we saw Fight Club, I told Mr. Nova that if he'd arrange the double date, I would take Norton and Mr. Nova could have Brad Pitt.

 

[IrishMist]

Ain't he fine?! After we saw Fight Club, I told Mr. Nova that if he'd arrange the double date, I would take Norton and Mr. Nova could have Brad Pitt.

That's fair. That's entirely fair! What was the Mister's reaction?

 

[Nova]

Ahhh I am so dumb, I always wondered why the Catholic kids got called mick kids!

They probably meant "McKids." As in "numerous as McDonald hamburgers." But that's just a nasty stereotype.

 

[Nova]

That's fair. That's entirely fair! What was the Mister's reaction?

He was shocked, frankly. But he had just seen Mr. Pitt brawling in his underwear.

 

[narlacat]

Yup. That would be why!

Just to clarify- I never called them that lol- my dislike for Catholicism came later on
(I felt sorry for them if anything)

 

[IrishMist]

Just to clarify- I never called them that lol- my distaste for Catholicism came later on
(I felt sorry for them if anything)

Kids can be really mean.

 

[IrishMist]

He was shocked, frankly. But he had just seen Mr. Pitt brawling in his underwear.

Well, I wanna know when this double date happens- with all the details and some photos!

Or... when I come visit, I could chaperone!!! Yeah! That's it!

 

[Nova]

Well, I wanna know when this double date happens- with all the details and some photos!

Or... when I come visit, I could chaperone!!! Yeah! That's it!

Trust me. If Mr. Nova and I get a double date with Brad Pitt and Edward Norton, the WHOLE WORLD will know about it!

 

[IrishMist]

They probably meant "McKids." As in "numerous as McDonald hamburgers." But that's just a nasty stereotype.

Oh, I'm sure this is what they meant, Nova!

 

[narlacat]

I'm sure Mr Nova could do better than Brad Pitt- set your standards higher lol- I think he is sooo over rated that guy

 

[IrishMist]

I'm sure Mr Nova could do better than Brad Pitt- set your standards higher lol- I think he is sooo over rated that guy

Well of course he can! He's got our Nova!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Probably not a movie I'd see. I thought the whole point of the original was Edward Norton naked in the prison shower. (I chose to overlook the rape scene and the anal bleeding.)

Why don't the white supremacists on the news look like that?

Its actually a very, very good movie Nova! I'd highly recommend it.

And, Norton's bod . . . well, what can I say? YUMMY comes to mind!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I'm sure Mr Nova could do better than Brad Pitt- set your standards higher lol- I think he is sooo over rated that guy

Mr. Nova DID do better than Brad Pitt. After all, our Nova is one sexy beast!:blushing:

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I was just wondering what ya'll thought about the Duke la cross case and the way it turned out. Didn't anybody feel like women lost their rights of due process and to have her case heard by a jury trial? Nobody even got to hear or see the evidence. The D.A. lost his job and his reputation because he was doing his job. How do shoot down the Grand Jury? Since when do we believe the accused and the media instead of the accuser. She was a student at that college too, because of the date-rape drug that they used on her she is loosing her memory, it will also shorten her life as well as the life of her baby which I'm supprised was even born alive. Suppose she wasn't black, what if she was your daughter and you didn't have as much money or influence.

First of alll, she was a student at a different college, not Duke. Next, there was no date rape drug. When you say that nobody got to see the evidence, you're mistaken. Plenty of people got to see the evidence and it all proved that the three boys were completely innocent. The D.A. lost his job and his reputation because he withheld exculpatory evidence, lied to the grand jury, lied to his boss, refused to talk to counsel for the accused and wasted the court's time and resources. Something tells me that you're unfamiliar with all of the events of the case. The stripper was NEVER attacked by anyone.

 

[magnumIII]

First of alll, she was a student at a different college, not Duke. Next, there was no date rape drug. When you say that nobody got to see the evidence, you're mistaken. Plenty of people got to see the evidence and it all proved that the three boys were completely innocent. The D.A. lost his job and his reputation because he withheld exculpatory evidence, lied to the grand jury, lied to his boss, refused to talk to counsel for the accused and wasted the court's time and resources. Something tells me that you're unfamiliar with all of the events of the case. The stripper was NEVER attacked by anyone.

Sorry! I will retract and God will take care of it.

 

[White Rain]

Its actually a very, very good movie Nova! I'd highly recommend it.

And, Norton's bod . . . well, what can I say? YUMMY comes to mind!

I agree. The movie was awesome, although the ending was quite sad and I thought it would lead to a "American History X" part 2.
And yep, he had one nice body!

 

[MREG2]

LOL, MREG2 you can have ALL of my liquor, (crown royal is my drink) because about two hours after that post I was arrested for disorderly conduct and spent three days in jail. :behindbar

I had to promise hubby no more drinking for quite awhile!

LMAO!!!! I'm sorry to hear that.... I'm a beer girl myself and once this baby is born Hubby and I are gonna go party. I'd invite you but I don't want to have to explain to my 4 year old where we've been for 3 days.

 

[Nova]

Its actually a very, very good movie Nova! I'd highly recommend it.

And, Norton's bod . . . well, what can I say? YUMMY comes to mind!

No, I mean the female version you were proposing.

I've seen American History X many times. Most of it took place and was filmed a few blocks from where I lived at the time. (I lived in Venice (where L.A. meets the ocean). The school the younger brother attends is Venice High School, which was also the setting for the movie Grease.) Alas, I never ran into Mr. Norton on the street.

The film is structured as a Greek tragedy: the Norton character attempts to do good (repudiate his racism) but suffers an unexpected calamity (the death of his brother) in the process.

 

[Actspeaklouder]

Maybe you do too Acts, only two posts were directed at Masterj-

Post 5 said this:

<<I don't think that statement is true all over and things like this shouldn't be generalized. I can tell you for a fact that where I come from, MEN get paid more than WOMEN regardless of color. A Black Man makes more than a White Woman. Your AGE and type of car is why you are pulled over. I have seen black workers get away with poor behavior while white workers are scrutinized. I really think that everything should be EQUAL. The color of your skin shouldn't matter. If you're speeding, you should be pulled over regardless of your age, your race, your car, etc. Everyone with the same education or experience level should make the same money. Unfortunately, black people are no longer the real oppressed minority. Whites oppressed blacks. Blacks now oppress Latinos, who oppress Mexicans... See the problem? Needless to say, its not all "whitey's" fault anymore...>>

I think you'll find that was a rhetorical question there Acts-

Post 6 said this:

<<Well hey guess what? Last year I got lost here in GA and I was pulled over simply because I was in a bad neighborhood, therefore the cops assumed I was looking for drugs.
Things like that happen to everyone, not just black people!
I hope I am not sounding prejudiced here, because I am NOT, but I do feel that things like racism and stereotyping are a part of every racial group, but I feel like it is mostly seen as something that us white people do to others.
And things like them calling the conference "White Privelege" only adds more gas to the fire.>>

And I think you'll find that question is too.
Not sure if you know what rhetorical means but just in case you don't:
<<a rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply">>

Sooo, if you are waiting for a reply from Mastrj, you are going to be waiting a while because I think she knows a rhetorical question when she sees one.

I won't apologize for not knowing long time posters as well as you Narla . . . and FYI rhetorical questions can be viewed from various angles . . . depending on who the poster is (as I've said, don't know them as well as you)

Rhetoric (from Greek &#8165;&#942;&#964;&#969;&#961;, rhêtôr, orator, teacher) is generally understood to be the art or technique of persuasion through the use of oral language and written language; however, this definition of rhetoric has been contested since rhetoric emerged as a field of study in Universities. In this sense, there is a great divide between classical rhetoric (with the aforementioned definition) and contemporary practices of rhetoric.
Classical rhetoric can be defined as the art, technique or practice of persuasion. Historically, Classical Rhetoric has its inception in a school of Pre-Socratic philosophers known as Sophists. It is later taught as one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (the other members are dialectic and grammar) in Western culture. In ancient and medieval times, grammar concerned itself with correct, accurate, pleasing, and effective language use through the study and criticism of literary models, dialectic concerned itself with the testing and invention of new knowledge through a process of question and answer, and rhetoric concerned itself with persuasion in public and political settings such as assemblies and courts of law. As such, rhetoric is said to flourish in open and democratic societies with rights of free speech, free assembly, and political enfranchisement for some portion of the population.
Contemporary Studies of Rhetoric often have diverse practices and meanings.The concept of rhetoric has shifted widely during its 2500-year history. Rhetoricians have recently argued that the classical understanding of rhetoric is problematic because persuasion depends on communication, which in turn depends on meaning. This emphasis on meaning, and how it is constructed and conveyed, draws on a large body of theory (see literary theory and Critical Theory), philosophy (see Post-structuralism and Hermeneutics), and problems in social science methodology (see Reflexivity). In many cases it is argued that rhetoric is a form of metaphilosophy. So while rhetoric has traditionally been thought of being involved in such arenas as politics, law, public relations, lobbying, marketing and advertising, the study of rhetoric has recently entered into diverse fields such as science, journalism, history, literature and even cartography or architecture.
It has also spawned its own method of inquiry known as Discourse Analysis

Not knowing Masterj does not make my observations invalid, Narla . . . just ask for clarification is all.

 

[narlacat]

FWIW Acts, I don't know Masterj any better than you know her probably- those questions were rhetoric and since I found your attitude somewhat condescending towards Masterj- I thought I'd point out the obvious to you

Excuse me for not reading the majority of your post- I already know what rhetoric means, I told you remember because you didn't lol