golf-forums.net Promoting golf discussion.

Main Date: 11 Apr 2007 17:57:35 From: Ben. Subject: More outrageous? (NGC) Imus' comments or 3400 + (and counting) dead American soldiers? Discuss. It appears that Imus' comments on some basketball players are more damaging than bullets, shrapnel, chemical agents, landmines, RPG's, snipers, and a folly of a civil war between groups of fundamentalist muslims whose cultures we can't really even begin to fathom 'cause they pre-date our own "culture" by millenia, almost half a world away, and the USA. Who'da reckoned...   Date: 16 Apr 2007 07:20:07 From: John B. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 16, 12:27 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org > wrote: > On 13-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > > > On 12-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > > >> Earlier this week, Neal Boortz, one of the most bigoted figures in > > >> conservative talkradio, > > > > If you think so you are not a good listener. > > > He called Cynthia McKinney "a ghetto slut." > > I've heard him say lots of things about the queen of the hip-hop victims > workshop, and her Daddy, but I missed that one. > Suppose he did say that....googled...he said > > > BOORTZ:I saw Cynthia McKinney's new hair-do. Have you seen it, Belinda? > > > SKELTON: No. > > > BOORTZ: She looks like a ghetto slut. > > Not exactly the same thing. No impeachment of her person or her character, > McKinney was capable of that herself, but her fashion sense. > Boortz was not very tasteful, taste is not his strong suit, but I would not > call it racist > You're fucking sick if you think that.     Date: 17 Apr 2007 03:34:38 From: bill-o Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 16-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > You're fucking sick if you think that. Boortz has on many occasions, usually before critising her politics or sources of funding, has said how charming she is in person, so I can only suppose he was jerking chains as he is want to do. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.       Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:51:39 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message news:4624403c$0$25233$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... > > On 16-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You're fucking sick if you think that. > > Boortz has on many occasions, usually before critising her politics or > sources of funding, has said how charming she is in person, so I can only > suppose he was jerking chains as he is want to do. And therein lies part of the problem with this form of talkradio. Look, I've dealt face-to-face with many of these talkradio programming consultants, and I can tell you first-hand that their stock in trade is not about "shedding light," it's about "generating heat." Conflict is what these programs thrive on. I actually know a couple of nationally-known talkers who present themselves a conservatives, when in fact, they are anything but. For some, it's just an act. And they're very good at it. And the believers who drink from that well, lap up every sip of the juice. Randy         Date: 25 Apr 2007 04:19:26 From: bill-o Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 24-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > Look, I've dealt face-to-face with many of these talkradio programming > consultants, and I can tell you first-hand that their stock in trade is > not about "shedding light," it's about "generating heat." In other words, it is about attracting the most # of ears long enough to charge confiscatory ad rates. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.           Date: 25 Apr 2007 15:29:44 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Bingo. Randy "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message news:462ed6cc$0$25217$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... > > On 24-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: > >> Look, I've dealt face-to-face with many of these talkradio programming >> consultants, and I can tell you first-hand that their stock in trade is >> not about "shedding light," it's about "generating heat." > > In other words, it is about attracting the most # of ears long enough to > charge confiscatory ad rates. > > -- > bill-o > > A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between > two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 16 Apr 2007 07:18:21 From: John B. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 15, 2:13 pm, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net > wrote: > While one can take any view of Bush they want...so what? However when you > look at the scandals of the Clinton administration and defend > that...which is OK, it is seriuously hypocritical to criticise the Bush > administration for scandals. What do you have? A meaningless and clearly > not illegal "outing" of a CIA operative and a perfectly legitimate and > well within the scope of presidential powers firing of some federal > lawyers...and that's the best they can come up with! Fact is compared to > it's predecessor, this adminstration is squeaky clean. > > Exposing a covert intelligence operative, which she was, is a felony. Claiming you never attended any meetings where the firing of US attorneys was discussed in spite of irrefutable proof that you did attend such a meeting is called lying. Claiming there was no list of replacement candidates for the US attys to be fired when it is proven that exactly such a list was drawn up is lying. To call this administration "squeaky clean" suggests you've been living in a cave for the last 6 yrs.     Date: 20 Apr 2007 03:46:24 From: Sparky Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 16-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > Exposing a covert intelligence operative, which she was, is a felony. She wasn't covert, she was just an analyst hence no charges were filed.... me       Date: 20 Apr 2007 04:06:30 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Sparky <biff@funco.com > wrote: > > On 16-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Exposing a covert intelligence operative, which she was, is a felony. > > She wasn't covert, she was just an analyst hence no charges were filed.... The Director of Central Intelligence on line one. He sounds pissed. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/         Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:20:17 From: bill-o Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 19-Apr-2007, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > > On 16-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Exposing a covert intelligence operative, which she was, is a felony. > > > > She wasn't covert, she was just an analyst hence no charges were > > filed.... > > The Director of Central Intelligence on line one. He sounds pissed. Jeez, Chris, what does it take to get through your preconceived notions, or is it gullible acceptance of the Wilson's line? The leaker fessed up, and suprise, no charges were filed. As a confession is usually a slam dunk for conviction, no crime must have been committed. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.           Date: 20 Apr 2007 17:00:12 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: > > On 19-Apr-2007, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > >> > On 16-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Exposing a covert intelligence operative, which she was, is a felony. >> > >> > She wasn't covert, she was just an analyst hence no charges were >> > filed.... >> >> The Director of Central Intelligence on line one. He sounds pissed. > > Jeez, Chris, what does it take to get through your preconceived notions, or > is it gullible acceptance of the Wilson's line? Geez, Bill, what does it take to get you to accept that Valerie Wilson was a NOC working in CPD in Langley, which BY DEFINITION made her covert under the law? What does it take to get you to accept that the DCI vetted and approved a statement by Henry Waxman saying as much? What does it take to get you to accept that Fitzgerald has said that he couldn't complete his investigation due to Libby's obstruction, but that Valerie Wilson's employment status was classified? What does it take to get you that both the CIA and DOJ had to determine that a crime had been committed before the case was ever referred to Fitz in the first place? Don't even talk to me about being spun. You are in out of your depth here. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/             Date: 21 Apr 2007 04:23:47 From: bill-o Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 20-Apr-2007, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > Don't even talk to me about being spun. You are in out of your depth > here. Riiiight -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 16 Apr 2007 10:48:53 From: the Moderator Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1176733101.543207.191470@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Exposing a covert intelligence operative, which she was, is a felony. The courts have ruled that no felony occurred. Not that the law matters more than your political rants.       Date: 16 Apr 2007 17:39:32 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) the Moderator <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1176733101.543207.191470@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> Exposing a covert intelligence operative, which she was, is a felony. > > The courts have ruled that no felony occurred. No they haven't. The prosecutor has said that the cover-up as practiced by Scooter Libby obscured access to evidence such as to make prosecution for the outing impossible. The Director of Central Intelligence has personally vetted and approved a statement stating that her outing was illegal. Get your facts straight, pal. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/         Date: 16 Apr 2007 13:51:14 From: sfb Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) What cover up of what? Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage "confessed" to the DOJ before Fitzgerald was appointed that he told Novak about Valerie Plame Wilson working for the CIA. "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:4T41316tIjhmN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > the Moderator <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote: >> >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1176733101.543207.191470@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>> Exposing a covert intelligence operative, which she was, is a felony. >> >> The courts have ruled that no felony occurred. > > No they haven't. > > The prosecutor has said that the cover-up as practiced by Scooter Libby > obscured access to evidence such as to make prosecution for the outing > impossible. The Director of Central Intelligence has personally vetted > and approved a statement stating that her outing was illegal. > > Get your facts straight, pal. > > -- > Chris Bellomy > C-List Charter Member > http://clist.org/           Date: 16 Apr 2007 17:58:35 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) sfb <sfb@spam.net > wrote: > What cover up of what? The cover-up of the details of the campaign launched by Dick Cheney to retaliate against Joe Wilson by leaking his wife's covert status to the media. This is what got Libby convicted on four counts of lying to investigators and obstructing justice. > Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage "confessed" to the DOJ before > Fitzgerald was appointed that he told Novak about Valerie Plame Wilson > working for the CIA. It has not been demonstrated that Cheney, Libby, Rove, etc., were aware of this before deciding to launch the campaign referenced above. BTW, I should point out that you're here splitting hairs about when it's ok to blow the cover of our covert agents. Does that reflect some core belief of yours? -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 15 Apr 2007 15:14:01 From: Bow Tie Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) You got that right. Ken ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On Apr 15, 11:13 am, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net > wrote: > While one can take any view of Bush they want...so what? However when you > look at the scandals of the Clinton administration and defend > that...which is OK, it is seriuously hypocritical to criticise the Bush > administration for scandals. What do you have? A meaningless and clearly > not illegal "outing" of a CIA operative and a perfectly legitimate and > well within the scope of presidential powers firing of some federal > lawyers...and that's the best they can come up with! Fact is compared to > it's predecessor, this adminstration is squeaky clean. > > > > Bow Tie wrote: > > Coke head? You must mean Clinton. His brother Roger is quoted as > > saying brother Bill has a "nose like a vacuum cleaner.". > > > All you have on the current president is that he pleaded out to a DWI > > charge. You lefties will believe anything if it is about a > > conservative. You refuse to accept anything bad about a fellow > > traveler. > > > Ken > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > On Apr 13, 9:10 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > > Oh, wait a minute. He was a cokehead. Different thing. > > > > Randy- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -   Date: 15 Apr 2007 18:13:38 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) While one can take any view of Bush they want...so what? However when you look at the scandals of the Clinton administration and defend that...which is OK, it is seriuously hypocritical to criticise the Bush administration for scandals. What do you have? A meaningless and clearly not illegal "outing" of a CIA operative and a perfectly legitimate and well within the scope of presidential powers firing of some federal lawyers...and that's the best they can come up with! Fact is compared to it's predecessor, this adminstration is squeaky clean. Bow Tie wrote: > Coke head? You must mean Clinton. His brother Roger is quoted as > saying brother Bill has a "nose like a vacuum cleaner.". > > All you have on the current president is that he pleaded out to a DWI > charge. You lefties will believe anything if it is about a > conservative. You refuse to accept anything bad about a fellow > traveler. > > Ken > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > On Apr 13, 9:10 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > Oh, wait a minute. He was a cokehead. Different thing. > > > > Randy   Date: 15 Apr 2007 10:55:34 From: Bow Tie Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Coke head? You must mean Clinton. His brother Roger is quoted as saying brother Bill has a "nose like a vacuum cleaner.". All you have on the current president is that he pleaded out to a DWI charge. You lefties will believe anything if it is about a conservative. You refuse to accept anything bad about a fellow traveler. Ken +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On Apr 13, 9:10 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > Oh, wait a minute. He was a cokehead. Different thing. > > Randy   Date: 15 Apr 2007 08:14:39 From: John B. Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology On Apr 14, 2:54 am, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote: > "R&B" wrote: > > "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote > >> Good article. It demonstrates the character of these ladies, in > >> contrast to Sharpton and Jackson. > > > Sharpton and Jackson have done more things for more people than you will in > > five lifetimes. > > > You can't very well stand up for free speech by one person (Imus) without > > defending the right to free speech by people you don't happen to agree with. > > > Truth is, I'll bet you can't name five things Sharpton and Jackson have done > > that you would object to. You're just parrotting the mindless drivel > > spouted by your right-wing mouthpieces. > > > Randy > > You have totally lost it Randy. You try and cap all of the over top > rhetoric that you have been spewing forth (right phrase) in the IMUS > threads with this nonsense. Are you living in the same country that I am? > > And don't give me that tired left wing nut Limbaugh - Hannity BS. I > don't pay attention either one of them. > > These two, Sharpton and Jackson, have done more to set back black > economic progress in this nation than anyone in the last twenty five years. > > Joe I'm no fan of either of them, but I sure would like to see some evidence that they have "set back black economic progress."   Date: 14 Apr 2007 22:04:48 From: Birdie Bill Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 14, 1:21 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com > wrote: > I definitely prefer the hip hop but not enough to listen to it beyond > 10 mins. It is superior to disco. I'd rather chew barb wire than > listen to disco. What is disco? Is it The Bee Gees? To tell the truth, I kinda like the Bee Gees.     Date: 16 Apr 2007 09:55:54 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1176613488.256615.292870@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 14, 1:21 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: >> I definitely prefer the hip hop but not enough to listen to it beyond >> 10 mins. It is superior to disco. I'd rather chew barb wire than >> listen to disco. > > What is disco? Is it The Bee Gees? To tell the truth, I kinda > like the Bee Gees. > Yes there were a huge part of the disco era. Stayin Alive man.       Date: 16 Apr 2007 15:42:38 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:55:54 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: > >"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:1176613488.256615.292870@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 14, 1:21 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: >>> I definitely prefer the hip hop but not enough to listen to it beyond >>> 10 mins. It is superior to disco. I'd rather chew barb wire than >>> listen to disco. >> >> What is disco? Is it The Bee Gees? To tell the truth, I kinda >> like the Bee Gees. >> >Yes there were a huge part of the disco era. Stayin Alive man. > I loathed Rock 'n Roll until disco came on the scene. I loathed disco until rap came along. I loathed rap until hip-hop burst out. Hell, Rock 'n Roll is looking like Beethoven in comparison now. I can't imagine what monstrous music is in the future. -- ___, \o         Date: 16 Apr 2007 17:33:37 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote: > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:55:54 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:1176613488.256615.292870@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>> On Apr 14, 1:21 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: >>>> I definitely prefer the hip hop but not enough to listen to it beyond >>>> 10 mins. It is superior to disco. I'd rather chew barb wire than >>>> listen to disco. >>> >>> What is disco? Is it The Bee Gees? To tell the truth, I kinda >>> like the Bee Gees. >>> >>Yes there were a huge part of the disco era. Stayin Alive man. >> > I loathed Rock 'n Roll until disco came on the scene. > I loathed disco until rap came along. > I loathed rap until hip-hop burst out. > > Hell, Rock 'n Roll is looking like Beethoven in comparison now. I > can't imagine what monstrous music is in the future. Lou Reed: Ahead of his time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Machine_Music -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 14 Apr 2007 15:29:17 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 14, 12:31 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:1176527997.026105.173660@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Apr 13, 6:04 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > >> He noted that Mr. Imus explained to the Rutgers team that his incendiary > >> remarks had to be taken in the context that he had always taken shots at > >> EVERYBODY, which, in so many words, meant he was an "equal opportunity > >> offender." > > >> One of the women on the Rutgers team responded, saying, "And you're proud > >> of > >> that? Are you saying you're actually proud of the fact that you've built > >> your career on taking unnecessary shots at people who were unable to > >> respond?" > > >> That pretty much sums it up. > > > Agree. I've recanted my position. Based on the info Bellamy > > provided, Imus deserved to be fired a long time ago. I'm especially > > disturbed by him verbally abusing a female co-worker. I was not aware > > of any of this during the times I caught his show, which has been > > infrequent the past couple of years. > > > Had the Rutger incident been a one time event, then I'd feel > > differently. > > > This change of position does not modify my distaste for Sharpton and > > Jackson, who are racial ambulance chasers bent on shaking down guilt > > ridden white folks in the name of racism. The civil rights movement > > will always on shaky grounds while these two racists are running the > > show. > > You keep saying that, but what, exactly, has Al Sharpton done that so > disturbs you? Al Shaprton is a racist. > Are you now calling for his free speech rights to be limited? Or do you > still defend the First Amendment? > No one is calling for the government to arrest Sharpton or Imus for making racist statements. OTOH, no one needs to listen to them either, and that being so, not much value in CBS broadcasting the comments of Imus or Sharpton.   Date: 14 Apr 2007 11:21:52 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 14, 3:02 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: <good stuff snipped > Thanks for your explanation. My wife, who has lots of formal music training, agreed with your definitions. She also knew most of the hip hop songs. Uh.....I think I've heard a couple of them....somewhere. I definitely prefer the hip hop but not enough to listen to it beyond 10 mins. It is superior to disco. I'd rather chew barb wire than listen to disco. -Greg     Date: 14 Apr 2007 17:54:38 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1176574912.333647.30270@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 14, 3:02 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > <good stuff snipped> > > Thanks for your explanation. My wife, who has lots of formal music > training, agreed with your definitions. She also knew most of the hip > hop songs. Uh.....I think I've heard a couple of them....somewhere. > > I definitely prefer the hip hop but not enough to listen to it beyond > 10 mins. It is superior to disco. I'd rather chew barb wire than > listen to disco. > > -Greg That's pretty much the way I feel about rock 'n roll, probably because I got my fill of it, and because so little today's rock and roll new strikes me as...well...new. Not much going on there, with scant few exceptions. I hate country music even worse. Randy   Date: 14 Apr 2007 11:08:02 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 14, 3:04 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:1176533590.105711.211650@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Apr 13, 10:33 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > >> Oh, and by the way, congratulations on recanting your position. I, too, > >> provided you with some supplemental information about Imus's past > >> remarks. > > >> It takes a man to stand up and admit he was wrong. > > >> I can't believe I'm saying that to you. But it's true. > > >> Randy- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > I've been a man for 30 years. > > > -Greg > > That would not make you a man. It would make you an old fart. > > Like me. > > Randy- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Middle-Aged Fart!! ; > When I play golf last week with my 77 year old uncle and his cronies, they kept calling me "young man." I'm beginning to appreciate that! -Greg   Date: 14 Apr 2007 00:59:39 From: johnty Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 12 Apr, 22:51, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > > Chinese people were never held down in America, and have never faced the > kind of discriminations that blacks endured. Did you know that the real number of deaths in the 1906 SF earthquake was much higher that the official death toll, because they thought it wasn't worth including the Chinese?     Date: 14 Apr 2007 06:12:08 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "johnty" <johnty1@hotmail.com > wrote in message news:1176537579.572879.146600@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Apr, 22:51, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: >> >> Chinese people were never held down in America, and have never faced the >> kind of discriminations that blacks endured. > > > Did you know that the real number of deaths in the 1906 SF earthquake > was much higher that the official death toll, because they thought it > wasn't worth including the Chinese? And this affected the Chinese-Americans' efforts to find good jobs...how? To try to draw a parallel between that and what happened to black people in America is just stupid. Randy   Date: 13 Apr 2007 23:53:10 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 10:33 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > Oh, and by the way, congratulations on recanting your position. I, too, > provided you with some supplemental information about Imus's past remarks. > > It takes a man to stand up and admit he was wrong. > > I can't believe I'm saying that to you. But it's true. > > Randy- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I've been a man for 30 years. -Greg     Date: 14 Apr 2007 06:04:56 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1176533590.105711.211650@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 13, 10:33 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > >> Oh, and by the way, congratulations on recanting your position. I, too, >> provided you with some supplemental information about Imus's past >> remarks. >> >> It takes a man to stand up and admit he was wrong. >> >> I can't believe I'm saying that to you. But it's true. >> >> Randy- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > I've been a man for 30 years. > > -Greg That would not make you a man. It would make you an old fart. Like me. Randy       Date: 14 Apr 2007 10:45:24 From: George Hibbard Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) >> It takes a man to stand up and admit he was wrong. >> Unless he is simply covering his butt because NOT to admit it is to get in deeper. For too many, expressing remorse is about getting caught. Not for the core reason for the offense, which is what really counts. I can't speak for DImus's sincerity - I don't like to expose myself to mud and slime, so I haven't listened to his "apology." However, he doesn't pass the sniff test, although he actually may have come to see the meanspiritedness of this latest gaffe. But he has a lot of territory to retrace and revisit.         Date: 14 Apr 2007 11:36:52 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "George Hibbard" <gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote in message news:_L5Uh.3862$XU4.247@bignews8.bellsouth.net... >>> It takes a man to stand up and admit he was wrong. >>> > > > Unless he is simply covering his butt because NOT to admit it is to get in > deeper. I wasn't referring to D. Imus. His track record of repeating this same mistake over and over, apologizing for it whenever there was an uproar, and then returning to his same M.O. once the furor died down, gives every indication that the only thing he was sorry for was getting caught and losing his $10-million a year job. I was referring to Dene, who, prior to now, had never demonstrated an ability to rethink and recalibrate his own opinions when new facts were presented. Randy > For too many, expressing remorse is about getting caught. > > Not for the core reason for the offense, which is what really counts. > > I can't speak for DImus's sincerity - I don't like to expose myself to mud > and slime, so I haven't listened to his "apology." However, he doesn't > pass the sniff test, although he actually may have come to see the > meanspiritedness of this latest gaffe. But he has a lot of territory to > retrace and revisit. > > >   Date: 13 Apr 2007 23:45:33 From: Dene Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology On Apr 13, 11:09 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:1176528945.391263.97450@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Apr 13, 9:09 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > >> "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote > > >> > Good article. It demonstrates the character of these ladies, in > >> > contrast to Sharpton and Jackson. > > >> Sharpton and Jackson have done more things for more people than you will > >> in > >> five lifetimes. > > >> You can't very well stand up for free speech by one person (Imus) without > >> defending the right to free speech by people you don't happen to agree > >> with. > > >> Truth is, I'll bet you can't name five things Sharpton and Jackson have > >> done > >> that you would object to. You're just parrotting the mindless drivel > >> spouted by your right-wing mouthpieces. > > >> Randy > > > Lets succinctly start with Sharpton.... > > > 1. His obvious jealousy and criticism of Obama, who isn't radical or > > racial enough for him. > > > 2. The Tawna Brawley controversy and the fact that he hasn't paid the > > subsequent lawsuit against him. > > > 3. The Crown Heights riots, in particular referring to Hasidic Jews > > as > > 'Diamond Merchants." > > > 4. His comments that led to the Freddie Fashion Mart massacre. > > > 5. His obvious shakedown agenda with the Imus situation. > > > There is even more about Jesse......... Do you require further > > enlightment? > > > -Greg > > Would it be fair to say, as I have asked Ken Pitts, that the only black > leaders you can support happen to be conservative and/or Republican black > leaders? No. I have no idea what the Reverend, who mediated the Rutger/Imus meeting, politics are. Also, I've not ruled out voting for Obama. > If so, then I have nothing more to add, other than to say this: You're not > black, so no one who will be likely to give credence to what black leaders > have to say will ever give a shit what you think. (Or what I think, for > that matter.) Nobody cares....so that mean neither your or I should offer an opinion. Good thing the majority who vote don't buy that cop-out. -Greg   Date: 13 Apr 2007 22:35:45 From: Dene Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology On Apr 13, 9:09 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote > > > > > Good article. It demonstrates the character of these ladies, in > > contrast to Sharpton and Jackson. > > Sharpton and Jackson have done more things for more people than you will in > five lifetimes. > > You can't very well stand up for free speech by one person (Imus) without > defending the right to free speech by people you don't happen to agree with. > > Truth is, I'll bet you can't name five things Sharpton and Jackson have done > that you would object to. You're just parrotting the mindless drivel > spouted by your right-wing mouthpieces. > > Randy Lets succinctly start with Sharpton.... 1. His obvious jealousy and criticism of Obama, who isn't radical or racial enough for him. 2. The Tawna Brawley controversy and the fact that he hasn't paid the subsequent lawsuit against him. 3. The Crown Heights riots, in particular referring to Hasidic Jews as 'Diamond Merchants." 4. His comments that led to the Freddie Fashion Mart massacre. 5. His obvious shakedown agenda with the Imus situation. There is even more about Jesse......... Do you require further enlightment? -Greg     Date: 14 Apr 2007 02:09:57 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1176528945.391263.97450@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 13, 9:09 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: >> "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote >> >> >> >> > Good article. It demonstrates the character of these ladies, in >> > contrast to Sharpton and Jackson. >> >> Sharpton and Jackson have done more things for more people than you will >> in >> five lifetimes. >> >> You can't very well stand up for free speech by one person (Imus) without >> defending the right to free speech by people you don't happen to agree >> with. >> >> Truth is, I'll bet you can't name five things Sharpton and Jackson have >> done >> that you would object to. You're just parrotting the mindless drivel >> spouted by your right-wing mouthpieces. >> >> Randy > > Lets succinctly start with Sharpton.... > > 1. His obvious jealousy and criticism of Obama, who isn't radical or > racial enough for him. > > 2. The Tawna Brawley controversy and the fact that he hasn't paid the > subsequent lawsuit against him. > > 3. The Crown Heights riots, in particular referring to Hasidic Jews > as > 'Diamond Merchants." > > 4. His comments that led to the Freddie Fashion Mart massacre. > > 5. His obvious shakedown agenda with the Imus situation. > > There is even more about Jesse......... Do you require further > enlightment? > > -Greg Would it be fair to say, as I have asked Ken Pitts, that the only black leaders you can support happen to be conservative and/or Republican black leaders? If so, then I have nothing more to add, other than to say this: You're not black, so no one who will be likely to give credence to what black leaders have to say will ever give a shit what you think. (Or what I think, for that matter.) Randy       Date: 16 Apr 2007 05:27:38 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology On 14-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > Would it be fair to say, as I have asked Ken Pitts, that the only black > leaders you can support happen to be conservative and/or Republican black > leaders? I would settle for one that isn't a shakedown artist. Are you one that would dismiss any conservative black as an uncle tom? Would you read Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele or Juan or Walter Williams? -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.         Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:59:21 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message news:46230939$0$25230$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... > > On 14-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: > >> Would it be fair to say, as I have asked Ken Pitts, that the only black >> leaders you can support happen to be conservative and/or Republican black >> leaders? > > I would settle for one that isn't a shakedown artist. Are you one that > would > dismiss any conservative black as an uncle tom? > Would you read Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele or Juan or Walter Williams? > -- > bill-o I would simply respond to you by saying what I said to Ken Pitts earlier tonight.... The minute African-Americans start to give one-tenth of a shit who you think their leaders should be, by all means, let me know. Because until that moment arrives, you're merely wacking off to your own lilly-white fantasy. Good luck with that. Randy           Date: 25 Apr 2007 04:44:56 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology On 24-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > Because until that > moment arrives, you're merely wacking off to your own lilly-white fantasy. Statements like this make it clear that you are just here to exhibit your moral superiority. You are, after all, a legend in your own mind. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.           Date: 25 Apr 2007 04:31:16 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology On 24-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > The minute African-Americans start to give one-tenth of a shit who you > think their leaders should be, by all means, let me know. If you really think that "african-americans" appointed these self serving hacks as their leaders you are naive. Hell, Jesse even managed to get himself declared persona non grata in the King household for his self-serving ways. If it was good enough for Coretta it is good enough for me. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.             Date: 25 Apr 2007 07:57:41 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message news:462ed993$0$25219$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... > > On 24-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: > >> The minute African-Americans start to give one-tenth of a shit who you >> think their leaders should be, by all means, let me know. > > If you really think that "african-americans" appointed these self serving > hacks as their leaders you are naive. > Hell, Jesse even managed to get himself declared persona non grata in the > King household for his self-serving ways. > If it was good enough for Coretta it is good enough for me. As if you know a thing about what Coretta Scott King said or believed. Randy               Date: 26 Apr 2007 07:04:44 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology On 25-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > As if you know a thing about what Coretta Scott King said or believed. More than you, I would wager. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 13 Apr 2007 22:19:57 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 6:04 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > > He noted that Mr. Imus explained to the Rutgers team that his incendiary > remarks had to be taken in the context that he had always taken shots at > EVERYBODY, which, in so many words, meant he was an "equal opportunity > offender." > > One of the women on the Rutgers team responded, saying, "And you're proud of > that? Are you saying you're actually proud of the fact that you've built > your career on taking unnecessary shots at people who were unable to > respond?" > > That pretty much sums it up. > Agree. I've recanted my position. Based on the info Bellamy provided, Imus deserved to be fired a long time ago. I'm especially disturbed by him verbally abusing a female co-worker. I was not aware of any of this during the times I caught his show, which has been infrequent the past couple of years. Had the Rutger incident been a one time event, then I'd feel differently. This change of position does not modify my distaste for Sharpton and Jackson, who are racial ambulance chasers bent on shaking down guilt ridden white folks in the name of racism. The civil rights movement will always on shaky grounds while these two racists are running the show. -Greg     Date: 14 Apr 2007 01:33:35 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1176527997.026105.173660@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 13, 6:04 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > >> >> He noted that Mr. Imus explained to the Rutgers team that his incendiary >> remarks had to be taken in the context that he had always taken shots at >> EVERYBODY, which, in so many words, meant he was an "equal opportunity >> offender." >> >> One of the women on the Rutgers team responded, saying, "And you're proud >> of >> that? Are you saying you're actually proud of the fact that you've built >> your career on taking unnecessary shots at people who were unable to >> respond?" >> >> That pretty much sums it up. >> > > Agree. I've recanted my position. Based on the info Bellamy > provided, Imus deserved to be fired a long time ago. I'm especially > disturbed by him verbally abusing a female co-worker. I was not aware > of any of this during the times I caught his show, which has been > infrequent the past couple of years. > > Had the Rutger incident been a one time event, then I'd feel > differently. > > This change of position does not modify my distaste for Sharpton and > Jackson, who are racial ambulance chasers bent on shaking down guilt > ridden white folks in the name of racism. The civil rights movement > will always on shaky grounds while these two racists are running the > show. > > -Greg Oh, and by the way, congratulations on recanting your position. I, too, provided you with some supplemental information about Imus's past remarks. It takes a man to stand up and admit he was wrong. I can't believe I'm saying that to you. But it's true. Randy     Date: 14 Apr 2007 01:31:45 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1176527997.026105.173660@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 13, 6:04 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > >> >> He noted that Mr. Imus explained to the Rutgers team that his incendiary >> remarks had to be taken in the context that he had always taken shots at >> EVERYBODY, which, in so many words, meant he was an "equal opportunity >> offender." >> >> One of the women on the Rutgers team responded, saying, "And you're proud >> of >> that? Are you saying you're actually proud of the fact that you've built >> your career on taking unnecessary shots at people who were unable to >> respond?" >> >> That pretty much sums it up. >> > > Agree. I've recanted my position. Based on the info Bellamy > provided, Imus deserved to be fired a long time ago. I'm especially > disturbed by him verbally abusing a female co-worker. I was not aware > of any of this during the times I caught his show, which has been > infrequent the past couple of years. > > Had the Rutger incident been a one time event, then I'd feel > differently. > > This change of position does not modify my distaste for Sharpton and > Jackson, who are racial ambulance chasers bent on shaking down guilt > ridden white folks in the name of racism. The civil rights movement > will always on shaky grounds while these two racists are running the > show. You keep saying that, but what, exactly, has Al Sharpton done that so disturbs you? Are you now calling for his free speech rights to be limited? Or do you still defend the First Amendment? Randy       Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:49:31 From: Sparky Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 14-Apr-2007, > You keep saying that, but what, exactly, has Al Sharpton done that so > disturbs you? > > Are you now calling for his free speech rights to be limited? Or do you > still defend the First Amendment? You mean like you do for Neal Boortz? "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > When people like Neal Boortz are finally removed from the air and silenced > > forever, then I'll be satisfied that we've turned a corner.         Date: 24 Apr 2007 21:45:54 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Sparky" <biff@funco.com > wrote in message news:A8adnWnnT-VHfrrbnZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@giganews.com... > > > > > On 14-Apr-2007, > >> You keep saying that, but what, exactly, has Al Sharpton done that so >> disturbs you? >> >> Are you now calling for his free speech rights to be limited? Or do you >> still defend the First Amendment? > > > > You mean like you do for Neal Boortz? Let's not confuse the First Amendment right to free speech with a presumed right to use the broadcast airwaves to distribute that free speech. Neal Boortz can stand on any street corner in the world and say whatever he wants. That speech is protected by the First Amendment. But the Constitution makes no guarantee to any citizen of a right to access the air waves. Furthermore, just because one has the right to free speech doesn't mean exercising that right doesn't carry consequences. Just try yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theatre and see how far your First Amendment right to free speech gets you when you're appearing in court. Randy         Date: 19 Apr 2007 21:55:13 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Sparky <biff@funco.com > wrote: > > On 14-Apr-2007, > >> You keep saying that, but what, exactly, has Al Sharpton done that so >> disturbs you? >> >> Are you now calling for his free speech rights to be limited? Or do you >> still defend the First Amendment? > > You mean like you do for Neal Boortz? Al Sharpton has a nationally syndicated radio show? When did that happen? -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/       Date: 16 Apr 2007 05:19:58 From: bill-o Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 14-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > You keep saying that, but what, exactly, has Al Sharpton done that so > disturbs you? http://palousitics.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-does-al-sharpton-get-away-with-it.html -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 13 Apr 2007 21:55:53 From: Ben. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 8:53 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > Do I need to remind you of the lyrics of "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen? > There was not much left to the imagination in that song, a #1 Top 40 hit in > 1963. Come again? Actually quite the opposite. _Everything_ was left to the imagination in the Kingsmen version of "Louie Louie". I've heard different accounts of the poor/jumbled vocal quality which led to all the controversy, and this is one supposition from wikipedia: "according to some reports, the band may have thought they were rehearsing rather than laying down the final track. Ely himself, depending on which source one believes, was either hoarse from singing the night before, wearing braces on his teeth, hung over or it could have been that Ely, along with the rest of the group, simply lacked the experience and talent to produce a proper recording." And these are the lyrics that generated all the controversy - not for the faint of heart: CHORUS: Louie Louie, oh no Me gotta go Aye-yi-yi-yi, I said Louie Louie, oh baby Me gotta go Fine little girl waits for me Catch a ship across the sea Sail that ship about, all alone Never know if I make it home CHORUS Three nights and days I sail the sea Think of girl, constantly On that ship, I dream she's there I smell the rose in her hair. CHORUS Okay, let's give it to 'em, right now! GUITAR SOLO See Jamaica, the moon above It won't be long, me see me love Take her in my arms again Tell her I'll never leave again CHORUS Let's take it on outa here now Let's go!!   Date: 13 Apr 2007 16:07:03 From: John B. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 4:44 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote: > "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1176490738.807109.159460@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > On Apr 13, 2:47 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote: > >> "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > >>news:2T40r7jeI4idN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > >> > MnMikew <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > >> >>news:3T40qvjmI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... > >> >>> Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >> >>>> "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > >> >>>>news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > >> >>>>>This guy really does not like > >> >>>>> black people. > > >> >>>> Does that break any laws? > > >> >>> It makes him unfit to have a national radio and cable television > >> >>> show. > > >> >>>> Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? > > >> >>> Would I bring any such harm down on you if I got on Westwood One > >> >>> and MSNBC and called you demeaning names for no reason after you > >> >>> had just accomplished something noteworthy? "That Otto, he's a > >> >>> real cracker isn't he? A total inbred white trash cracker." > > >> >>> Better still, what if Snoop Dogg took over the Imus slot and > >> >>> starting doing shit like that? Can you even imagine? > > >> >> He'd get a free pass. > > >> > Bill O'Reilly would burn him in effigy every night. > > >> I'd like to see Bill and Snoopy in a UFC ring.- > > >>Snoop would whip his sorry white ass. > > Not a chance in hell. Oh yeah? How much you wannna bet?     Date: 16 Apr 2007 09:36:16 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1176505623.890836.87260@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 13, 4:44 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote: >> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1176490738.807109.159460@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Apr 13, 2:47 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> >> >>news:2T40r7jeI4idN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> >> >> > MnMikew <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> >> >>news:3T40qvjmI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> >> >>> Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> >> >>>>news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> >> >>>>>This guy really does not like >> >> >>>>> black people. >> >> >> >>>> Does that break any laws? >> >> >> >>> It makes him unfit to have a national radio and cable television >> >> >>> show. >> >> >> >>>> Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? >> >> >> >>> Would I bring any such harm down on you if I got on Westwood One >> >> >>> and MSNBC and called you demeaning names for no reason after you >> >> >>> had just accomplished something noteworthy? "That Otto, he's a >> >> >>> real cracker isn't he? A total inbred white trash cracker." >> >> >> >>> Better still, what if Snoop Dogg took over the Imus slot and >> >> >>> starting doing shit like that? Can you even imagine? >> >> >> >> He'd get a free pass. >> >> >> > Bill O'Reilly would burn him in effigy every night. >> >> >> I'd like to see Bill and Snoopy in a UFC ring.- >> >> >>Snoop would whip his sorry white ass. >> >> Not a chance in hell. > > > Oh yeah? How much you wannna bet? > You name it bub! Ever see snoop with his shirt off? Makes Pflum look fat.       Date: 16 Apr 2007 15:39:09 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:36:16 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: > >"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> >> I'd like to see Bill and Snoopy in a UFC ring.- >>> >>> >>Snoop would whip his sorry white ass. >>> >>> Not a chance in hell. >> >> >> Oh yeah? How much you wannna bet? >> >You name it bub! Ever see snoop with his shirt off? Makes Pflum look fat. > Wow. You hang with the SnoopDog when he undresses? :-) -- ___, \o         Date: 16 Apr 2007 11:35:53 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message news:r367231r36ed4pht3rbguerkdk1e6navmm@4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:36:16 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> > wrote: > >> >>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>> >> I'd like to see Bill and Snoopy in a UFC ring.- >>>> >>>> >>Snoop would whip his sorry white ass. >>>> >>>> Not a chance in hell. >>> >>> >>> Oh yeah? How much you wannna bet? >>> >>You name it bub! Ever see snoop with his shirt off? Makes Pflum look fat. >> > > Wow. You hang with the SnoopDog when he undresses? :-) > -- MTV Cribs.   Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:58:59 From: John B. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 2:45 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net > wrote: > In article <1bPTh.385$29....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, > > > > > > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote in message > >news:Me2dnZgGBbQWJ4LbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > > "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > > >news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > > >>This guy really does not like > > > >> black people. > > > > > Does that break any laws? > > > > > Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? > > > > > Otto > > > > Otto, you miss the point. > > > > When people of "stature" (and let's face it, anybody who has the national > > > bully pulpit and interviews government officials, politicians, diplomats, > > > etc. has what most people would call "stature") can get away with spewing > > > racial and sexist epithets without paying a price, it lowers the bar for > > > everyone. And it helps create a culture in which we move backwards to the > > > 1950s. > > > > Are you advocating such a thing? > > > Not at all and I agree with your position. > > > But I also don't agree with tar and feathering. > > No one is tar and feathering Imus. > the people who deserve to be tarred and feathered are the ones who put him on the air and the ones who listened to him. Whether Imus is a racist or not, he is obviously a mean-spirited, malicious guy. And that is what attracted people to his show. Same with Howard Stern. Same with Ruch Limbaugh. Same with probably a dozen other radio talk show hosts. Rather than arguing about the relative integrity of these vicious, hateful people, their fans should think about their own integrity; they have created the environment in which these cockroaches can thrive.   Date: From: Subject:   Date: 13 Apr 2007 11:36:48 From: John B. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 1:35 pm, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote in message > > news:Me2dnZgGBbQWJ4LbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com... > > > > > > > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > >news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > >>This guy really does not like > > >> black people. > > > > Does that break any laws? > > > > Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? > > > > Otto > > > Otto, you miss the point. > > > When people of "stature" (and let's face it, anybody who has the national > > bully pulpit and interviews government officials, politicians, diplomats, > > etc. has what most people would call "stature") can get away with spewing > > racial and sexist epithets without paying a price, it lowers the bar for > > everyone. And it helps create a culture in which we move backwards to the > > 1950s. > > > Are you advocating such a thing? > > Not at all and I agree with your position. > > But I also don't agree with tar and feathering. > > I cringe when we start to demonize someone simply because of what they > think/believe. That is a very dangerous and slippery slope. > > Otto- On what other basis would we demonize people? If Hitler had only hated Jews, but had not tried to exterminate them, would we be wrong to demonize him for that? How about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who said feminists, homosexuals, abortionists, the ACLU and People for the American Way were responsible for 9/11? Is it unfair to demonize them for what they think?     Date: 16 Apr 2007 05:01:10 From: bill-o Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 13-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > On what other basis would we demonize people? Based on their actions, beliefs are inconsequential if not acted upon. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.     Date: 13 Apr 2007 20:13:11 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1176489407.977052.252300@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On what other basis would we demonize people? If Hitler had only hated > Jews, but had not tried to exterminate them, would we be wrong to > demonize him for that? > > How about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who said feminists, > homosexuals, abortionists, the ACLU and People for the American Way > were responsible for 9/11? Is it unfair to demonize them for what they > think? Nothing wrong with what any of those people think. It is only wrong when they act on it. Otto   Date: 13 Apr 2007 11:26:20 From: John B. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 12:48 pm, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > news:3T40qvjmI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > > Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > >news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > >>This guy really does not like > > >> black people. > > > > Does that break any laws? > > > It makes him unfit to have a national radio and cable television > > show. > > Says who? Cable is private enterprise. So is satellite. He'll be back. You > may not see him on public airwaves, but you'll have the chance to see/hear > him on the private airwaves. > > > > > > Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? > > > Would I bring any such harm down on you if I got on Westwood One > > and MSNBC and called you demeaning names for no reason after you > > had just accomplished something noteworthy? "That Otto, he's a > > real cracker isn't he? A total inbred white trash cracker." > > No legal or financial harm there. I might even chuckle at it. > > > Better still, what if Snoop Dogg took over the Imus slot and > > starting doing shit like that? Can you even imagine? > > Snoop's a dope smoking idiot and anything he said would be even funnier. > > LOL!! > > Otto Is it your belief that moral behavior and integrity are based only on what is legal and financially harmless?   Date: 13 Apr 2007 11:01:41 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 10:20 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote > > > > > I see Imus owning up. > > Then you haven't been listening to him. > > He blames rappers. > > He blames MSNBC. > > In the past several days, he has blamed anybody with a pulse who might be a > target at which he could send some of the blame for creating a situation in > which he would be a victim here. > > That's not apologizing. That's trying to weasel out of being solely > accountable for the words that came out of his mouth. > > > > > I think they are similar transgressions. Imus was trying to be > > funny. > > Please explain, in your own words, what part of calling ten students at > Rutgers University that you've never met "nappy headed hos" is funny. > > I'll be most interested in how you see even a hint of humor in that. Or > more importantly, how you could justify that anyone *could* see it as funny. > > Please, enlighten me. > > Randy I've already answered your previous questions as to why I think his apology is both valid and courageous. As for the humor, I've never thought Imus racial joke or Chris Rock's incessant use of the word "nigger" is funny. The only racial humor that I've ever enjoyed is William's and Ree's comedy, "The Indian and the white guy." They are obviously friends and partners. Their jabs are evenly matched.....and hysterical. I love it when Ree says, "You stole our land but our casinos are getting your all your money." -Greg     Date: 13 Apr 2007 21:04:53 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1176487301.536399.155940@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 13, 10:20 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: >> "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote >> >> >> >> > I see Imus owning up. >> >> Then you haven't been listening to him. >> >> He blames rappers. >> >> He blames MSNBC. >> >> In the past several days, he has blamed anybody with a pulse who might be >> a >> target at which he could send some of the blame for creating a situation >> in >> which he would be a victim here. >> >> That's not apologizing. That's trying to weasel out of being solely >> accountable for the words that came out of his mouth. >> >> >> >> > I think they are similar transgressions. Imus was trying to be >> > funny. >> >> Please explain, in your own words, what part of calling ten students at >> Rutgers University that you've never met "nappy headed hos" is funny. >> >> I'll be most interested in how you see even a hint of humor in that. Or >> more importantly, how you could justify that anyone *could* see it as >> funny. >> >> Please, enlighten me. >> >> Randy > > I've already answered your previous questions as to why I think his > apology is both valid and courageous. As for the humor, I've never > thought Imus racial joke or Chris Rock's incessant use of the word > "nigger" is funny. > > The only racial humor that I've ever enjoyed is William's and Ree's > comedy, "The Indian and the white guy." They are obviously friends > and partners. Their jabs are evenly matched.....and hysterical. I > love it when Ree says, "You stole our land but our casinos are getting > your all your money." > > -Greg You need to spend more time around black people. Then, maybe, you'd get it. Randy   Date: 13 Apr 2007 10:04:50 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 9:40 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > news:1T40qg5sIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > > > > > > Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 12, 11:29 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > >>> Imus' job security should not be based upon some rapper's record deal in > >>> Los > >>> Angeles, any more than your job security should be tied to some > >>> like-minded > >>> conservative in Florida who goes off the deep end and does something > >>> foolish. They should be dealt with separately. Because they ARE > >>> separate > >>> issues. > > >> Agree. The only correlation is the hypocrisy of Sharpton and Jackson > >> for not drawing attn. to the black rappers and comedians. Imus is a > >> splinter....the rappers and comedians are logs. Imus shouldn't be the > >> catalyst for Sharpton and Jackson finally cleaning up their own > >> house. They should have addressed this long ago. They didn't... > > > Does google not work at your location? Because before you fling > > accusations like that around, you should be sure they're actually > > true and not just thoughtless smears tossed out by racists. > > > From 2005: > > > The criticisms of Lil' Kim were launched amid an > > anti-rap movement that began in March, soon after shots > > were fired by the rival entourages of 50 Cent and the > > Game outside a New York radio station. Al Sharpton > > demanded that the Federal Communications Commission ban > > violent rappers from radio and television, and he > > launched a boycott against Universal Music Group, which > > he accused of "peddling racist and misogynistic black > > stereotypes" through rap music. Sharpton expressed > > special concern about white perceptions of African > > Americans. Rappers and their corporate supporters "make > > it easy for black culture to be dismissed by the > > majority," he said, and the large white fan base "has > > learned through rap images to identify black male culture > > with a culture of violence." > > > Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition signed on to the > > boycott, as did Princeton professor Cornel West, who > > issued a statement claiming that music companies and > > rappers made it easy for whites to "view black bodies and > > black souls as less moral, oversexed and less > > intelligent." > > > I'll say it again. Bigots need to quit acting like the actions of > > dumb black kids gives them license to use the same racial and > > sexual epithets the dumb kids use. This argument is pathetic. > > > -- > > Chris Bellomy > > C-List Charter Member > >http://clist.org/ > > Remember, Chris, Dene lives in Oregon, where there are only seven black > people in the entire damn state. > > He's probably never actually met one. > > Randy- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Your ignorance and maturity is manifesting itself again, Randy. FTR, I live in Washington. Thanks for the citation, Chris. What became of this outrage....anything? Finally, I've never said that the Imus comment should be excused because of other's racial remarks. -Greg   Date: 13 Apr 2007 10:00:02 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 9:39 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > > > Agree. The only correlation is the hypocrisy of Sharpton and Jackson > > for not drawing attn. to the black rappers and comedians. > > Here you're just showing your ignorance (or bias). > > Sharpton and Jackson are on record from hundreds of occasions when they > spoke out loudly against epithets and sexist lyrics in rap music and in pop > culture in general. > > Check the public record. I did and it shows nothing. I'll be happy to view any citation you offer. > Sorry, Dene, but this empty claim is another straw man you're merely > parrotting from the mouthpieces of the right. Again, check the public > record. Sharpton and Jackson have spoken out about this stuff on hundreds > of occasions. Your trusted sources of information from the wacky right are > lying to you...again. > > > Imus is a splinter....the rappers and comedians are logs. Imus shouldn't > > be the > > catalyst for Sharpton and Jackson finally cleaning up their own > > house. They should have addressed this long ago. They didn't...and > > for that reason, among others, the black community should fire both of > > these charlatons. > > And who, pray tell, would fire them? Their supporters/contributors.....their board of directors.....the sponsors who enable Sharpton's radio show. > Name the person who would hand them the pink slip. Just did. > Your ignorance is showing again. Yeah....anybody who disagrees with you is ignorant. Your level of maturity is manifesting itself again. > >> I think if we step back from the Imus thing for just a moment and imagine > >> your daughter playing for her college basketball team who played a game > >> on > >> national television. You're obviously proud of her, and probably for > >> good > >> reason. You're proud of her academic progress, you're proud of her > >> athletic > >> accomplishments, and you're proud of how she and her team reached a level > >> of > >> national interest that a network would carry their game. Then some shock > >> jock goes on national radio and television and declares her and the rest > >> of > >> her teammates as a bunch of "stringy-haired whores." What would your > >> reaction be? > > > I'll answer that. I'd be angry until he apologizes. Then I'd pay > > close attn. to his apology and try to determine if he's sorry that he > > got caught or sorry for what he said. > > I have no doubt Imus is sorry. You'd be sorry, too, if your $10-million a > year job was threatened by your remarks, or taken away entirely. Imus doesn't need the money or the job. Fortunately the Rutger's ladies disagree. with your assessment of Don's apology. Read the latest headline... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18089620/ They are showing character, in contrast to Sharpton and Jackson. > As has been chronicled many times in the past week, this isn't the first > time Imus has done this, and it isn't the first time he apologized for it, > promising to "do better." Chronicled but not substantiated. I have not heard of one media source cite that Imus has made a racial joke or remark like the one he made a week ago. > Apologies begin to ring empty after a while when they're for mistakes that > the same person keeps repeating. > > > In this case, I think Imus is sorry for what he said and been very > > courageous in addressing it, > > Courageous? > > You call DOING WHAT YOU SHOULD DO courageous? YES! Doing the right thing is often the most difficult thing. In hindsight, Imus should have been quicker to deal with this and perhaps suspend himself for a couple of weeks, taking the power out of Sharpton and Jackson's hand. Furthermore, he shouldn't have acknowledged Sharpton by appearing on his radio show. The upside is that this encounter demonstrates that Sharpton is a fat phony.....an opportunist to the nth degree. In contrast, there is the Reverend who mediated the Imus/Rutger meeting. A very eloquent, gracious man. That's the kind of man who should be leading the black community. Not hate-mongers like Sharpton and Jackson. Wasn't Sharpton successfully sued for his remarks? Has he paid a nickel? Reminiscent of OJ's suit. > Look, in the past several days, Imus has apologized. But if you listen > closely to the remarks he's made (and, really, you don't have to listen all > that closely to pick up on this), his remarks have sounded much more like > he's trying to defend himself than like an apology. He has blamed others, > and he has tried to justify the remarks he's made. He's spoken the truth, about his own actions and the agenda of others. > If someone is truly sorry, they don't try to make excuses. They just say "I > fucked up" and they throw themselves on the mercy of those he offended, not > keep trying to put up a defense. He did that on Sharpton's program, but to no avail. He also did that with the Rutger's ladies and they graciously forgave him. Sharpton had no intention of forgiving Imus. He saw opportunity......plain and simple. > I found his apologies more offensive than the original remark, and I'm glad > he's gone. He got what he deserved. > > > Bill Clinton, in contrast, was only sorry he > > got caught. Had he been sorry for what he did, > > What the hell does Bill Clinton have to do with any of this? Stop trying to > change the subject. Read carefully. Notice the context. It was an example of contrasting apologies. Bill Clinton is a has-been coward. I had no intention of discussing him. -Greg   Date: 13 Apr 2007 09:57:43 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 11:45 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message > > news:461f011a$0$25209$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... > > > > > On 12-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > >> Not even I would disagree that there's a double standard. And anyone > >> with > >> an ounce of decency knows why, and accepts that double standard without > >> protest. > > > This statement just blows my mind! > > -- > > bill-o > > It would if you're a racist. > ...snippitt... > That tells me a lot about you. > Tells me more about you. If some Uncle Tom like Snoop Dog wants to foam at the mouth about hos, degrade African American culture and whatever to sell records to white kids and make money for white record producers, he is free to do so, and he is what he is. Don Imus can call any women anything he wants, and you or I can call anyone, African Americans included, whatever they want. It's a matter of freedom of speech, which means the government does not have the right to arrest you in any way for it. However, people can react to your words however they want as well. No one is under any obligation to listen to you. From radical nutcases disrupting funerals to the same sorts of idiot loons disrupting graduations and the like. This sort of thing representsd disturbing the peace, and has nothing to do with free speech. People don't *HAVE* to listen, and you have no right to force your speech onto anyone. People do not have to listen to Don Imus. If you don't like Condoleeza Rice and she is speaking at your graduation, you can skip the ceremonies, have alternate ceremonies, but you have no right to disrput ceremonies. Hopefully issues like this will lead to the awareness that we don't have to put up with these people, and we hold them responsible for the consequences of their actions; Imus is as good a place to start as any. Now if people could see Mr. Dog for what he is.....     Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:31:45 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message news:1176483463.938181.306010@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 13, 11:45 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: >> "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message >> >> news:461f011a$0$25209$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... >> >> >> >> > On 12-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: >> >> >> Not even I would disagree that there's a double standard. And anyone >> >> with >> >> an ounce of decency knows why, and accepts that double standard >> >> without >> >> protest. >> >> > This statement just blows my mind! >> > -- >> > bill-o >> >> It would if you're a racist. >> > ...snippitt... > >> That tells me a lot about you. >> > > > Tells me more about you. If some Uncle Tom like Snoop Dog wants to > foam at the mouth about hos, degrade African American culture and > whatever to sell records to white kids and make money for white record > producers, he is free to do so, and he is what he is. Sorry, Rob. But you're not going to pin that on me, and trust me on this, you don't want to go here with me. As I have mentioned before, I was once engaged to an African-American woman (we called off the wedding for reasons that aren't relevant to this discussion). A few months later, she died. During our time together, we endured plenty of "looks" from people that sent a clear signal that our relationship was not approved by certain individuals, both black and white. We also heard some of the mutterings, and in one instance, even had to endure an out and out encounter with one racist individual who couldn't hold their disgust in. I fielded a phone call at work once from an individual who threatened to kill me, calling me a "ni**er lover," which prompted me to involve law enforcement authorities. (Death threats have a way of doing that.) Having experienced racism from "the other side," I know full well that racism can take many forms. Despite claims to the contrary by certain African-Americans, I know from personal experience that hatred that is based solely on race can come from both white people and black people. And while I haven't personally experienced it, I'm sure it can come from brown people. And yellow people. So you're not going to pin on me some archaic notion that I believe black people aren't capable of racism or of behaving in a way that does no harm to members of their own race. We all know there are some who do. And as it has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, many, many leaders (not just Sharpton and Jackson) have spoken out about it on hundreds of occasions, and have many people working behind the scenes to effect change in the music industry. But as I've said elsewhere, while I agree that lyrics in rap (and other forms of) music is a discussion worth having, it is a separate issue that only serves to cloud the Imus debate. Imus was wrong -- period. Imus was wrong, regardless of what others do, just as your child is wrong when they behave badly, regardless of what his friends at school may do. Let's have that discussion about rap lyrics (and pop culture in general). But it's a separate discussion and does not in any way justify Imus's gratuitous and hateful remarks -- not just the ones he made about the Rutgers team, but a litany of similar remarks he's made over the years. This was merely a tipping point for him. Enough was enough. Randy       Date: 16 Apr 2007 05:06:07 From: bill-o Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 13-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > Imus was wrong -- period. Imus was > wrong, regardless of what others do, No one, that I know or have read, disputes this. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 13 Apr 2007 08:45:58 From: Dene Subject: Rutger's team accepts apology http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18089620/ Good article. It demonstrates the character of these ladies, in contrast to Sharpton and Jackson. -Greg     Date: 14 Apr 2007 00:09:13 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote > > Good article. It demonstrates the character of these ladies, in > contrast to Sharpton and Jackson. Sharpton and Jackson have done more things for more people than you will in five lifetimes. You can't very well stand up for free speech by one person (Imus) without defending the right to free speech by people you don't happen to agree with. Truth is, I'll bet you can't name five things Sharpton and Jackson have done that you would object to. You're just parrotting the mindless drivel spouted by your right-wing mouthpieces. Randy       Date: 14 Apr 2007 02:54:08 From: Joe Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology "R&B" wrote: > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote >> Good article. It demonstrates the character of these ladies, in >> contrast to Sharpton and Jackson. > > Sharpton and Jackson have done more things for more people than you will in > five lifetimes. > > You can't very well stand up for free speech by one person (Imus) without > defending the right to free speech by people you don't happen to agree with. > > Truth is, I'll bet you can't name five things Sharpton and Jackson have done > that you would object to. You're just parrotting the mindless drivel > spouted by your right-wing mouthpieces. > > Randy > You have totally lost it Randy. You try and cap all of the over top rhetoric that you have been spewing forth (right phrase) in the IMUS threads with this nonsense. Are you living in the same country that I am? And don't give me that tired left wing nut Limbaugh - Hannity BS. I don't pay attention either one of them. These two, Sharpton and Jackson, have done more to set back black economic progress in this nation than anyone in the last twenty five years. Joe         Date: 14 Apr 2007 06:10:43 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message news:46207a0d$0$19414$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > "R&B" wrote: >> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote >>> Good article. It demonstrates the character of these ladies, in >>> contrast to Sharpton and Jackson. >> >> Sharpton and Jackson have done more things for more people than you will >> in five lifetimes. >> >> You can't very well stand up for free speech by one person (Imus) without >> defending the right to free speech by people you don't happen to agree >> with. >> >> Truth is, I'll bet you can't name five things Sharpton and Jackson have >> done that you would object to. You're just parrotting the mindless >> drivel spouted by your right-wing mouthpieces. >> >> Randy > > > You have totally lost it Randy. You try and cap all of the over top > rhetoric that you have been spewing forth (right phrase) in the IMUS > threads with this nonsense. Are you living in the same country that I am? > > And don't give me that tired left wing nut Limbaugh - Hannity BS. I don't > pay attention either one of them. > > These two, Sharpton and Jackson, have done more to set back black economic > progress in this nation than anyone in the last twenty five years. > > Joe I have no real opinion on how economic progress for African-Americans has been affected, good or bad, by either man. But I do believe their voices wouldn't resonate with the African-American community the way they do if it didn't ring true to that community. However, I am smart enough to know that as a white male, I have no business trying to tell black people who they should and shouldn't give the most credence to among the prominent black leaders in this country. You, on the other hand, may knock yourself out trying. I'll watch. Randy           Date: 16 Apr 2007 05:30:42 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology On 14-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > But I do believe their voices > wouldn't resonate with the African-American community the way they do if > it didn't ring true to that community. They don't from what I've observed, but the MSM goes straight to them or they find a camera when need be. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.           Date: 14 Apr 2007 13:50:27 From: Joe Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology "R&B" wrote: > "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message > news:46207a0d$0$19414$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> "R&B" wrote: >>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote >>>> Good article. It demonstrates the character of these ladies, in >>>> contrast to Sharpton and Jackson. >>> Sharpton and Jackson have done more things for more people than you will >>> in five lifetimes. >>> >>> You can't very well stand up for free speech by one person (Imus) without >>> defending the right to free speech by people you don't happen to agree >>> with. >>> >>> Truth is, I'll bet you can't name five things Sharpton and Jackson have >>> done that you would object to. You're just parrotting the mindless >>> drivel spouted by your right-wing mouthpieces. >>> >>> Randy >> >> You have totally lost it Randy. You try and cap all of the over top >> rhetoric that you have been spewing forth (right phrase) in the IMUS >> threads with this nonsense. Are you living in the same country that I am? >> >> And don't give me that tired left wing nut Limbaugh - Hannity BS. I don't >> pay attention either one of them. >> >> These two, Sharpton and Jackson, have done more to set back black economic >> progress in this nation than anyone in the last twenty five years. >> >> Joe > > > I have no real opinion on how economic progress for African-Americans has > been affected, good or bad, by either man. But I do believe their voices > wouldn't resonate with the African-American community the way they do if it > didn't ring true to that community. You have no "real opinion on how economic progress for African-Americans has been affected" because you are not able to really understand the issue. As much as you pride yourself on your logorrheic tendencies, understanding seems to be limited to media and music (maybe). As for the principals in this issue, their voices resonate positively ONLY with a sector of the community, there remains a substantial group for whom Sharpton and Jackson are seen as a very negative influence on the movement. > However, I am smart enough to know that as a white male, I have no business > trying to tell black people who they should and shouldn't give the most > credence to among the prominent black leaders in this country. This statement is interesting in two ways. First off I am not telling anyone who they should listen too, merely calling into question your statement. Secondly, your statement makes clear that you are not as "color blind" as you would like the rest of us to see you as. Personally, I treat people based on who they are, an opportunist is an opportunist, a liar is a liar, a con man is a con man. Sort of like Sharpton and Jackson, no? Or maybe some of the hip hop / rappers you admire so much. Sorry, I forgot, they are artists, different standards apply. > > You, on the other hand, may knock yourself out trying. I'll watch. > > Randy Joe             Date: 14 Apr 2007 22:57:33 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message news:462113dc$0$9967$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > "R&B" wrote: >> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message >> news:46207a0d$0$19414$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> "R&B" wrote: >>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote >>>>> Good article. It demonstrates the character of these ladies, in >>>>> contrast to Sharpton and Jackson. >>>> Sharpton and Jackson have done more things for more people than you >>>> will in five lifetimes. >>>> >>>> You can't very well stand up for free speech by one person (Imus) >>>> without defending the right to free speech by people you don't happen >>>> to agree with. >>>> >>>> Truth is, I'll bet you can't name five things Sharpton and Jackson have >>>> done that you would object to. You're just parrotting the mindless >>>> drivel spouted by your right-wing mouthpieces. >>>> >>>> Randy >>> >>> You have totally lost it Randy. You try and cap all of the over top >>> rhetoric that you have been spewing forth (right phrase) in the IMUS >>> threads with this nonsense. Are you living in the same country that I >>> am? >>> >>> And don't give me that tired left wing nut Limbaugh - Hannity BS. I >>> don't pay attention either one of them. >>> >>> These two, Sharpton and Jackson, have done more to set back black >>> economic progress in this nation than anyone in the last twenty five >>> years. >>> >>> Joe >> >> >> I have no real opinion on how economic progress for African-Americans has >> been affected, good or bad, by either man. But I do believe their voices >> wouldn't resonate with the African-American community the way they do if >> it didn't ring true to that community. > > You have no "real opinion on how economic progress for African-Americans > has been affected" because you are not able to really understand the > issue. As much as you pride yourself on your logorrheic tendencies, > understanding seems to be limited to media and music (maybe). As for the > principals in this issue, their voices resonate positively ONLY with a > sector of the community, there remains a substantial group for whom > Sharpton and Jackson are seen as a very negative influence on the > movement. > >> However, I am smart enough to know that as a white male, I have no >> business trying to tell black people who they should and shouldn't give >> the most credence to among the prominent black leaders in this country. > > This statement is interesting in two ways. First off I am not telling > anyone who they should listen too, merely calling into question your > statement. Secondly, your statement makes clear that you are not as > "color blind" as you would like the rest of us to see you as. Personally, > I treat people based on who they are, an opportunist is an opportunist, a > liar is a liar, a con man is a con man. Sort of like Sharpton and > Jackson, no? Or maybe some of the hip hop / rappers you admire so much. > Sorry, I forgot, they are artists, different standards apply. When did I ever say I admire rappers? Let me help you. I didn't. Randy               Date: 14 Apr 2007 23:53:34 From: Joe Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology "R&B" wrote: SNIP >>> I have no real opinion on how economic progress for African-Americans has >>> been affected, good or bad, by either man. But I do believe their voices >>> wouldn't resonate with the African-American community the way they do if >>> it didn't ring true to that community. >> You have no "real opinion on how economic progress for African-Americans >> has been affected" because you are not able to really understand the >> issue. As much as you pride yourself on your logorrheic tendencies, >> understanding seems to be limited to media and music (maybe). As for the >> principals in this issue, their voices resonate positively ONLY with a >> sector of the community, there remains a substantial group for whom >> Sharpton and Jackson are seen as a very negative influence on the >> movement. >> >>> However, I am smart enough to know that as a white male, I have no >>> business trying to tell black people who they should and shouldn't give >>> the most credence to among the prominent black leaders in this country. >> This statement is interesting in two ways. First off I am not telling >> anyone who they should listen too, merely calling into question your >> statement. Secondly, your statement makes clear that you are not as >> "color blind" as you would like the rest of us to see you as. Personally, >> I treat people based on who they are, an opportunist is an opportunist, a >> liar is a liar, a con man is a con man. Sort of like Sharpton and >> Jackson, no? Or maybe some of the hip hop / rappers you admire so much. >> Sorry, I forgot, they are artists, different standards apply. > > > When did I ever say I admire rappers? > > Let me help you. I didn't. > > Randy Your sarcasm meter is broken I suppose. But you come pretty close: Your post to > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote > >>> >> Don't listen to radio much eh? Most rap is soo bleeped out it makes even >>> >> less sense. >> > >> > Rap died years ago. It's called hip hop now and even that is pretty >> > much dead. I think it's you who doesn't listen to radio much. > > > Chris, the guy you're responding to is pretty typical of middle-aged white > guys who think they're up on popular trends in music. They probably think > Whitney Houston is considered hip. > > But I do think you're a little bit off base here. Rap music is still very > much alive. It is part of hip-hop, but hip-hop as a music genre is closer > to the kind of top 40/pop music that we 50somethings grew up listening to > than anything else that's out right now. > > It's about the only thing I listen to. > SNIP > > Randy Out of all the musical genres out there, you choose this, but you don't admire the performers. Amazing! Joe                 Date: 14 Apr 2007 21:49:43 From: glfnaz Subject: Re: Rutger's team accepts apology "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message news:4621a136$0$18846$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > "R&B" wrote: > > SNIP > >>>> I have no real opinion on how economic progress for African-Americans >>>> has been affected, good or bad, by either man. But I do believe their >>>> voices wouldn't resonate with the African-American community the way >>>> they do if it didn't ring true to that community. >>> You have no "real opinion on how economic progress for African-Americans >>> has been affected" because you are not able to really understand the >>> issue. As much as you pride yourself on your logorrheic tendencies, >>> understanding seems to be limited to media and music (maybe). As for >>> the principals in this issue, their voices resonate positively ONLY with >>> a sector of the community, there remains a substantial group for whom >>> Sharpton and Jackson are seen as a very negative influence on the >>> movement. >>> >>>> However, I am smart enough to know that as a white male, I have no >>>> business trying to tell black people who they should and shouldn't give >>>> the most credence to among the prominent black leaders in this country. >>> This statement is interesting in two ways. First off I am not telling >>> anyone who they should listen too, merely calling into question your >>> statement. Secondly, your statement makes clear that you are not as >>> "color blind" as you would like the rest of us to see you as. >>> Personally, I treat people based on who they are, an opportunist is an >>> opportunist, a liar is a liar, a con man is a con man. Sort of like >>> Sharpton and Jackson, no? Or maybe some of the hip hop / rappers you >>> admire so much. Sorry, I forgot, they are artists, different standards >>> apply. >> >> >> When did I ever say I admire rappers? >> >> Let me help you. I didn't. >> >> Randy > > Your sarcasm meter is broken I suppose. > > But you come pretty close: > > > Your post to > > >> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote >> >>>> >> Don't listen to radio much eh? Most rap is soo bleeped out it makes >>>> >> even >>>> >> less sense. >>> > >>> > Rap died years ago. It's called hip hop now and even that is pretty >>> > much dead. I think it's you who doesn't listen to radio much. >> >> >> Chris, the guy you're responding to is pretty typical of middle-aged >> white guys who think they're up on popular trends in music. They >> probably think Whitney Houston is considered hip. >> >> But I do think you're a little bit off base here. Rap music is still >> very much alive. It is part of hip-hop, but hip-hop as a music genre is >> closer to the kind of top 40/pop music that we 50somethings grew up >> listening to than anything else that's out right now. >> >> It's about the only thing I listen to. >> > SNIP >> >> Randy > > Out of all the musical genres out there, you choose this, but you don't > admire the performers. Amazing! > > Joe Why? I just took an inventory of the CD's in my car. I choose to listen to the music, but have no admiration for the guys behind the music.   Date: 13 Apr 2007 08:18:44 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 7:06 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote: > I'm not an Imus fan so I didnt know who he was. So McJerk is his sidekick?- Hide quoted text - Producer who was a 3rd voice on the show. A fella named Chuck (name escapes me) was his straight man sidekick. -Greg   Date: 13 Apr 2007 07:40:50 From: John B. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 13, 12:18 am, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in message > > news:461f011a$0$25209$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... > > > > > On 12-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > > > Not even I would disagree that there's a double standard. And anyone > with > > > an ounce of decency knows why, and accepts that double standard without > > > protest. > > > This statement just blows my mind! > > It's the media's way of saying----Shock'em, sock'em, and show me the money. > > Until a trip wire is hit and then they proceed to crucify the messenger who > happens to have been thrust at the end of the pointed tip tool. Willingly > and generously renumerated but chopped off at the knees nonetheless. > > For most the key point is: > > It's all media BS with no impact on day to day life of the overhwhelming > majority of every day people. > > For the sake of discussion: > > Like they say in the media-------All publicity is good publicity. > > This stuff with Msnbc and Cbs radio is publicity you can't buy. It's > priceless. > > If it takes a double standard to generate priceless publicity--so be it. > > Otto > > The thing that bothers me is the gals at Rutgers being paraded out and > manipulated and exploited to meet the ends of the media. That is the real > shame. You say that as though they had no choice in the matter, or as though they're not smart enough to see they're being manipulated and exploited and to resist it. It seems to me they comprted themselves with dignity and intergrity. > > The silver lining is that it may be a great life experience for the Rutgers > basketall team and they may very well learn more from it than 4 years of > academic curriculum at Rutgers.     Date: 13 Apr 2007 11:50:14 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1176475250.122433.182280@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > Otto > > > > The thing that bothers me is the gals at Rutgers being paraded out and > > manipulated and exploited to meet the ends of the media. That is the real > > shame. > > You say that as though they had no choice in the matter, or as though > they're not smart enough to see they're being manipulated and > exploited and to resist it. It seems to me they comprted themselves > with dignity and intergrity. I think you have to put yourself in their shoes. You are a 19-21 year old college student, most likely naive and part of a highly motivated team, and to act independently most likely never crossed their mind. Questioning the whirlwind most likely never crossed their mind. If independent thought was present, then there is the required intestinal fortitude to break from the "group think" and the team and voice one's "out of the box" perspective in the public arena. This would be rare and I am not aware that any of the Rutgers players has done it. We are talking 12 sharp student athletes but for them to break independent is just a lot to expect from someone at their age with their life skills. Otto       Date: 13 Apr 2007 22:15:24 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:wENTh.3361$XU4.515@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1176475250.122433.182280@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> > Otto >> > >> > The thing that bothers me is the gals at Rutgers being paraded out and >> > manipulated and exploited to meet the ends of the media. That is the > real >> > shame. >> >> You say that as though they had no choice in the matter, or as though >> they're not smart enough to see they're being manipulated and >> exploited and to resist it. It seems to me they comprted themselves >> with dignity and intergrity. > > I think you have to put yourself in their shoes. > > You are a 19-21 year old college student, most likely naive and part of a > highly motivated team, and to act independently most likely never crossed > their mind. Questioning the whirlwind most likely never crossed their > mind. > If independent thought was present, then there is the required intestinal > fortitude to break from the "group think" and the team and voice one's > "out > of the box" perspective in the public arena. This would be rare and I am > not > aware that any of the Rutgers players has done it. We are talking 12 sharp > student athletes but for them to break independent is just a lot to expect > from someone at their age with their life skills. If you consider a team acting as one "groupthink," then you've never been part of a team. Randy   Date: 13 Apr 2007 07:37:24 From: John B. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 11:37 pm, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org > wrote: > On 12-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > > Earlier this week, Neal Boortz, one of the most bigoted figures in > > conservative talkradio, > > If you think so you are not a good listener. > A "good listener?" What the hell is a good listener?     Date: 13 Apr 2007 16:12:50 From: bill-o Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 13-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > A "good listener?" What the hell is a good listener? Some one who listens well, who hears what is being said, instead of hearing only what confirms what they already think. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.   Date: 13 Apr 2007 07:36:40 From: John B. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 11:29 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote: > On Apr 12, 6:40 pm, "Bow Tie" <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I am reminded of the firing of Rush from ESPN. I still don't get that. > > What he said is the absolute truth. He did not say that McNabb is a > > bad QB because he is black. He said the media will prop up any black > > QB and that is absolutely true. > > Bullshit. When is the media gonna start propping up Michael Vick or > Daunte Culpepper? All I ever hear from them is that Vick is really > just a runner and can't throw for shit. Why don't they talk about his > white linemen that can't pass block for shit? > > Now about the Imus thing, I don't understand why CBS didn't > immediately come out with the old, "The views of Mr. Imus do not > represent the views of CBS or it's fine sponsors." > > No, they wait until enough sponsors bailed and then they take the high > moral ground. Sounds like a typical Republican! Whenever you hear > them talk about doing the right thing, you can bet your sweet ass it's > really about making a buck. Kinda like that whole "spreading > Democracy" bullshit. Fidel Castro on line #2. Exactly. CBS and ABC didn't give a shit about what he said. They care about ratings and ad revenue, period. If they saw that this incident would have no effect on their bottom line, they wouldn't have dumped him. The people who are really to blame for Don Imus and Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh and all the others of their scummy ilk are not the people who employ them. It's the people who listen to them.     Date: 14 Apr 2007 02:13:32 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1176474999.992663.171370@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 11:29 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote: >> On Apr 12, 6:40 pm, "Bow Tie" <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > I am reminded of the firing of Rush from ESPN. I still don't get that. >> > What he said is the absolute truth. He did not say that McNabb is a >> > bad QB because he is black. He said the media will prop up any black >> > QB and that is absolutely true. >> >> Bullshit. When is the media gonna start propping up Michael Vick or >> Daunte Culpepper? All I ever hear from them is that Vick is really >> just a runner and can't throw for shit. Why don't they talk about his >> white linemen that can't pass block for shit? >> >> Now about the Imus thing, I don't understand why CBS didn't >> immediately come out with the old, "The views of Mr. Imus do not >> represent the views of CBS or it's fine sponsors." >> >> No, they wait until enough sponsors bailed and then they take the high >> moral ground. Sounds like a typical Republican! Whenever you hear >> them talk about doing the right thing, you can bet your sweet ass it's >> really about making a buck. Kinda like that whole "spreading >> Democracy" bullshit. Fidel Castro on line #2. > > Exactly. CBS and ABC didn't give a shit about what he said. They care > about ratings and ad revenue, period. If they saw that this incident > would have no effect on their bottom line, they wouldn't have dumped > him. > > The people who are really to blame for Don Imus and Howard Stern and > Rush Limbaugh and all the others of their scummy ilk are not the > people who employ them. It's the people who listen to them. Amen. Randy   Date: 13 Apr 2007 04:28:40 From: Bow Tie Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) I never said that. However, we all have skeletons. Even though it was extemporaneous, he and Bernie went over the line. Part of the double standard. Rappers can talk all of that and even include killing police officers and all the other mayhem. Not a problem. Let's face it, you are a liar and a troll and a flamer and a stalker. What Imus said is clearly offensive and he should have been disciplined. He has been an equal opportunity offender during his whole stint. But, termination was not part of the mix until the hucksters Sharpton and Jackson got the scent. Sharpton? Tawana Braqley. Jackson? Extortion from companies and orgs like Toyota and NASCAR. I think it is clear that Imus still had a loyal audience, given his annual "radio-thon" generated more than $1M for charity and was receiving 200 more calls per hour than last year. Source: Mike and Mike on ESPN radio. He did not deserve to have his whole career wrecked over this one thing. Ken +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On Apr 12, 5:50 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net > wrote: > It was okay to *think* of them as "nappy-headed hos" -- it would even > have been okay to call them that to your wife and sons... > > ...his only mistake was saying it in public. > > Let's face it, Ken: you *are* a racist. > > > > > > > > > I hope Imus saved his money. I wish him Godspeed. > > > Ken > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > On Apr 12, 5:20 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > > > MnMikew <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > > >news:6T40oo2rIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > > >> Bill H. <bill...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>> First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to begin > > > >>> with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can be > > > >>> hos. > > > > >> Good grief. Here's the entire exchange, see if you can post with > > > >> a straight face that this doesn't sound like it's straight from > > > >> a Klan gathering: > > > > >> IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night > > > >> between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the > > > >> women's final. > > > > >> ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- > > > >> seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, > > > >> I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points. > > > > >> IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, > > > >> they got tattoos and -- > > > > >> McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. > > > > >> IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna > > > >> tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the > > > >> girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, > > > >> like -- kinda like -- I don't know. > > > > >> McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. > > > > >> IMUS: Yeah. > > > > >> McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that > > > >> movie that he had. > > > > >> IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough -- > > > > >> McCORD: Do The Right Thing. > > > > >> McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. > > > > >> IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat > > > >> Rutgers or not, but they did, right? > > > > >> ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at > > > >> Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors. > > > > >> IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah. > > > > >> RUFFINO: Only tougher. > > > > >> McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more > > > >> appropriate. > > > > > So whay isnt this McGuirk guy being called on the carpet? > > > > He just lost his job, Mike. I'd say he is being called on the carpet. > > > But Imus was his boss, the public figure, the one responsible, so he > > > deserves the brunt of the heat. > > > > That said, yeah, Bernard McGuirk is a real peach. If he ever gets > > > near a microphone again it will be too soon. > > > > -- > > > Chris Bellomy > > > C-List Charter Memberhttp://clist.org/-Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- > "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed > the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -     Date: 14 Apr 2007 02:06:16 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote ... > >I never said that. However, we all have skeletons. Even though it was > extemporaneous, he and Bernie went over the line. Part of the double > standard. Rappers can talk all of that and even include killing police > officers and all the other mayhem. Not a problem. As I have said elsewhere, the question of lyrics in popular music is a discussion worth having. But to say that Imus should not be held accountable because rappers get a free pass is no different than saying that you don't deserve a speeding ticket when going 90 MPH in a 55 MPH zone just because others who've sped on that same stretch of road didn't get a ticket. What Imus did was reprehensible, and for anyone to defend it -- on ANY grounds, INCLUDING using rappers as cover for him to get away with it -- is no less so. I'm all in favor of having the discussion about rap lyrics. But it's a separate issue. It should be treated as such. > Let's face it, you are a liar and a troll and a flamer and a stalker. And if you resent the fact that rappers can use language that you and Don Imus can't, implying that the same language they use should be open to you (and Imus) in the public arena, you are implying a desire that you might want to rethink before you sink any deeper. It is no more of a double-standard than you and your wife calling each other names in the heat of a domestic quarrel, only to stand up to anyone outside your family who might hurl the same names at the two of you that you were already calling each other behind closed doors. We see this all the time in families. They might fight amongst themselves, but heaven help the poor S.O.B. from outside the family that attacks them. > What Imus said is clearly offensive and he should have been > disciplined. He has been an equal opportunity offender during his > whole stint. Yes, he has, which is something he mentioned to the Rutgers women when he met with them last night. He said that his remarks had to be taken in the context that he had always taken shots at EVERYBODY. One of the Rutgers team members responded, saying, "And you're proud of that? Are you actually proud of the fact that you've built your career on taking shots at people who had no chance to respond?" It was a valid point, and one for which he had no answer. > But, termination was not part of the mix until the > hucksters Sharpton and Jackson got the scent. Sharpton? Tawana > Braqley. Jackson? Extortion from companies and orgs like Toyota and > NASCAR. Yes, we get it Ken. You're opposed to anyone advancing anything that some might call a "black agenda." Just as most of us suspected. It is very popular among the right-wing to mock the likes of Al Sharpton and other black leaders. But the truth is, the only black leaders you support are those few who are conservative. Gee, I don't suppose their politics have anything to do with your view of them, now would it? We get it. The only black agenda you can support is one that is framed by a Republican or conservative African-American. Well, this just in: You're not black, so you don't get a vote in that election. Sorry. But that's the way it is. > I think it is clear that Imus still had a loyal audience, given his > annual "radio-thon" generated more than $1M for charity and was > receiving 200 more calls per hour than last year. Gee, you don't suppose all the publicity he got this week might have had something to do with that. > He did not deserve to have his whole career wrecked > over this one thing. If "this one thing" was all he was guilty of, I might agree. Anyone is worthy of a second chance. But the facts are the facts, Ken. This was only the latest in a long series of instances in which Imus fanned the flames of racism, sexism, homophobia and intolerance with incendiary remarks. With apologies to Chris Bellomy, who posted this earlier, I share with you just some of Mr. Imus's past remarks. Read them, and then tell me with a straight face that Imus didn't deserve exactly what he got. ----- from Bellomy's earlier post ------ Imus himself has referred to African-American journalist Gwen Ifill as "a cleaning lady," to New York Times sports reporter Bill Rhoden as "quota hire" and to tennis player Amelie Mauresmo as "a big old lesbo." Imus called Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz a "boner-nosed... beanie-wearing Jewboy," referred to a disabled colleague as "the cripple," and to an Indian men's tennis duo as "Gunga Din and Sambo." In Imus' words, the New York Knicks are "chest-thumping pimps." Imus' on again/off again sidekick Sid Rosenberg was temporarily fired in 2001 for calling tennis player Venus Williams an "animal" and remarking that the Williams sisters -- Venus and her tennis player sister Serena -- would more likely be featured in National Geographic than in Playboy. Rosenberg insisted to New York's Daily News (6/7/01) that his comments weren't racist, "just zoological." In 2004, MSNBC had to apologize when the rehired Rosenberg referred to Palestinians as "stinking animals." In May 2005, MSNBC let Contessa Brewer out of her short stint as a news reader on Imus' morning show after Imus had made a daily game of crude personal attacks against her, calling her a pig, a skank, dumber than dirt and other similar felicities, all on air. MSNBC claimed they "expressed their displeasure" to the host (New York Post, 5/1/05), while noting that his "humor" was "often brilliant and provocative." http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3082 ------------- end quote from Bellomy's post --------------- And here's more: http://www.nabj.org/front/story/53032p-81736c.html And this article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer: Imus' garbage-filled Cleveland days In '70s, bad boy took WGAR from worst to first in local ratings Friday, April 13, 2007 Tom Feran Plain Dealer Reporter Don Imus hit Cleveland radio twice in the 1970s - first as a springboard to the top in New York City, then as a net that broke his fall and bounced him back. He grabbed listeners and headlines both times, arriving and leaving with a reputation as one of radio's bad boys. When he left the first time, the headline on a column in The Plain Dealer said, "Garbage mouth goes to Gotham." That was in late 1971, after 14 months at the old WGAR AM/1220. Imus - 30 years old and three years out of broadcasting school - was hired to jump-start mornings when it dropped a staid, middle-of-the-road format to become the first major-market oldies station. He had previously worked in Stockton, Calif., where he was fired for running an Eldridge Cleaver look-alike contest, and Sacramento, where he did the prank phone call, "1,200 Hamburgers to Go," that became the title cut of his first comedy album and where he was named Billboard magazine's middle-market air personality of 1969. In Cleveland, "Don was the shock jock of the era from his first show," said Chuck Collier of WMJI FM/105.7, who started the same day as Imus at WGAR. Just two months after hitting town, he was sued for slander by a TV meteorologist he joked was drunk on the air. Sometimes riffing in exaggerated Top 40 style, at other times growling or slurring his words, he asked female callers if they were naked, used sexually and politically provocative material, and began using such comic characters as the Right Rev. Billy Sol Hargis of the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship. Critics were vocal, but WGAR shot from worst to first in local ratings in one three-month ratings period, and Imus was named Billboard's major market personality of the year. Making his first trip to New York to accept the award, he was offered a job at WNBC by another ex-Clevelander, Perry Bascom. He packed up his wife, family, hat and mouth, and moved to the city he dismissed as "eight Clevelands." He was again a sensation, making the cover of New York magazine and getting profiled in Life. But he clashed frequently with WNBC management over on-air comments, and was frequently late or absent. When the station did an on-air housecleaning in 1977, Imus, further tarnished by cocaine and alcohol abuse, was swept out the door. He returned to Cleveland in July 1978 to do afternoons, for the only time in his career, on WHK AM/1420, a country music and talk station where his morning counterpart was Gary Dee, who had gone beyond Imus in his use of sexual, racial and ethnic material. Times had changed, and Imus, famously "in exile," did not create the stir he once did. He returned to New York and WNBC (now WFAN) the second time in August 1979, building a cast of contributors to his show that includes Larry Kenney, who competed against Imus 37 years ago on WWWE (now WTAM), and working for program director Kevin Metheny, now director of programming for Clear Channel Cleveland. Disc jockey and historian Norm N. Nite, who worked with Imus on both WGAR and WNBC, noted a last local link: "Cleveland launched his career, and Cleveland shot him down, in a sense. The Rutgers' girls basketball team was playing in Cleveland in the clip on his show." ----- end Cleveland Plain Dealer article ----- So you see, Ken, it's a wee bit more than just "this one time." Imus deserved to have been fired long ago. The question is not why they fired him. It's why did they wait so long? And I think we all know the answer to that. The marketplace had finally had enough. Randy     Date: 13 Apr 2007 07:59:45 From: George Hibbard Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1176463720.386267.110420@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >I never said that. However, we all have skeletons. Even though it was > extemporaneous, he and Bernie went over the line. Part of the double > standard. Rappers can talk all of that and even include killing police > officers and all the other mayhem. Not a problem. > > Let's face it, you are a liar and a troll and a flamer and a stalker. > > What Imus said is clearly offensive and he should have been > disciplined. He has been an equal opportunity offender during his > whole stint. But, termination was not part of the mix until the > hucksters Sharpton and Jackson got the scent. Sharpton? Tawana > Braqley. Jackson? Extortion from companies and orgs like Toyota and > NASCAR. > > I think it is clear that Imus still had a loyal audience, given his > annual "radio-thon" generated more than $1M for charity and was > receiving 200 more calls per hour than last year. Source: Mike and > Mike on ESPN radio. He did not deserve to have his whole career > wrecked over this one thing. > > Ken > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > On Apr 12, 5:50 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote: >> It was okay to *think* of them as "nappy-headed hos" -- it would even >> have been okay to call them that to your wife and sons... >> >> ...his only mistake was saying it in public. >> >> Let's face it, Ken: you *are* a racist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I hope Imus saved his money. I wish him Godspeed. >> >> > Ken >> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> > On Apr 12, 5:20 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >> > > MnMikew <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> > > > "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> > > >news:6T40oo2rIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> > > >> Bill H. <bill...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > >>> First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to >> > > >>> begin >> > > >>> with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can >> > > >>> be >> > > >>> hos. >> >> > > >> Good grief. Here's the entire exchange, see if you can post with >> > > >> a straight face that this doesn't sound like it's straight from >> > > >> a Klan gathering: >> >> > > >> IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night >> > > >> between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the >> > > >> women's final. >> >> > > >> ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- >> > > >> seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, >> > > >> I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points. >> >> > > >> IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, >> > > >> they got tattoos and -- >> >> > > >> McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. >> >> > > >> IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna >> > > >> tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the >> > > >> girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, >> > > >> like -- kinda like -- I don't know. >> >> > > >> McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. >> >> > > >> IMUS: Yeah. >> >> > > >> McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that >> > > >> movie that he had. >> >> > > >> IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough -- >> >> > > >> McCORD: Do The Right Thing. >> >> > > >> McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> >> > > >> IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat >> > > >> Rutgers or not, but they did, right? >> >> > > >> ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at >> > > >> Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors. >> >> > > >> IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah. >> >> > > >> RUFFINO: Only tougher. >> >> > > >> McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more >> > > >> appropriate. >> >> > > > So whay isnt this McGuirk guy being called on the carpet? >> >> > > He just lost his job, Mike. I'd say he is being called on the carpet. >> > > But Imus was his boss, the public figure, the one responsible, so he >> > > deserves the brunt of the heat. >> >> > > That said, yeah, Bernard McGuirk is a real peach. If he ever gets >> > > near a microphone again it will be too soon. >> >> > > -- >> > > Chris Bellomy >> > > C-List Charter Memberhttp://clist.org/-Hide quoted text - >> >> > > - Show quoted text - >> >> -- >> "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very >> carefully" -- >> "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed >> the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > Springer, Stern, Imus and his ilk - NONE of them even "deserve" a career based on bottom feeding as they do. It is an unfortunate reality that such garbage makes money off of the lack of discernment/taste/sensibilities of human nature (like the trial lawyers cum extortionists). Life is anything but fair, and anyone who values money over principle is already "undeserving."   Date: 12 Apr 2007 23:19:54 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 3:50 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net > wrote: > Let's face it, Ken: you *are* a racist. Typical of your M.O., you're trolling for a pissing match, Baker. This conclusion of yours is beyond stupid. -Greg   Date: 12 Apr 2007 23:13:28 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 11:34 am, "Bill H." <bill...@gmail.com > wrote: > > It appears that Imus' comments on some basketball players are more > > damaging than bullets, shrapnel, chemical agents, landmines, RPG's, > > snipers, and a folly of a civil war between groups of fundamentalist > > muslims whose cultures we can't really even begin to fathom 'cause > > they pre-date our own "culture" by millenia, almost half a world away, > > and the USA. > > I'm with Imus on this one. No, I'm not a racist, but I understand the > type of show he does, which is very edgy humor that's frequently > offensive to LOTS of people. Similar to Dave Chappelle or Carlos > Mencia, who also use a lot of racial humor, and who routinely poke fun > at everyone. Imus has made fun of just about everyone, too - but now > he's being blacklisted as a racist. > > First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to begin > with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can be > hos. > > Even if he was being racist somehow, he only made things worse by > apologizing. From what I've seen, nobody was impressed with it. > Everyone who was asked said it "wasn't sincere", and that it "wasn't > enough", blah blah blah. Here's the problem: It will never be > enough. If somebody wants to be offended, you can crawl through the > streets weeping tears of blood and they'll still say "Yeah, you SHOULD > be sorry. Now grovel some more!!" It's ironic that he can offend the > whole world with a two-second comment (which they take seriously), but > when he spends a full 10 minutes on his show apologizing at length the > next day, it's not enough. > > Finally, who cares? Imus is a radio talk show host. He was one of > the first "shock jocks", and is first and foremost, an entertainer. > If these players and coaches, who we see crying and looking sad on TV > are REALLY so hurt and offended over something an old white guy said, > they're gonna have a tough time in life. Here's something they should > learn: People are going to talk about you your whole life, especially > if you decide to put yourself in the public eye. That's the problem > with being famous, being an athlete, or anyone else who is on > television and seen by millions. Lots of people know you, and lots of > them won't like you. Instead of getting all wound up over some little > comment, why not just live your life, make yourself happy, follow your > dreams, and not care about what other people think? > > Now watch this drive! > > -Bill H. Good post Bill. Straight..... just like your drives!! My only "fade" to your drive is that Imus truly made a racial joke, but that doesn't mean he's a die-in-the-wool racist. -Greg   Date: 12 Apr 2007 23:07:34 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 3:28 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > > Before too long, I was let go (the first time in my career I'd ever been > fired), and the morning team we'd brought in was replaced by another > punk-ass morning guy who wasn't much different from the guys we'd gotten rid > of. (The morning team I brought in went on to replace Joan Rivers briefly > on FOX's ill-fated late-night programming in their short-lived parade of > hosts trying to unseat Johnny Carson.) Are you referring to Mark and Brian? -Greg     Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:03:15 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1176444454.616561.196230@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 3:28 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > >> >> Before too long, I was let go (the first time in my career I'd ever been >> fired), and the morning team we'd brought in was replaced by another >> punk-ass morning guy who wasn't much different from the guys we'd gotten >> rid >> of. (The morning team I brought in went on to replace Joan Rivers >> briefly >> on FOX's ill-fated late-night programming in their short-lived parade of >> hosts trying to unseat Johnny Carson.) > > Are you referring to Mark and Brian? > > -Greg No. Paul Robbins, Paul Kinney and Phil Cowan. I believe two of them are now on the air in Sacramento. Randy       Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:04:15 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:2cWdnb84avY_KoLbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@giganews.com... > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message > news:1176444454.616561.196230@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 12, 3:28 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Before too long, I was let go (the first time in my career I'd ever been >>> fired), and the morning team we'd brought in was replaced by another >>> punk-ass morning guy who wasn't much different from the guys we'd gotten >>> rid >>> of. (The morning team I brought in went on to replace Joan Rivers >>> briefly >>> on FOX's ill-fated late-night programming in their short-lived parade of >>> hosts trying to unseat Johnny Carson.) >> >> Are you referring to Mark and Brian? >> >> -Greg > > No. > > Paul Robbins, Paul Kinney and Phil Cowan. > > I believe two of them are now on the air in Sacramento. > > Randy I also saw them several years ago hosting a series of very cool shows on The Discovery Channel. Randy   Date: 12 Apr 2007 23:04:25 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 10:31 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote > > > > > The distinction between men and our flaws is the courage and honesty > > to admit them. Imus is doing that. He went to Sharpton. He's going > > to Rutgers. He's not hiding behind a PR consultant. > > The problem, Dene, is this isn't the first time Imus has found himself in > this situation. He's apologized before for other things he's said that were > racist, promising he won't do them again. Yet here we are. Please cite. I know about the Hillary comments at the Broadcaster dinner but I'm not aware of actual racist comments. > How many times does one get to apologize for the same thing before, finally, > someone realizes he's not going to stop? Again...please cite. > > IMO, the big question is this......why is it so inconceivable that a > > good man be guilty of saying the wrong thing? Who among us has not > > started a forest fire with a spark (our tongue). Have we not asked > > and received forgiveness. Why cannot Imus be extended the same grace > > in light of his honesty and courage? > > There's a big difference. You don't have a national soapbox. While RSG may > reach thousands of readers, there aren't major corporations and shareholders > who are endorsing your speech here. Don Imus has the responsibility of > being on the public airwaves. The airwaves don't belong only to white > Americans, even if his show is heard by a predominantly white audience. Right....and so his accountability is greater as is his humiliation. He doesn't have the luxury you and I have in apologizing to a small number of people. He has millions of people to account for. I simply maintain that he's apologizing honestly and courageously. > As a broadcaster, Imus carries certain responsibilities that you and I don't > when we're chatting here or with friends or co-workers. > > It's one thing to hope (and pray) that Imus's heart is transformed by this > experience. It's quite another to hand the keys to the radio network back > over to him. I hope he comes back. I'm a fan of his. I love most of his humor. I admire his insight to cut through the crap. He's blunt, courageous, and a helluva interviewer. > > Think of Imus's world. It's his job, his schtick, to make fun of > > people, like Hillary and Bill, most politicians, etc. > > And there comes a point when people say, "enough is enough." We need more like him. Not the Imus of old during the Stern years but the grumpy guy he's been in the last ten years. Radio without Imus is like RSG without BK. Perhaps better....... but not nearly as interesting. > > You spend years doing this and sooner or later you're going to > > slip with a bad joke or remark. You're going to unintentionally > > hurt someone. > > You know, I've been on the radio for about the same length of time as Imus. > If you compare the number of hours we've both been on the radio -- live -- I > would say it's about even. I have NEVER said anything racist on the air. I > only personally know two people who have, and as their boss, I lobbied for > four long years with the parent company (which hired them before they bought > the station, so I was powerless to fire them myself) to get them ousted > because I found their brand of humor offensive. You did talk radio? > To say that after all the years Imus has been on the air, it's > understandable how sooner or later something racist might come out is > ludicrous. It will only come out if it's in you to begin with. > > Besides, he's managed to go this many years without saying FUCK, SHIT, PISS, > CUNT, COCK-SUCKER, MOTHERFUCKER and TITS on the air (Carlin's seven dirty > words). So it's not like he's without any capacity for self-restraint. But > somehow, saying "nappy headed 'ho's" on the air seemed OKAY to him. I > wonder if he would have felt so free if he'd been speaking at the halftime > show on the floor at the Rutgers game? Somehow I doubt it. Are you certain that he didn't bite his tongue and gulp right after he said it....or minutes later. > > The measure of Imus is whether he owns up. > > He's apologized before. He's "owned up" to similar mistakes in the past, > swearing he wouldn't repeat them. We've heard it from him before. > > But actions speak louder than words. > > > The measure of our society, in particular the likes of > > Sharpton or Jackson, is if they are gracious in return. > > It won't matter. To some, Sharpton and Jackson could be as gracious as can > be, and they'd still be criticized for (name your reason). > > Randy The biggest criticism I have is echoed in Jason Whitlock's comments about them. They are poor leaders, caring more for their status than for the people they should be leading. -Greg     Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:01:36 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1176444265.215558.149760@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 10:31 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: >> "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote >> >> >> >> > The distinction between men and our flaws is the courage and honesty >> > to admit them. Imus is doing that. He went to Sharpton. He's going >> > to Rutgers. He's not hiding behind a PR consultant. >> >> The problem, Dene, is this isn't the first time Imus has found himself in >> this situation. He's apologized before for other things he's said that >> were >> racist, promising he won't do them again. Yet here we are. > > Please cite. I know about the Hillary comments at the Broadcaster > dinner but I'm not aware of actual racist comments. > >> How many times does one get to apologize for the same thing before, >> finally, >> someone realizes he's not going to stop? > > Again...please cite. As Chris said to you elsewhere in this thread, does Google not work at your location? Try Googling subjects like "Other Imus racial remarks" or "Other Imus racial comments" or "Imus racial history." You'll find several examples. >> > IMO, the big question is this......why is it so inconceivable that a >> > good man be guilty of saying the wrong thing? Who among us has not >> > started a forest fire with a spark (our tongue). Have we not asked >> > and received forgiveness. Why cannot Imus be extended the same grace >> > in light of his honesty and courage? >> >> There's a big difference. You don't have a national soapbox. While RSG >> may >> reach thousands of readers, there aren't major corporations and >> shareholders >> who are endorsing your speech here. Don Imus has the responsibility of >> being on the public airwaves. The airwaves don't belong only to white >> Americans, even if his show is heard by a predominantly white audience. > > Right....and so his accountability is greater as is his humiliation. > He doesn't have the luxury you and I have in apologizing to a small > number of people. He has millions of people to account for. I simply > maintain that he's apologizing honestly and courageously. Courage is when you do something in the face of danger. Our troops in Iraq show courage. Imus's series of apolgies were not courageous by any reasonable definition of the word. They were, in fact, done in an effort to reduce the threat of his firing, and as it turned out, were too little too late. Furthermore, did you actually HEAR his apologies? They always came attached to a series of excuses, justifications, accusations and other remarks that tried to spread the blame around or in some way deflect responsibility for his remarks. Taken in whole, they weren't apologies at all. If your own children offered apologies in the same fashion Imus did, you would reprimand them for not really apologizing at all. Imus's few days of apologizing were nothing more than a failed attempt to save his job. >> As a broadcaster, Imus carries certain responsibilities that you and I >> don't >> when we're chatting here or with friends or co-workers. >> >> It's one thing to hope (and pray) that Imus's heart is transformed by >> this >> experience. It's quite another to hand the keys to the radio network >> back >> over to him. > > I hope he comes back. I'm a fan of his. I love most of his humor. I > admire his insight to cut through the crap. He's blunt, courageous, > and a helluva interviewer. I enjoyed the part of his show when he had guests. I'll grant you that he was a decent interviewer. Not great, but better than anything that was on the radio in morning drive. (But then again, he was also the ONLY interview show that was on the radio in morning drive, so that's not a huge endorsement.) But where I differ with you is on the humor part. Imus repeatedly referred to his show as a "comedy show." I'm sorry, Dene, but Imus is not funny. He hasn't been funny since the FCC outlawed making (and recording) what I used to call "phony phone calls." His 1970s album "1200 Hamburgers to Go," which included recordings of many phone calls he made (including the most famous one where he called a fast food restaurant to order 1200 hamburgers to go, and then began to list how he wanted each one made) was the last example of Imus being funny. >> > Think of Imus's world. It's his job, his schtick, to make fun of >> > people, like Hillary and Bill, most politicians, etc. >> >> And there comes a point when people say, "enough is enough." > > We need more like him. We need more racists on the radio? Is that what you're saying? > Not the Imus of old during the Stern years but > the grumpy guy he's been in the last ten years. Radio without Imus > is like RSG without BK. Perhaps better....... but not nearly as > interesting. Holy shit, now you've completely flipped out. >> > You spend years doing this and sooner or later you're going to >> > slip with a bad joke or remark. You're going to unintentionally >> > hurt someone. >> >> You know, I've been on the radio for about the same length of time as >> Imus. >> If you compare the number of hours we've both been on the radio -- >> live -- I >> would say it's about even. I have NEVER said anything racist on the air. >> I >> only personally know two people who have, and as their boss, I lobbied >> for >> four long years with the parent company (which hired them before they >> bought >> the station, so I was powerless to fire them myself) to get them ousted >> because I found their brand of humor offensive. > > You did talk radio? Yes. There's not much in radio I haven't done. >> To say that after all the years Imus has been on the air, it's >> understandable how sooner or later something racist might come out is >> ludicrous. It will only come out if it's in you to begin with. >> >> Besides, he's managed to go this many years without saying FUCK, SHIT, >> PISS, >> CUNT, COCK-SUCKER, MOTHERFUCKER and TITS on the air (Carlin's seven dirty >> words). So it's not like he's without any capacity for self-restraint. >> But >> somehow, saying "nappy headed 'ho's" on the air seemed OKAY to him. I >> wonder if he would have felt so free if he'd been speaking at the >> halftime >> show on the floor at the Rutgers game? Somehow I doubt it. > > Are you certain that he didn't bite his tongue and gulp right after he > said it....or minutes later. Did you hear the broadcast? There was no moment where he hesitated, giving you the sense that he even gave it a passing thought. The truth is, it wasn't until a couple days later that he even acknowledged it. And only then, after others called him aside about it. >> > The measure of Imus is whether he owns up. >> >> He's apologized before. He's "owned up" to similar mistakes in the past, >> swearing he wouldn't repeat them. We've heard it from him before. >> >> But actions speak louder than words. >> >> > The measure of our society, in particular the likes of >> > Sharpton or Jackson, is if they are gracious in return. >> >> It won't matter. To some, Sharpton and Jackson could be as gracious as >> can >> be, and they'd still be criticized for (name your reason). >> >> Randy > > The biggest criticism I have is echoed in Jason Whitlock's comments > about them. They are poor leaders, caring more for their status than > for the people they should be leading. > > -Greg That's an easy criticism to make, and isn't based in anything more than opinion. The same criticism can be made of a lot of mouthpieces on the right. Do you really want to open that door and have that debate about Rush and others of his ilk? Randy   Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:54:28 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 9:18 am, "George Hibbard" <g...@perfectimpact.com > wrote: > Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. > > Apologizing is of no significance, except as a means of covering his tail. > The remark bespeaks a meanness of spirit that anyone listening to him prior > to the incident would have recognized. It wasn't just "a stupid thing to > say." It was stupid because in saying it he identified his soul to others. > It simply escaped his filter, thus revealing the truth (like wine does to > people) about his character. We all have filters, George, a conscience. We all are guilty of letting stuff slip by the filters. When that happens, we have a choice whether to own up or blame others. I see Imus owning up. > The difference with Mel Gibson's gaffe was that when HE discovered his > crudeness and insensitivity, his apology was REAL: his remorse was not for > the incident but for himSELF discovering his own racial bigotry. There was > a polar difference in how he behaved after his anti-semitic rant as compared > to the Imus cowboy's sycophancy--I doubt that he will go very deep into self > examination as to the rest of his uglies. I think they are similar transgressions. Imus was trying to be funny. Gibson was drunk. In both circumstances, inward ugliness escaped the filters. > THAT is what is supposed to happen in the confessional: if it doesn't, the > "confession" isn't valid. > > Ugly is soul deep in ugly people.- Hide quoted text - We're all ugly, George. If you are going to cite the Scriptures, then you have to come to terms with Isaiah who declares that "our *righteousness* is like filthy menstrual cloth." -Greg     Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:20:14 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote > > I see Imus owning up. Then you haven't been listening to him. He blames rappers. He blames MSNBC. In the past several days, he has blamed anybody with a pulse who might be a target at which he could send some of the blame for creating a situation in which he would be a victim here. That's not apologizing. That's trying to weasel out of being solely accountable for the words that came out of his mouth. > > I think they are similar transgressions. Imus was trying to be > funny. Please explain, in your own words, what part of calling ten students at Rutgers University that you've never met "nappy headed hos" is funny. I'll be most interested in how you see even a hint of humor in that. Or more importantly, how you could justify that anyone *could* see it as funny. Please, enlighten me. Randy       Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:42:51 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:EcmdnR_TArcAJoLbnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@giganews.com... > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote > > > > I see Imus owning up. > > > Then you haven't been listening to him. > > He blames rappers. > > He blames MSNBC. > > In the past several days, he has blamed anybody with a pulse who might be a > target at which he could send some of the blame for creating a situation in > which he would be a victim here. > > That's not apologizing. That's trying to weasel out of being solely > accountable for the words that came out of his mouth. I don't know about that. He has not been hiding behind any lawyers or pr people and has simply been hanging himself out there like chum to the sharks. It's a fierce media storm and there are plenty with their own problems giving him grief. I think some of the so called excuses are his weak attempt to shine a light on the powerful machine that is steam rolling him. There are many competitors that want him off the air because he was taking their ratings. Taking their revenue. There are others that want political capital and populist power. I'm sure there are many others with similar agendas. Otto         Date: 13 Apr 2007 21:04:00 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote > > I think some of the so called excuses are his weak attempt to shine a > light > on the powerful machine that is steam rolling him. > > There are many competitors that want him off the air because he was taking > their ratings. Taking their revenue. > > There are others that want political capital and populist power. > > I'm sure there are many others with similar agendas. Maybe. But just as the Rutgers women arguably provided the most powerful indictment of his remarks this week, they seem to have offered the most insightful commentary of all in the aftermath of his firing. Last night, in meeting with Mr. Imus, the Rutgers team accepted his apology. One individual, who moderated the meeting in the absense of the New Jersey Governor, who was supposed to have served in that capacity before his unfortunate automobile accident en route to the meeting, shared a little of what was said during the meeting in a televised interview today. He noted that Mr. Imus explained to the Rutgers team that his incendiary remarks had to be taken in the context that he had always taken shots at EVERYBODY, which, in so many words, meant he was an "equal opportunity offender." One of the women on the Rutgers team responded, saying, "And you're proud of that? Are you saying you're actually proud of the fact that you've built your career on taking unnecessary shots at people who were unable to respond?" That pretty much sums it up. Randy     Date: 13 Apr 2007 07:50:18 From: George Hibbard Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1176443668.877383.196210@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 9:18 am, "George Hibbard" <g...@perfectimpact.com> wrote: > >> Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. >> >> Apologizing is of no significance, except as a means of covering his >> tail. >> The remark bespeaks a meanness of spirit that anyone listening to him >> prior >> to the incident would have recognized. It wasn't just "a stupid thing to >> say." It was stupid because in saying it he identified his soul to >> others. >> It simply escaped his filter, thus revealing the truth (like wine does to >> people) about his character. > > We all have filters, George, a conscience. We all are guilty of > letting stuff slip by the filters. When that happens, we have a > choice whether to own up or blame others. I see Imus owning up. > >> The difference with Mel Gibson's gaffe was that when HE discovered his >> crudeness and insensitivity, his apology was REAL: his remorse was not >> for >> the incident but for himSELF discovering his own racial bigotry. There >> was >> a polar difference in how he behaved after his anti-semitic rant as >> compared >> to the Imus cowboy's sycophancy--I doubt that he will go very deep into >> self >> examination as to the rest of his uglies. > > I think they are similar transgressions. Imus was trying to be > funny. Gibson was drunk. In both circumstances, inward ugliness > escaped the filters. > >> THAT is what is supposed to happen in the confessional: if it doesn't, >> the >> "confession" isn't valid. >> >> Ugly is soul deep in ugly people.- Hide quoted text - > > We're all ugly, George. If you are going to cite the Scriptures, then > you have to come to terms with Isaiah who declares that "our > *righteousness* is like filthy menstrual cloth." > > -Greg > > That's a "gotcha," Greg. Yup. Kinda full time job locating those viruses...   Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:49:11 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 8:06 am, "B. Martin" <marti...@umn.edu > wrote: > Except that these types of over-the-line comments recur with Imus. > There is no evidence > that he is truly a good man. His ranch that helps hundreds of sick children.... >And exactly what purpose does it serve > to make fun of > 18-22 year old young women? None.....it was a poor attempt at humor. > I don't care if he keeps his job or not, but there is no excuse for > his actions. Nor is there an excuse for your mistakes or mine. The distinction is what we do with them, when they are committed. You and I have the luxury of dealing with them privately. His is public and to his credit, he is apologizing without excuses, to the black community via Sharpton and soon to the Rutger's team. What more can he do beyond that? And for the record....he deserves to be suspended, but not sentenced for life. -Greg     Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:11:45 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote > >> Except that these types of over-the-line comments recur with Imus. >> There is no evidence that he is truly a good man. > > His ranch that helps hundreds of sick children.... I can list dozens of professional athletes with charitable foundations that help sick children, educate underprivileged kids, etc., etc., etc. And I'm willing to bet if their names appeared on a list, you would take exception to the notion that some of them were "good men." This just in, Dene: A lot of this type of thing is done as a tax shelter. Now I'm not saying Imus did it for that reason. He and his wife have, indeed, seemed genuinely interested in helping these kids. But the mere fact that he has that ranch for children with cancer is not, in and of itself, evidence of his character. In fact, I find a far better indication of his character the words of people who have known him and worked with him over his long career. I've known several of them myself, and to a man (and woman), every one of them have characterized him as an egomaniacal, arrogant prick in real-life, day-to-day encounters. One more thing: The funniest thing I've heard about all this Imus fallout came last night from Keith Olbermann, who I know you probably disagree with on most matters. But he made an amusing point when he mentioned that "Head On," the headache remedy that uses perhaps the most annoying commercials in this history of television to advertise their product, where the name of the product is shouted at viewers repeatedly, over and over, had pulled its ads from the Don Imus Show. Olbermann mused that when "Head On" pulls its ads from your show because "Head On" executives believe appearing on your show would damage their product's image, you know you're in trouble. Randy     Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:08:26 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: > Nor is there an excuse for your mistakes or mine. The distinction is > what we do with them, when they are committed. You and I have the > luxury of dealing with them privately. His is public and to his > credit, he is apologizing without excuses, to the black community via > Sharpton and soon to the Rutger's team. What more can he do beyond > that? Quit doing the same thing over and over again. He's had multiple chances. He just doesn't really care. This guy really does not like black people. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/       Date: 13 Apr 2007 11:42:37 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >This guy really does not like > black people. Does that break any laws? Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? Otto         Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:15:40 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>This guy really does not like >> black people. > > Does that break any laws? > > Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? > > Otto Otto, you miss the point. When people of "stature" (and let's face it, anybody who has the national bully pulpit and interviews government officials, politicians, diplomats, etc. has what most people would call "stature") can get away with spewing racial and sexist epithets without paying a price, it lowers the bar for everyone. And it helps create a culture in which we move backwards to the 1950s. Are you advocating such a thing? Randy           Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:35:19 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:Me2dnZgGBbQWJ4LbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com... > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > >>This guy really does not like > >> black people. > > > > Does that break any laws? > > > > Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? > > > > Otto > > > Otto, you miss the point. > > When people of "stature" (and let's face it, anybody who has the national > bully pulpit and interviews government officials, politicians, diplomats, > etc. has what most people would call "stature") can get away with spewing > racial and sexist epithets without paying a price, it lowers the bar for > everyone. And it helps create a culture in which we move backwards to the > 1950s. > > Are you advocating such a thing? Not at all and I agree with your position. But I also don't agree with tar and feathering. I cringe when we start to demonize someone simply because of what they think/believe. That is a very dangerous and slippery slope. Otto             Date: 13 Apr 2007 21:10:04 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:1bPTh.385$29.111@bignews2.bellsouth.net... > > ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message > news:Me2dnZgGBbQWJ4LbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com... >> "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote >> >> > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> > news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> >>This guy really does not like >> >> black people. >> > >> > Does that break any laws? >> > >> > Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? >> > >> > Otto >> >> >> Otto, you miss the point. >> >> When people of "stature" (and let's face it, anybody who has the national >> bully pulpit and interviews government officials, politicians, diplomats, >> etc. has what most people would call "stature") can get away with spewing >> racial and sexist epithets without paying a price, it lowers the bar for >> everyone. And it helps create a culture in which we move backwards to >> the >> 1950s. >> >> Are you advocating such a thing? > > > Not at all and I agree with your position. > > But I also don't agree with tar and feathering. > > I cringe when we start to demonize someone simply because of what they > think/believe. That is a very dangerous and slippery slope. No one cares what Imus thinks or believes. He's been punished for what he's DONE. The remark you made earlier was about legal or financial harm. My point was that when opinion-shapers like a national talk show host who interviews government officials, politicians and diplomats can get away with incendiary racial slurs, it helps legitimize a culture of intolerance toward people who are the targets of those remarks. Over time, that can, indeed, do financial harm by legitmizing discrimination against those people and others like them. That's why this stuff is indefensible. And it's why those who argue that Imus should not have been fired are just helping to fan the flames he sparked. Randy             Date: 13 Apr 2007 18:45:30 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) In article <1bPTh.385$29.111@bignews2.bellsouth.net >, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message > news:Me2dnZgGBbQWJ4LbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@giganews.com... > > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > > news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > >>This guy really does not like > > >> black people. > > > > > > Does that break any laws? > > > > > > Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? > > > > > > Otto > > > > > > Otto, you miss the point. > > > > When people of "stature" (and let's face it, anybody who has the national > > bully pulpit and interviews government officials, politicians, diplomats, > > etc. has what most people would call "stature") can get away with spewing > > racial and sexist epithets without paying a price, it lowers the bar for > > everyone. And it helps create a culture in which we move backwards to the > > 1950s. > > > > Are you advocating such a thing? > > > Not at all and I agree with your position. > > But I also don't agree with tar and feathering. No one is tar and feathering Imus. > > I cringe when we start to demonize someone simply because of what they > think/believe. That is a very dangerous and slippery slope. Nope. "Demonizing" is thinking/believing that someone is particularly bad. How can it be alright for Imus to think/believe racist things and not alright for others to think/believe he's particularly bad because of it. -- "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.               Date: 13 Apr 2007 20:21:34 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote in message news:alangbaker-FE4721.11452913042007@news.telus.net... > No one is tar and feathering Imus. Perhaps not literally but the amount of verbal punishment he is receiving far exceeds anything he has ever said on radio or tv. > > I cringe when we start to demonize someone simply because of what they > > think/believe. That is a very dangerous and slippery slope. > > Nope. "Demonizing" is thinking/believing that someone is particularly > bad. How can it be alright for Imus to think/believe racist things and > not alright for others to think/believe he's particularly bad because of > it. If you put what Imus has said over 30 years on one end of the scale and what has been said about him in the past few days, he would clearly be on the light end. I would guess that when it is all said and done, his punishment will be in excess of ten fold that of any feelings he has ever hurt. That starts to feel like tar and feathers to me. Otto                 Date: 14 Apr 2007 02:30:38 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) In article <T7VTh.10289$qB4.7397@bignews3.bellsouth.net >, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message > news:alangbaker-FE4721.11452913042007@news.telus.net... > > No one is tar and feathering Imus. > > Perhaps not literally but the amount of verbal punishment he is receiving > far exceeds anything he has ever said on radio or tv. > > > > > I cringe when we start to demonize someone simply because of what they > > > think/believe. That is a very dangerous and slippery slope. > > > > Nope. "Demonizing" is thinking/believing that someone is particularly > > bad. How can it be alright for Imus to think/believe racist things and > > not alright for others to think/believe he's particularly bad because of > > it. > > > If you put what Imus has said over 30 years on one end of the scale and what > has been said about him in the past few days, he would clearly be on the > light end. > > I would guess that when it is all said and done, his punishment will be in > excess of ten fold that of any feelings he has ever hurt. > > That starts to feel like tar and feathers to me. Nope. It's the system working the way it's supposed to: Imus said something very offensive and people are very upset about it. The people who employed Imus are supposed to respect the wishes of their listeners. -- "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.                 Date: 14 Apr 2007 01:18:45 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:21:34 -0400, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > >"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message >news:alangbaker-FE4721.11452913042007@news.telus.net... >> No one is tar and feathering Imus. > >Perhaps not literally but the amount of verbal punishment he is receiving >far exceeds anything he has ever said on radio or tv. > > Wrong. You might want to google that. There have been several instances cited here too. >> > I cringe when we start to demonize someone simply because of what they >> > think/believe. That is a very dangerous and slippery slope. >> He intimated, afterwards, that his "joke" wasn't what he believed. So, there's the slippery slope. Make outlandish statements and then claim that you were joking when called on them. >If you put what Imus has said over 30 years on one end of the scale and what >has been said about him in the past few days, he would clearly be on the >light end. Deservedly so. >I would guess that when it is all said and done, his punishment will be in >excess of ten fold that of any feelings he has ever hurt. > Hell of a guess, and just thrown out there for no reason. Wanna ask one of the Rutgers players who was called a whore how much her feelings were hurt? >That starts to feel like tar and feathers to me. > BS. He got what he deserved. The only thing that pisses me is that it wasn't done five minutes after he said it. The networks only caved because of money. They should've fired him way before this anyway. >                 Date: 13 Apr 2007 21:15:16 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote > > I would guess that when it is all said and done, his punishment will be in > excess of ten fold that of any feelings he has ever hurt. > > That starts to feel like tar and feathers to me. So help me get clear on this: In a nation that, in recent years, has become increasingly intolerant of politicians who did not adhere to "moral values" they hold dear, you consider incendiary racist remarks about a team of college athletes who did nothing to deserve them, to be within the acceptable "moral values" that so many have lobbied for in recent years, and that the man who uttered those words, and many other words like them in the years preceding this dust-up, to be worthy of continuing to have a national radio show to express his views? Is that what you're saying? Randy                   Date: 13 Apr 2007 21:44:51 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:6s2dnQQ6YIFut73bnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@giganews.com... > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > I would guess that when it is all said and done, his punishment will be in > > excess of ten fold that of any feelings he has ever hurt. > > > > That starts to feel like tar and feathers to me. > > > > So help me get clear on this: > > In a nation that, in recent years, has become increasingly intolerant of > politicians who did not adhere to "moral values" they hold dear, you > consider incendiary racist remarks about a team of college athletes who did > nothing to deserve them, to be within the acceptable "moral values" that so > many have lobbied for in recent years, and that the man who uttered those > words, and many other words like them in the years preceding this dust-up, > to be worthy of continuing to have a national radio show to express his > views? > > Is that what you're saying? No. You said that. This horse is dead. I'm done beating it. Otto         Date: 13 Apr 2007 16:24:50 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>This guy really does not like >> black people. > > Does that break any laws? It makes him unfit to have a national radio and cable television show. > Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? Would I bring any such harm down on you if I got on Westwood One and MSNBC and called you demeaning names for no reason after you had just accomplished something noteworthy? "That Otto, he's a real cracker isn't he? A total inbred white trash cracker." Better still, what if Snoop Dogg took over the Imus slot and starting doing shit like that? Can you even imagine? -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/           Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:59:17 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:3T40qvjmI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... > Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>>This guy really does not like >>> black people. >> >> Does that break any laws? > > It makes him unfit to have a national radio and cable television > show. > >> Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? > > Would I bring any such harm down on you if I got on Westwood One > and MSNBC and called you demeaning names for no reason after you > had just accomplished something noteworthy? "That Otto, he's a > real cracker isn't he? A total inbred white trash cracker." > > Better still, what if Snoop Dogg took over the Imus slot and > starting doing shit like that? Can you even imagine? > He'd get a free pass.             Date: 13 Apr 2007 18:37:53 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:3T40qvjmI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>> >>> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>>>This guy really does not like >>>> black people. >>> >>> Does that break any laws? >> >> It makes him unfit to have a national radio and cable television >> show. >> >>> Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? >> >> Would I bring any such harm down on you if I got on Westwood One >> and MSNBC and called you demeaning names for no reason after you >> had just accomplished something noteworthy? "That Otto, he's a >> real cracker isn't he? A total inbred white trash cracker." >> >> Better still, what if Snoop Dogg took over the Imus slot and >> starting doing shit like that? Can you even imagine? >> > He'd get a free pass. Bill O'Reilly would burn him in effigy every night. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/               Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:47:08 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:2T40r7jeI4idN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> news:3T40qvjmI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>> Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>>>>This guy really does not like >>>>> black people. >>>> >>>> Does that break any laws? >>> >>> It makes him unfit to have a national radio and cable television >>> show. >>> >>>> Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? >>> >>> Would I bring any such harm down on you if I got on Westwood One >>> and MSNBC and called you demeaning names for no reason after you >>> had just accomplished something noteworthy? "That Otto, he's a >>> real cracker isn't he? A total inbred white trash cracker." >>> >>> Better still, what if Snoop Dogg took over the Imus slot and >>> starting doing shit like that? Can you even imagine? >>> >> He'd get a free pass. > > Bill O'Reilly would burn him in effigy every night. > I'd like to see Bill and Snoopy in a UFC ring.                 Date: 13 Apr 2007 22:12:17 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message news:58a1hdF2fj2mlU1@mid.individual.net... > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:2T40r7jeI4idN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:3T40qvjmI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>>> Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>>>>>This guy really does not like >>>>>> black people. >>>>> >>>>> Does that break any laws? >>>> >>>> It makes him unfit to have a national radio and cable television >>>> show. >>>> >>>>> Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? >>>> >>>> Would I bring any such harm down on you if I got on Westwood One >>>> and MSNBC and called you demeaning names for no reason after you >>>> had just accomplished something noteworthy? "That Otto, he's a >>>> real cracker isn't he? A total inbred white trash cracker." >>>> >>>> Better still, what if Snoop Dogg took over the Imus slot and >>>> starting doing shit like that? Can you even imagine? >>>> >>> He'd get a free pass. >> >> Bill O'Reilly would burn him in effigy every night. >> > I'd like to see Bill and Snoopy in a UFC ring. I'd like to see Bill O'Reilly on a Firing Line. No, not the TV show. The one where he gets a last cigarette. Randy                   Date: 16 Apr 2007 09:49:44 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:tMGdncgIM-LNpb3bnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@giganews.com... > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message > news:58a1hdF2fj2mlU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> news:2T40r7jeI4idN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>> MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:3T40qvjmI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>>>> Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>> news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>>>>>>This guy really does not like >>>>>>> black people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does that break any laws? >>>>> >>>>> It makes him unfit to have a national radio and cable television >>>>> show. >>>>> >>>>>> Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? >>>>> >>>>> Would I bring any such harm down on you if I got on Westwood One >>>>> and MSNBC and called you demeaning names for no reason after you >>>>> had just accomplished something noteworthy? "That Otto, he's a >>>>> real cracker isn't he? A total inbred white trash cracker." >>>>> >>>>> Better still, what if Snoop Dogg took over the Imus slot and >>>>> starting doing shit like that? Can you even imagine? >>>>> >>>> He'd get a free pass. >>> >>> Bill O'Reilly would burn him in effigy every night. >>> >> I'd like to see Bill and Snoopy in a UFC ring. > > > I'd like to see Bill O'Reilly on a Firing Line. > > No, not the TV show. The one where he gets a last cigarette. > > Randy Of course you would. Opinions other than yours are not to be tolerated.           Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:48:03 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:3T40qvjmI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... > Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > >>This guy really does not like > >> black people. > > > > Does that break any laws? > > It makes him unfit to have a national radio and cable television > show. Says who? Cable is private enterprise. So is satellite. He'll be back. You may not see him on public airwaves, but you'll have the chance to see/hear him on the private airwaves. > > > Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? > > Would I bring any such harm down on you if I got on Westwood One > and MSNBC and called you demeaning names for no reason after you > had just accomplished something noteworthy? "That Otto, he's a > real cracker isn't he? A total inbred white trash cracker." No legal or financial harm there. I might even chuckle at it. > Better still, what if Snoop Dogg took over the Imus slot and > starting doing shit like that? Can you even imagine? Snoop's a dope smoking idiot and anything he said would be even funnier. LOL!! Otto             Date: 13 Apr 2007 16:53:34 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:3T40qvjmI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> > >> > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> > news:3T40qgogIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> >>This guy really does not like >> >> black people. >> > >> > Does that break any laws? >> >> It makes him unfit to have a national radio and cable television >> show. > > Says who? His advertisers. > Cable is private enterprise. So is satellite. He'll be back. You > may not see him on public airwaves, but you'll have the chance to see/hear > him on the private airwaves. Let him go to Sirius if he can, if the Klan wants to pay to hear his swill, fine by me. >> > Did he bring any legal or financial harm down on these gals? >> >> Would I bring any such harm down on you if I got on Westwood One >> and MSNBC and called you demeaning names for no reason after you >> had just accomplished something noteworthy? "That Otto, he's a >> real cracker isn't he? A total inbred white trash cracker." > > No legal or financial harm there. I might even chuckle at it. > >> Better still, what if Snoop Dogg took over the Imus slot and >> starting doing shit like that? Can you even imagine? > > Snoop's a dope smoking idiot and anything he said would be even funnier. I bet he has made a lot more money than you have, and legally. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/               Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:02:02 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:0T40r1dbI3hgN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> >> Snoop's a dope smoking idiot and anything he said would be even funnier. > > I bet he has made a lot more money than you have, and legally. > Dosent mean he's any less of a dope smoking idiot. Schnizzle dat.                 Date: 13 Apr 2007 22:10:58 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message news:589usrF2g3r7sU1@mid.individual.net... > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:0T40r1dbI3hgN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>> >>> Snoop's a dope smoking idiot and anything he said would be even funnier. >> >> I bet he has made a lot more money than you have, and legally. >> > Dosent mean he's any less of a dope smoking idiot. Schnizzle dat. Do you include your President in that generalization? Oh, wait a minute. He was a cokehead. Different thing. Randy                   Date: 16 Apr 2007 09:47:55 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:PLCdnVDLGc2cpb3bnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@giganews.com... > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message > news:589usrF2g3r7sU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> news:0T40r1dbI3hgN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>>> >>>> Snoop's a dope smoking idiot and anything he said would be even >>>> funnier. >>> >>> I bet he has made a lot more money than you have, and legally. >>> >> Dosent mean he's any less of a dope smoking idiot. Schnizzle dat. > > > Do you include your President in that generalization? > > Oh, wait a minute. He was a cokehead. Different thing. > > Randy Alleged. Now Obama, he WAS a cokehead.                   Date: 16 Apr 2007 05:16:31 From: bill-o Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 13-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > Do you include your President in that generalization? I know you don't claim him, but until you renounce your citizenship or accept reality, he's your President too. :-P -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.                     Date: 25 Apr 2007 03:31:36 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 05:16:31 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: > >On 13-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: > >> Do you include your President in that generalization? > >I know you don't claim him, but until you renounce your citizenship or >accept reality, he's your President too. :-P I know that you weren't addressing me, but IMHO he's the President of my country...but he isn't my president. About 60% + seem to think the same as I. -- ___, \o                     Date: 24 Apr 2007 23:01:10 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message news:4623069e$0$25243$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... > > On 13-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: > >> Do you include your President in that generalization? > > I know you don't claim him, but until you renounce your citizenship or > accept reality, he's your President too. :-P He can't be my president if he doesn't represent me on anything. I have not agreed with him on a single decision he's made (with the notable exception of firing Rumsfeld). You're damn skippy I don't claim him. Randy               Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:30:08 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:0T40r1dbI3hgN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > I bet he has made a lot more money than you have, and legally. If that defines success then he surely is more successful than I. I'll put my character and life's work up against his any day. Otto                 Date: 13 Apr 2007 18:36:30 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:0T40r1dbI3hgN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > >> I bet he has made a lot more money than you have, and legally. > > If that defines success then he surely is more successful than I. I chose that metric because it's a favorite of conservatives everywhere. > I'll put my character and life's work up against his any day. Good on ya. I like that answer. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                   Date: 13 Apr 2007 20:11:55 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:1T40r7g3I4idN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > Otto <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > news:0T40r1dbI3hgN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > > >> I bet he has made a lot more money than you have, and legally. > > > > If that defines success then he surely is more successful than I. > > I chose that metric because it's a favorite of conservatives > everywhere. I hope you haven't put me in that pigeonhole. ; >) Otto   Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:42:27 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 3:44 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote > > >> Don't listen to radio much eh? Most rap is soo bleeped out it makes even > >> less sense. > > > Rap died years ago. It's called hip hop now and even that is pretty > > much dead. I think it's you who doesn't listen to radio much. > > Chris, the guy you're responding to is pretty typical of middle-aged white > guys who think they're up on popular trends in music. They probably think > Whitney Houston is considered hip. > > But I do think you're a little bit off base here. Rap music is still very > much alive. It is part of hip-hop, but hip-hop as a music genre is closer > to the kind of top 40/pop music that we 50somethings grew up listening to > than anything else that's out right now. > > It's about the only thing I listen to. > > Remember, too, that I live in the rap music capitol of the world, "the > A-T-L," home of So-So Def Music, Jermaine Dupri, etc. I can assure you that > rap music is far from dead, and that hip-hop music is alive and well, and > growing in popularity. > > Right there in your market of Dallas/Fort Worth, all three of the top 3 > stations in the most recent Arbitron ratings all play hip-hop. (Ratings > were just released last week.) They are K-104 (an Urban station, the number > one station in town), Kiss-FM (a top 40, and anyone who's looked at the top > 40 charts lately should know that about 60 percent of it is hip-hop > crossover), and some new station I had to call a friend to ask about because > I'd never heard of it, but it's a "Churban" (Rhythmic CHR) station (I forget > the call letters). > > That these three stations have supplanted all country stations in the > Dallas/Fort Worth radio ratings is astonishing. DFW has never been an > especially strong market for hip-hop. But it is now. > > Randy Let me show my ignorance as a white middle ager. What is the difference between Rap and Hip-Hop? -Greg     Date: 14 Apr 2007 06:02:51 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" wrote in RSG: > > Let me show my ignorance as a white middle ager. > What is the difference between Rap and Hip-Hop? Took me a while to answer this, for reasons that will become evident as you read on... In a way, it's your question is like asking what's the difference between rock and folk music. Certainly someone who is a musician might be able to offer a more technical explanation than I can of what the difference is. Some would argue Bob Dylan is (or was) a folk artist. Others would say he's an icon of rock. Both statements are probably true. Certainly some of his "folk" songs are rock classics. I have no opinion on where he fits into the musical spectrum, except to say that the two genres mix a bit now and then and it's sometimes hard to separate them. So in that way, it's hard to give you a definitive answer to your question, "What's the difference between Rap and Hip-Hop?" The best online definition I've found came up when I Googled "What's the difference between rap and hip-hop," and sure enough, an article that seemed to provide a good answer to the question popped up: http://ask.yahoo.com/20030325.html But text on a page, such as what you find in that article, does little to truly demonstrate the difference, which, in my mind, is fairly simple. Rap music contains virtually no (sung) melody. Rap songs consist of an instrumental groove with mostly (and often, entirely) rap lyrics chanted on top. (Yes, I know, this is a very simplistic definition.) Hip-hop, on the other hand, can contain some rap, and often does. But it usually bears more of a resemblance to music in the way many of us grew up defining music -- songs with a melody. I'll leave it to others with formal musical training to define the technical ingredients that comprise hip-hop. My contribution to your education about the difference between the two genres can be best provided by actually letting you HEAR the difference, at least as I define it (and as most hip-hop radio stations define it). So I have taken the liberty of putting together a couple of .mp3 files and posting them online -- one containing examples of rap music, one containing examples of hip-hop music. I think you'll be surprised at just how much of both genres you've heard and are already familiar with, as the genres are considerably more mainstream than a lot of middle-aged white guys think, and the songs I chose are all hits. Some are Grammy award-winners, some have been used in commercials I'm sure you've seen and heard. I also think you'll be somewhat surprised at how much you actually find yourself LIKING hip-hop. As I've said before, it's the closest thing to the pop music we grew up listening to that's out there in the music scene today. Some may argue that a few of the songs I included in the hip-hop file aren't hip-hop at all, but pop. But they're all played on hip-hop radio stations throughout the country, and the artists are all considered hip-hop artists. Strap in...(and don't worry, I only put snippets of several songs on here, not the whole songs)... http://www.thebrownestate.com/RAP.mp3 http://www.thebrownestate.com/HIP-HOP.mp3 Note that some of the versions I used are the "explicit" versions that contain language most radio stations would not air. And yes, I couldn't resist separating the song snippets with some of my favorite radio jingles from a bygone era to help the uninitiated be able to tell when one song ends and another begins. Frankly, it was something of an epiphany for me to discover how well these Top-40 AM radio jingles sung by the Johnny Mann Singers nearly 40 years ago still hold up, even with this music. :-) (Bobby Knight: I'm guessing the jingles will be the ONLY parts of these files you like.) LOL! Randy   Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:40:12 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 8:14 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote: > On Apr 12, 6:15 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > > > Be honest. You know that racists can't wait for rappers to use > > derogatory terms about members of their own race, because they > > they think that gives them cover to use the same terms. That's > > the game you're trying to play here, in fact. As we say here in > > Texas, that dog don't hunt. > > Witness this video made by some local street thugs here in > Chattanooga.http://tinyurl.com/2u96s9 > > You'll hear them say they live in "Choke-a-Nigga" Tennessee. > Now if someone asked me where I'm from and I said I was from Choke-a- > Nigga, Tennessee, what reaction would I get? > On the surface that is a very unfair double-standard. > However, the term has two different meanings depending on who says it. > If I say it, it means I'm a racist and we like to choke niggas. > If they say it it means they are the victim because the local police > force has a history of using choke holds on the local brothers. > > Same words, different meanings. Sound familiar? Good point! -Greg     Date: 14 Apr 2007 02:11:39 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1176442811.975690.322940@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 8:14 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote: >> On Apr 12, 6:15 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >> >> > Be honest. You know that racists can't wait for rappers to use >> > derogatory terms about members of their own race, because they >> > they think that gives them cover to use the same terms. That's >> > the game you're trying to play here, in fact. As we say here in >> > Texas, that dog don't hunt. >> >> Witness this video made by some local street thugs here in >> Chattanooga.http://tinyurl.com/2u96s9 >> >> You'll hear them say they live in "Choke-a-Nigga" Tennessee. >> Now if someone asked me where I'm from and I said I was from Choke-a- >> Nigga, Tennessee, what reaction would I get? >> On the surface that is a very unfair double-standard. >> However, the term has two different meanings depending on who says it. >> If I say it, it means I'm a racist and we like to choke niggas. >> If they say it it means they are the victim because the local police >> force has a history of using choke holds on the local brothers. >> >> Same words, different meanings. Sound familiar? > > Good point! > > -Greg Finally, someone explains it in a way that Dene can understand! Thank you, Annika. Randy   Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:37:59 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 12:29 pm, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote: > ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote in message > > news:xO6dnQ2zfcxmGYPbnZ2dnUVZ_o-knZ2d@giganews.com... > > > > > > > The girls at Rutgers were minding their own business, going to school, > > pursuing athletics, playing for a national championship. Then, without > > seeking any of this, were drawn into a controversy because some > > self-centered, irresponsible fossil who sat in front of a microphone each > > day, called the team a bunch of "nappy-headed 'ho's." As if these girls > did > > something to bring this burden into their life. > > > And then there are the damn fools who say CBS should wait to decide what > to > > do with Imus until after the Imus - Rutgers team meeting happens, and let > > the girls decide, more or less, how they're going to react to his apology. > > Some people say CBS should base their decision on the girl's reaction to > > that meeting. As if these girls need THAT added burden of deciding the > fate > > of some shock jock's career, when they did nothing whatsoever to be > dragged > > into this mess in the first place. > > > What if one of them was YOUR daughter? > > I would advise my daughter to abide by the same old rhyme we've all heard in > grade school. > > "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me." > > I would advise her to choose not to be drawn in. > > I would advise her to rise above the mob and choose to be her own person. > > I would advise her to see the media for what they are. > > I would advise her to be wary of those who wish to manipulate her. > > I would advise her to enjoy her college basketball and academic career and > to strive to be the best she can be. > > I would tell her I love her. > > Otto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Bingo Otto! Well stated!!! The only thing I would add is that she has a choice whether to forgive Imus and that she should judge him, his apology, on the basis of the 3 R's. Remorse, Repair, and Responsibility. BTW....I stole the 3 R's from Dr. Laura. -Greg -Greg   Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:31:30 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 12:54 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <no-...@nowhere.com > wrote: > "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:587fe7F2g9hklU1@mid.individual.net... > > > The cruxt of the matter to me isnt what Imus said. He was an idiot, and > > hes now paying the price as he should be. It's more of the selective > > outrage by the Sharpton gang and the left. Where were they when Rosie > > ho'Donnel mocked Chinese people on national TV? I see she's still supreme > > dictator on "The View". Now Sharpton today is announcing he wants to > > "have a broad discussion on whats permitted and not permitted on the > > airwaves." Want to bet he only is talking about talk radio. > > Or Rev Jackson himself calling Jews "Hymies" and referring to New York as > "Hymietown" > > You only get in trouble for being racist if you are in a certain group. Bingo! -Greg   Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:31:00 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 11:29 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > > Imus' job security should not be based upon some rapper's record deal in Los > Angeles, any more than your job security should be tied to some like-minded > conservative in Florida who goes off the deep end and does something > foolish. They should be dealt with separately. Because they ARE separate > issues. Agree. The only correlation is the hypocrisy of Sharpton and Jackson for not drawing attn. to the black rappers and comedians. Imus is a splinter....the rappers and comedians are logs. Imus shouldn't be the catalyst for Sharpton and Jackson finally cleaning up their own house. They should have addressed this long ago. They didn't...and for that reason, among others, the black community should fire both of these charlatons. > I think if we step back from the Imus thing for just a moment and imagine > your daughter playing for her college basketball team who played a game on > national television. You're obviously proud of her, and probably for good > reason. You're proud of her academic progress, you're proud of her athletic > accomplishments, and you're proud of how she and her team reached a level of > national interest that a network would carry their game. Then some shock > jock goes on national radio and television and declares her and the rest of > her teammates as a bunch of "stringy-haired whores." What would your > reaction be? > I'll answer that. I'd be angry until he apologizes. Then I'd pay close attn. to his apology and try to determine if he's sorry that he got caught or sorry for what he said. In this case, I think Imus is sorry for what he said and been very courageous in addressing it, to the black community via Sharpton, and soon the Rutger's team. Bill Clinton, in contrast, was only sorry he got caught. Had he been sorry for what he did, he'd been honest/ forthright about it from the beginning. -Greg     Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:39:54 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message news:1176442260.320032.48730@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 11:29 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > >> >> Imus' job security should not be based upon some rapper's record deal in >> Los >> Angeles, any more than your job security should be tied to some >> like-minded >> conservative in Florida who goes off the deep end and does something >> foolish. They should be dealt with separately. Because they ARE >> separate >> issues. > > Agree. The only correlation is the hypocrisy of Sharpton and Jackson > for not drawing attn. to the black rappers and comedians. Here you're just showing your ignorance (or bias). Sharpton and Jackson are on record from hundreds of occasions when they spoke out loudly against epithets and sexist lyrics in rap music and in pop culture in general. Check the public record. Sorry, Dene, but this empty claim is another straw man you're merely parrotting from the mouthpieces of the right. Again, check the public record. Sharpton and Jackson have spoken out about this stuff on hundreds of occasions. Your trusted sources of information from the wacky right are lying to you...again. > Imus is a splinter....the rappers and comedians are logs. Imus shouldn't > be the > catalyst for Sharpton and Jackson finally cleaning up their own > house. They should have addressed this long ago. They didn't...and > for that reason, among others, the black community should fire both of > these charlatons. And who, pray tell, would fire them? Name the person who would hand them the pink slip. Your ignorance is showing again. >> I think if we step back from the Imus thing for just a moment and imagine >> your daughter playing for her college basketball team who played a game >> on >> national television. You're obviously proud of her, and probably for >> good >> reason. You're proud of her academic progress, you're proud of her >> athletic >> accomplishments, and you're proud of how she and her team reached a level >> of >> national interest that a network would carry their game. Then some shock >> jock goes on national radio and television and declares her and the rest >> of >> her teammates as a bunch of "stringy-haired whores." What would your >> reaction be? >> > > I'll answer that. I'd be angry until he apologizes. Then I'd pay > close attn. to his apology and try to determine if he's sorry that he > got caught or sorry for what he said. I have no doubt Imus is sorry. You'd be sorry, too, if your $10-million a year job was threatened by your remarks, or taken away entirely. As has been chronicled many times in the past week, this isn't the first time Imus has done this, and it isn't the first time he apologized for it, promising to "do better." Apologies begin to ring empty after a while when they're for mistakes that the same person keeps repeating. > In this case, I think Imus is sorry for what he said and been very > courageous in addressing it, Courageous? You call DOING WHAT YOU SHOULD DO courageous? Look, in the past several days, Imus has apologized. But if you listen closely to the remarks he's made (and, really, you don't have to listen all that closely to pick up on this), his remarks have sounded much more like he's trying to defend himself than like an apology. He has blamed others, and he has tried to justify the remarks he's made. If someone is truly sorry, they don't try to make excuses. They just say "I fucked up" and they throw themselves on the mercy of those he offended, not keep trying to put up a defense. I found his apologies more offensive than the original remark, and I'm glad he's gone. He got what he deserved. > Bill Clinton, in contrast, was only sorry he > got caught. Had he been sorry for what he did, What the hell does Bill Clinton have to do with any of this? Stop trying to change the subject. Randy       Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:07:25 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:7tidnebTQq60L4LbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@giganews.com... > > Here you're just showing your ignorance (or bias). > > Sharpton and Jackson are on record from hundreds of occasions when they > > spoke out loudly against epithets and sexist lyrics in rap music and in > pop culture in general. > > Check the public record. > Hundreds? Pure BS.     Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:03:59 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Dene <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote: > On Apr 12, 11:29 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > >> >> Imus' job security should not be based upon some rapper's record deal in Los >> Angeles, any more than your job security should be tied to some like-minded >> conservative in Florida who goes off the deep end and does something >> foolish. They should be dealt with separately. Because they ARE separate >> issues. > > Agree. The only correlation is the hypocrisy of Sharpton and Jackson > for not drawing attn. to the black rappers and comedians. Imus is a > splinter....the rappers and comedians are logs. Imus shouldn't be the > catalyst for Sharpton and Jackson finally cleaning up their own > house. They should have addressed this long ago. They didn't... Does google not work at your location? Because before you fling accusations like that around, you should be sure they're actually true and not just thoughtless smears tossed out by racists. From 2005: The criticisms of Lil' Kim were launched amid an anti-rap movement that began in March, soon after shots were fired by the rival entourages of 50 Cent and the Game outside a New York radio station. Al Sharpton demanded that the Federal Communications Commission ban violent rappers from radio and television, and he launched a boycott against Universal Music Group, which he accused of "peddling racist and misogynistic black stereotypes" through rap music. Sharpton expressed special concern about white perceptions of African Americans. Rappers and their corporate supporters "make it easy for black culture to be dismissed by the majority," he said, and the large white fan base "has learned through rap images to identify black male culture with a culture of violence." Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition signed on to the boycott, as did Princeton professor Cornel West, who issued a statement claiming that music companies and rappers made it easy for whites to "view black bodies and black souls as less moral, oversexed and less intelligent." I'll say it again. Bigots need to quit acting like the actions of dumb black kids gives them license to use the same racial and sexual epithets the dumb kids use. This argument is pathetic. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/       Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:40:58 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:1T40qg5sIqjuN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > Dene <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote: >> On Apr 12, 11:29 am, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Imus' job security should not be based upon some rapper's record deal in >>> Los >>> Angeles, any more than your job security should be tied to some >>> like-minded >>> conservative in Florida who goes off the deep end and does something >>> foolish. They should be dealt with separately. Because they ARE >>> separate >>> issues. >> >> Agree. The only correlation is the hypocrisy of Sharpton and Jackson >> for not drawing attn. to the black rappers and comedians. Imus is a >> splinter....the rappers and comedians are logs. Imus shouldn't be the >> catalyst for Sharpton and Jackson finally cleaning up their own >> house. They should have addressed this long ago. They didn't... > > Does google not work at your location? Because before you fling > accusations like that around, you should be sure they're actually > true and not just thoughtless smears tossed out by racists. > > From 2005: > > The criticisms of Lil' Kim were launched amid an > anti-rap movement that began in March, soon after shots > were fired by the rival entourages of 50 Cent and the > Game outside a New York radio station. Al Sharpton > demanded that the Federal Communications Commission ban > violent rappers from radio and television, and he > launched a boycott against Universal Music Group, which > he accused of "peddling racist and misogynistic black > stereotypes" through rap music. Sharpton expressed > special concern about white perceptions of African > Americans. Rappers and their corporate supporters "make > it easy for black culture to be dismissed by the > majority," he said, and the large white fan base "has > learned through rap images to identify black male culture > with a culture of violence." > > Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition signed on to the > boycott, as did Princeton professor Cornel West, who > issued a statement claiming that music companies and > rappers made it easy for whites to "view black bodies and > black souls as less moral, oversexed and less > intelligent." > > I'll say it again. Bigots need to quit acting like the actions of > dumb black kids gives them license to use the same racial and > sexual epithets the dumb kids use. This argument is pathetic. > > -- > Chris Bellomy > C-List Charter Member > http://clist.org/ Remember, Chris, Dene lives in Oregon, where there are only seven black people in the entire damn state. He's probably never actually met one. Randy       Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:10:55 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:03:59 -0000, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: This needed to be posted again for all of those thinly disguised racists, who only look at one side of an issue, and don't know what's happening other than in their foggy world. bk >Does google not work at your location? Because before you fling >accusations like that around, you should be sure they're actually >true and not just thoughtless smears tossed out by racists. > >From 2005: > > The criticisms of Lil' Kim were launched amid an > anti-rap movement that began in March, soon after shots > were fired by the rival entourages of 50 Cent and the > Game outside a New York radio station. Al Sharpton > demanded that the Federal Communications Commission ban > violent rappers from radio and television, and he > launched a boycott against Universal Music Group, which > he accused of "peddling racist and misogynistic black > stereotypes" through rap music. Sharpton expressed > special concern about white perceptions of African > Americans. Rappers and their corporate supporters "make > it easy for black culture to be dismissed by the > majority," he said, and the large white fan base "has > learned through rap images to identify black male culture > with a culture of violence." > > Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition signed on to the > boycott, as did Princeton professor Cornel West, who > issued a statement claiming that music companies and > rappers made it easy for whites to "view black bodies and > black souls as less moral, oversexed and less > intelligent." > >I'll say it again. Bigots need to quit acting like the actions of >dumb black kids gives them license to use the same racial and >sexual epithets the dumb kids use. This argument is pathetic.   Date: 12 Apr 2007 20:29:24 From: annika1980 Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 6:40 pm, "Bow Tie" <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com > wrote: > I am reminded of the firing of Rush from ESPN. I still don't get that. > What he said is the absolute truth. He did not say that McNabb is a > bad QB because he is black. He said the media will prop up any black > QB and that is absolutely true. Bullshit. When is the media gonna start propping up Michael Vick or Daunte Culpepper? All I ever hear from them is that Vick is really just a runner and can't throw for shit. Why don't they talk about his white linemen that can't pass block for shit? Now about the Imus thing, I don't understand why CBS didn't immediately come out with the old, "The views of Mr. Imus do not represent the views of CBS or it's fine sponsors." No, they wait until enough sponsors bailed and then they take the high moral ground. Sounds like a typical Republican! Whenever you hear them talk about doing the right thing, you can bet your sweet ass it's really about making a buck. Kinda like that whole "spreading Democracy" bullshit. Fidel Castro on line #2.   Date: 12 Apr 2007 20:14:23 From: annika1980 Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 12, 6:15 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > Be honest. You know that racists can't wait for rappers to use > derogatory terms about members of their own race, because they > they think that gives them cover to use the same terms. That's > the game you're trying to play here, in fact. As we say here in > Texas, that dog don't hunt. Witness this video made by some local street thugs here in Chattanooga. http://tinyurl.com/2u96s9 You'll hear them say they live in "Choke-a-Nigga" Tennessee. Now if someone asked me where I'm from and I said I was from Choke-a- Nigga, Tennessee, what reaction would I get? On the surface that is a very unfair double-standard. However, the term has two different meanings depending on who says it. If I say it, it means I'm a racist and we like to choke niggas. If they say it it means they are the victim because the local police force has a history of using choke holds on the local brothers. Same words, different meanings. Sound familiar?     Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:06:39 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote: > On Apr 12, 6:15 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > >> Be honest. You know that racists can't wait for rappers to use >> derogatory terms about members of their own race, because they >> they think that gives them cover to use the same terms. That's >> the game you're trying to play here, in fact. As we say here in >> Texas, that dog don't hunt. > > Witness this video made by some local street thugs here in > Chattanooga. > http://tinyurl.com/2u96s9 > > You'll hear them say they live in "Choke-a-Nigga" Tennessee. > Now if someone asked me where I'm from and I said I was from Choke-a- > Nigga, Tennessee, what reaction would I get? > On the surface that is a very unfair double-standard. > However, the term has two different meanings depending on who says it. > If I say it, it means I'm a racist and we like to choke niggas. > If they say it it means they are the victim because the local police > force has a history of using choke holds on the local brothers. > > Same words, different meanings. Sound familiar? Great post. It makes me wonder how many of our troops in Iraq jokingly call themselves "the Great Satan." It would definitely mean something quite different when they say it than when the head of state of Iran says it. Right? -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 12 Apr 2007 15:40:37 From: Bow Tie Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) I loved Bernie's act, especially when he did that Irish priest. I don't get it. One quip from Imus and he can't be redeemed? What about the tin-foil-hat rant Rosie O has going over at The View on ABC TV? Her suggestion that our own government staged the attack of 911 is just about the most offensive thing anyone can say to me. She should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail. I am reminded of the firing of Rush from ESPN. I still don't get that. What he said is the absolute truth. He did not say that McNabb is a bad QB because he is black. He said the media will prop up any black QB and that is absolutely true. What about the mass orgasm that the media was having because both head coaches in the Super Bowl are black? It is too bad that Dr King is celebrated as an icon, but his teachings are shoved aside. He longed for a world where his daughters could be regarded by the "content of their character, not the color of their skin.". As long as they have any say, the PC left is never going to let race baiting or racial preferences die. Don Imus is just another middle aged white male to fall in the trap. I thought he was a lot more savvy. The remark that took him out should have been saved for his wife or the boys after the show was over. I hope Imus saved his money. I wish him Godspeed. Ken +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On Apr 12, 5:20 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > MnMikew <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote: > > > "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > >news:6T40oo2rIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > >> Bill H. <bill...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to begin > >>> with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can be > >>> hos. > > >> Good grief. Here's the entire exchange, see if you can post with > >> a straight face that this doesn't sound like it's straight from > >> a Klan gathering: > > >> IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night > >> between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the > >> women's final. > > >> ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- > >> seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, > >> I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points. > > >> IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, > >> they got tattoos and -- > > >> McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. > > >> IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna > >> tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the > >> girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, > >> like -- kinda like -- I don't know. > > >> McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. > > >> IMUS: Yeah. > > >> McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that > >> movie that he had. > > >> IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough -- > > >> McCORD: Do The Right Thing. > > >> McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. > > >> IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat > >> Rutgers or not, but they did, right? > > >> ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at > >> Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors. > > >> IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah. > > >> RUFFINO: Only tougher. > > >> McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more > >> appropriate. > > > So whay isnt this McGuirk guy being called on the carpet? > > He just lost his job, Mike. I'd say he is being called on the carpet. > But Imus was his boss, the public figure, the one responsible, so he > deserves the brunt of the heat. > > That said, yeah, Bernard McGuirk is a real peach. If he ever gets > near a microphone again it will be too soon. > > -- > Chris Bellomy > C-List Charter Memberhttp://clist.org/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -     Date: 13 Apr 2007 00:26:32 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Bow Tie <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote: > I don't get it. One quip from Imus and he can't be redeemed? No, Ken, it was a long history of this shit. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/     Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:50:58 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) In article <1176417637.178641.238080@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote: > I loved Bernie's act, especially when he did that Irish priest. > > I don't get it. One quip from Imus and he can't be redeemed? What > about the tin-foil-hat rant Rosie O has going over at The View on ABC > TV? Her suggestion that our own government staged the attack of 911 is > just about the most offensive thing anyone can say to me. She should > be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail. > > I am reminded of the firing of Rush from ESPN. I still don't get that. > What he said is the absolute truth. He did not say that McNabb is a > bad QB because he is black. He said the media will prop up any black > QB and that is absolutely true. What about the mass orgasm that the > media was having because both head coaches in the Super Bowl are > black? > > It is too bad that Dr King is celebrated as an icon, but his teachings > are shoved aside. He longed for a world where his daughters could be > regarded by the "content of their character, not the color of their > skin.". As long as they have any say, the PC left is never going to > let race baiting or racial preferences die. Don Imus is just another > middle aged white male to fall in the trap. I thought he was a lot > more savvy. The remark that took him out should have been saved for > his wife or the boys after the show was over. So... It was okay to *think* of them as "nappy-headed hos" -- it would even have been okay to call them that to your wife and sons... ...his only mistake was saying it in public. Let's face it, Ken: you *are* a racist. > > I hope Imus saved his money. I wish him Godspeed. > > Ken > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > On Apr 12, 5:20 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > > MnMikew <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > "Chris Bellomy" <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > > >news:6T40oo2rIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > > >> Bill H. <bill...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>> First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to begin > > >>> with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can be > > >>> hos. > > > > >> Good grief. Here's the entire exchange, see if you can post with > > >> a straight face that this doesn't sound like it's straight from > > >> a Klan gathering: > > > > >> IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night > > >> between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the > > >> women's final. > > > > >> ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- > > >> seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, > > >> I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points. > > > > >> IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, > > >> they got tattoos and -- > > > > >> McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. > > > > >> IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna > > >> tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the > > >> girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, > > >> like -- kinda like -- I don't know. > > > > >> McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. > > > > >> IMUS: Yeah. > > > > >> McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that > > >> movie that he had. > > > > >> IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough -- > > > > >> McCORD: Do The Right Thing. > > > > >> McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. > > > > >> IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat > > >> Rutgers or not, but they did, right? > > > > >> ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at > > >> Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors. > > > > >> IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah. > > > > >> RUFFINO: Only tougher. > > > > >> McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more > > >> appropriate. > > > > > So whay isnt this McGuirk guy being called on the carpet? > > > > He just lost his job, Mike. I'd say he is being called on the carpet. > > But Imus was his boss, the public figure, the one responsible, so he > > deserves the brunt of the heat. > > > > That said, yeah, Bernard McGuirk is a real peach. If he ever gets > > near a microphone again it will be too soon. > > > > -- > > Chris Bellomy > > C-List Charter Memberhttp://clist.org/- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - -- "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.     Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:47:06 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 12 Apr 2007 15:40:37 -0700, "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote: <clip > >It is too bad that Dr King is celebrated as an icon, but his teachings >are shoved aside. He longed for a world where his daughters could be >regarded by the "content of their character, not the color of their >skin.". How about their hair, or being called whores? -- ___, \o   Date: 12 Apr 2007 11:34:35 From: Bill H. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) > It appears that Imus' comments on some basketball players are more > damaging than bullets, shrapnel, chemical agents, landmines, RPG's, > snipers, and a folly of a civil war between groups of fundamentalist > muslims whose cultures we can't really even begin to fathom 'cause > they pre-date our own "culture" by millenia, almost half a world away, > and the USA. I'm with Imus on this one. No, I'm not a racist, but I understand the type of show he does, which is very edgy humor that's frequently offensive to LOTS of people. Similar to Dave Chappelle or Carlos Mencia, who also use a lot of racial humor, and who routinely poke fun at everyone. Imus has made fun of just about everyone, too - but now he's being blacklisted as a racist. First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to begin with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can be hos. Even if he was being racist somehow, he only made things worse by apologizing. From what I've seen, nobody was impressed with it. Everyone who was asked said it "wasn't sincere", and that it "wasn't enough", blah blah blah. Here's the problem: It will never be enough. If somebody wants to be offended, you can crawl through the streets weeping tears of blood and they'll still say "Yeah, you SHOULD be sorry. Now grovel some more!!" It's ironic that he can offend the whole world with a two-second comment (which they take seriously), but when he spends a full 10 minutes on his show apologizing at length the next day, it's not enough. Finally, who cares? Imus is a radio talk show host. He was one of the first "shock jocks", and is first and foremost, an entertainer. If these players and coaches, who we see crying and looking sad on TV are REALLY so hurt and offended over something an old white guy said, they're gonna have a tough time in life. Here's something they should learn: People are going to talk about you your whole life, especially if you decide to put yourself in the public eye. That's the problem with being famous, being an athlete, or anyone else who is on television and seen by millions. Lots of people know you, and lots of them won't like you. Instead of getting all wound up over some little comment, why not just live your life, make yourself happy, follow your dreams, and not care about what other people think? Now watch this drive! -Bill H.     Date: 12 Apr 2007 20:02:03 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Bill H. <billhen@gmail.com > wrote: > First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to begin > with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can be > hos. Good grief. Here's the entire exchange, see if you can post with a straight face that this doesn't sound like it's straight from a Klan gathering: IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final. ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points. IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and -- McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know. McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. IMUS: Yeah. McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had. IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough -- McCORD: Do The Right Thing. McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right? ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors. IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah. RUFFINO: Only tougher. McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more appropriate. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/       Date: 12 Apr 2007 16:00:12 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:6T40oo2rIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > Bill H. <billhen@gmail.com> wrote: > >> First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to begin >> with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can be >> hos. > > Good grief. Here's the entire exchange, see if you can post with > a straight face that this doesn't sound like it's straight from > a Klan gathering: > > IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night > between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the > women's final. > > ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- > seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, > I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points. > > IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, > they got tattoos and -- > > McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. > > IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna > tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the > girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, > like -- kinda like -- I don't know. > > McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. > > IMUS: Yeah. > > McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that > movie that he had. > > IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough -- > > McCORD: Do The Right Thing. > > McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. > > IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat > Rutgers or not, but they did, right? > > ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at > Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors. > > IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah. > > RUFFINO: Only tougher. > > McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more > appropriate. > So whay isnt this McGuirk guy being called on the carpet?         Date: 14 Apr 2007 01:35:30 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message news:587kutF2eobrgU1@mid.individual.net... > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:6T40oo2rIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> Bill H. <billhen@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to begin >>> with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can be >>> hos. >> >> Good grief. Here's the entire exchange, see if you can post with >> a straight face that this doesn't sound like it's straight from >> a Klan gathering: >> >> IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night >> between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the >> women's final. >> >> ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- >> seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, >> I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points. >> >> IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, >> they got tattoos and -- >> >> McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. >> >> IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna >> tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the >> girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, >> like -- kinda like -- I don't know. >> >> McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. >> >> IMUS: Yeah. >> >> McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that >> movie that he had. >> >> IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough -- >> >> McCORD: Do The Right Thing. >> >> McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> >> IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat >> Rutgers or not, but they did, right? >> >> ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at >> Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors. >> >> IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah. >> >> RUFFINO: Only tougher. >> >> McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more >> appropriate. >> > So whay isnt this McGuirk guy being called on the carpet? Now THAT'S a good question. His track record is no better than Imus's, and some would argue, worse. But with Imus off the air, Mr. McGuirk would appear to be out of a job as well. Randy           Date: 16 Apr 2007 09:51:16 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:cY-dnXoJYZ5t-r3bnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message > news:587kutF2eobrgU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> news:6T40oo2rIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>> Bill H. <billhen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to begin >>>> with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can be >>>> hos. >>> >>> Good grief. Here's the entire exchange, see if you can post with >>> a straight face that this doesn't sound like it's straight from >>> a Klan gathering: >>> >>> IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night >>> between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the >>> women's final. >>> >>> ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- >>> seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, >>> I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points. >>> >>> IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, >>> they got tattoos and -- >>> >>> McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. >>> >>> IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna >>> tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the >>> girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, >>> like -- kinda like -- I don't know. >>> >>> McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. >>> >>> IMUS: Yeah. >>> >>> McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that >>> movie that he had. >>> >>> IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough -- >>> >>> McCORD: Do The Right Thing. >>> >>> McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. >>> >>> IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat >>> Rutgers or not, but they did, right? >>> >>> ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at >>> Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors. >>> >>> IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah. >>> >>> RUFFINO: Only tougher. >>> >>> McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more >>> appropriate. >>> >> So whay isnt this McGuirk guy being called on the carpet? > > > Now THAT'S a good question. His track record is no better than Imus's, > and some would argue, worse. > > But with Imus off the air, Mr. McGuirk would appear to be out of a job as > well. > > Randy True. From the tape it appeared that he was to one to instigate the whole thing. Not that's an excuse or anything.         Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:20:07 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:6T40oo2rIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> Bill H. <billhen@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to begin >>> with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can be >>> hos. >> >> Good grief. Here's the entire exchange, see if you can post with >> a straight face that this doesn't sound like it's straight from >> a Klan gathering: >> >> IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night >> between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the >> women's final. >> >> ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- >> seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, >> I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points. >> >> IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, >> they got tattoos and -- >> >> McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. >> >> IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna >> tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the >> girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, >> like -- kinda like -- I don't know. >> >> McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. >> >> IMUS: Yeah. >> >> McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that >> movie that he had. >> >> IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough -- >> >> McCORD: Do The Right Thing. >> >> McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> >> IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat >> Rutgers or not, but they did, right? >> >> ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at >> Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors. >> >> IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah. >> >> RUFFINO: Only tougher. >> >> McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more >> appropriate. >> > So whay isnt this McGuirk guy being called on the carpet? He just lost his job, Mike. I'd say he is being called on the carpet. But Imus was his boss, the public figure, the one responsible, so he deserves the brunt of the heat. That said, yeah, Bernard McGuirk is a real peach. If he ever gets near a microphone again it will be too soon. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/           Date: 13 Apr 2007 09:06:31 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:3T40p068ImcN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> news:6T40oo2rIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>> Bill H. <billhen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> First off, I don't think the term "nappy-headed-ho" is racist to begin >>>> with. Can't a white girl be nappy-headed? I know white girls can be >>>> hos. >>> >>> Good grief. Here's the entire exchange, see if you can post with >>> a straight face that this doesn't sound like it's straight from >>> a Klan gathering: >>> >>> IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night >>> between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the >>> women's final. >>> >>> ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- >>> seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, >>> I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points. >>> >>> IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, >>> they got tattoos and -- >>> >>> McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos. >>> >>> IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna >>> tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the >>> girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, >>> like -- kinda like -- I don't know. >>> >>> McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing. >>> >>> IMUS: Yeah. >>> >>> McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that >>> movie that he had. >>> >>> IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough -- >>> >>> McCORD: Do The Right Thing. >>> >>> McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. >>> >>> IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat >>> Rutgers or not, but they did, right? >>> >>> ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at >>> Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors. >>> >>> IMUS: Well, I guess, yeah. >>> >>> RUFFINO: Only tougher. >>> >>> McGUIRK: The [Memphis] Grizzlies would be more >>> appropriate. >>> >> So whay isnt this McGuirk guy being called on the carpet? > > He just lost his job, Mike. I'd say he is being called on the carpet. > But Imus was his boss, the public figure, the one responsible, so he > deserves the brunt of the heat. > > That said, yeah, Bernard McGuirk is a real peach. If he ever gets > near a microphone again it will be too soon. > I'm not an Imus fan so I didnt know who he was. So McJerk is his sidekick?             Date: 13 Apr 2007 16:25:38 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: > I'm not an Imus fan so I didnt know who he was. So McJerk is his sidekick? Yeah, that's right. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/   Date: 12 Apr 2007 08:06:20 From: B. Martin Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Dene wrote: > On Apr 11, 10:56 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: > > > IMO, the big question is this......why is it so inconceivable that a > good man be guilty of saying the wrong thing? Who among us has not > started a forest fire with a spark (our tongue). Have we not asked > and received forgiveness. Why cannot Imus be extended the same grace > in light of his honesty and courage? > > Think of Imus's world. It's his job, his schtick, to make fun of > people, like Hillary and Bill, most politicians, etc. He especially > makes fun of himself, especially his past. You spend years doing this > and sooner or later you're going to slip with a bad joke or remark. > You're going to unintentionally hurt someone. The measure of Imus is > whether he owns up. The measure of our society, in particular the > likes of Sharpton or Jackson, is if they are gracious in return. Except that these types of over-the-line comments recur with Imus. There is no evidence that he is truly a good man. And exactly what purpose does it serve to make fun of 18-22 year old young women? I don't care if he keeps his job or not, but there is no excuse for his actions. B. Martin     Date: 12 Apr 2007 12:18:12 From: George Hibbard Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "B. Martin" <marti285@umn.edu > wrote in message news:1176390380.531305.307930@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > Dene wrote: >> On Apr 11, 10:56 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote: >> > >> IMO, the big question is this......why is it so inconceivable that a >> good man be guilty of saying the wrong thing? Who among us has not >> started a forest fire with a spark (our tongue). Have we not asked >> and received forgiveness. Why cannot Imus be extended the same grace >> in light of his honesty and courage? >> >> Think of Imus's world. It's his job, his schtick, to make fun of >> people, like Hillary and Bill, most politicians, etc. He especially >> makes fun of himself, especially his past. You spend years doing this >> and sooner or later you're going to slip with a bad joke or remark. >> You're going to unintentionally hurt someone. The measure of Imus is >> whether he owns up. The measure of our society, in particular the >> likes of Sharpton or Jackson, is if they are gracious in return. > > Except that these types of over-the-line comments recur with Imus. > There is no evidence > that he is truly a good man. And exactly what purpose does it serve > to make fun of > 18-22 year old young women? > > I don't care if he keeps his job or not, but there is no excuse for > his actions. > > B. Martin > Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. Apologizing is of no significance, except as a means of covering his tail. The remark bespeaks a meanness of spirit that anyone listening to him prior to the incident would have recognized. It wasn't just "a stupid thing to say." It was stupid because in saying it he identified his soul to others. It simply escaped his filter, thus revealing the truth (like wine does to people) about his character. The difference with Mel Gibson's gaffe was that when HE discovered his crudeness and insensitivity, his apology was REAL: his remorse was not for the incident but for himSELF discovering his own racial bigotry. There was a polar difference in how he behaved after his anti-semitic rant as compared to the Imus cowboy's sycophancy--I doubt that he will go very deep into self examination as to the rest of his uglies. THAT is what is supposed to happen in the confessional: if it doesn't, the "confession" isn't valid. Ugly is soul deep in ugly people.   Date: 12 Apr 2007 00:21:00 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 11, 10:56 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote: > "Otto" wrote > > > > > Has Imus lost his radio show? > > > Imus has been doing the radio show for decades. > > > The Msnbc simulcast is a relatively infantile phenomenon. > > > Otto > > MSNBC has cancelled the cable television simulcast of his radio show. > > CBS Radio has suspended him for two weeks, and says it will "monitor events" > in the next couple of weeks. (Translation: The other shoe may still drop, > or it may not.) > > There's one big difference between MSNBC's decision and the one facing CBS > Radio. If MSNBC drops his show (as they have), only MSNBC has to scramble > to come up with replacement programming to fill that hole. However, if CBS > Radio drops his show, they will be essentially throwing a couple of hundred > affiliate radio stations under the bus, forcing each of them to scramble for > replacement programming to fill their morning drive hole. Since morning > drive is, by far, the most valuable air time on radio, for CBS to do such a > thing to so many radio stations -- just a couple of weeks before the Spring > Arbitron Ratings Period begins -- would be tantamount to signing their own > suicide note. Since Imus is just one of many progams that are syndicated by > CBS Radio (Westwood One), they can ill-afford to place such a hardship on so > many radio stations. It's probably the lesser of two evils. They can > either continue airing Imus and take the heat from listeners and protesters. > Or they can drop the show and destroy the relationships they have with > hundreds of affiliate radio stations. It may come down to a business > decision. Or it may be that they're stalling, in hopes that their > affiliates will start jumping ship so they can pull the plug on the show > without doing too much damage to their affiliates. Either way, they're in a > tough spot. > > Look, having spent nearly 40 years in broadcasting, I've known a number of > people through the years who have worked with Imus. It's no secret to those > of us in the industry that he is not a good person, despite his claims to > the contrary. He is a mean-spirited, arrogant, egotistical prick, who has > had a reputation of treating people badly for decades, even before he became > a nationally-syndicated star. > > If you saw the Howard Stern movie, the character in that movie that > instructed Howard Stern to say "Double-yew ENNNN Bee See" was a > representation of a guy who actually worked at WNBC, and has been a good > friend of mine for over 20 years. As you may recall from the movie, both > Stern and Don Imus were at WNBC at the time. Let's just say I heard horror > stories about both of them. And I've heard from others who worked with > Imus, none of whom characterize him as the "good person" he keeps claiming > to be. > > Yes, he has a ranch for kids with cancer. To the families of the kids who > go there, I'm sure Imus is a saint. But they don't spend much time around > him. > > Regardless of how this matter shakes out in the end, it is serving a useful > purpose in that it's sorting the wheat from the chaff, as a lot of people > are coming out from the shadows to show their asses right now, defending the > actions of a racist. > > And make no mistake -- Don Imus is a racist. Something inside him told him > it was okay to say what he did, and that it would be "funny." This is far > from the first time he's done something similar. > > Randy I think we all fight racism to a certain respect. Being raised in southern Oregon around an Indian population, I was exposed to my fair share. My father, as a policeman, dealt with the native population often, coming home with wounds and war stories. That's my paradigm. Others have there own. The distinction between men and our flaws is the courage and honesty to admit them. Imus is doing that. He went to Sharpton. He's going to Rutgers. He's not hiding behind a PR consultant. IMO, the big question is this......why is it so inconceivable that a good man be guilty of saying the wrong thing? Who among us has not started a forest fire with a spark (our tongue). Have we not asked and received forgiveness. Why cannot Imus be extended the same grace in light of his honesty and courage? Think of Imus's world. It's his job, his schtick, to make fun of people, like Hillary and Bill, most politicians, etc. He especially makes fun of himself, especially his past. You spend years doing this and sooner or later you're going to slip with a bad joke or remark. You're going to unintentionally hurt someone. The measure of Imus is whether he owns up. The measure of our society, in particular the likes of Sharpton or Jackson, is if they are gracious in return. One more thing. Imus is 66 years old. He's a multi millionaire. He doesn't need CBS or MSNBC in order to retire lavishly. He may need an income stream to keep his "free" ranch a float. His employees may need him as well. Perhaps these reasons, along with his personal courage, are why he's chosen to ask forgiveness. Many a man in his situation would say, "to hell with them all" and walk away. Me too....most likely. -Greg     Date: 12 Apr 2007 13:31:01 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote > > The distinction between men and our flaws is the courage and honesty > to admit them. Imus is doing that. He went to Sharpton. He's going > to Rutgers. He's not hiding behind a PR consultant. The problem, Dene, is this isn't the first time Imus has found himself in this situation. He's apologized before for other things he's said that were racist, promising he won't do them again. Yet here we are. How many times does one get to apologize for the same thing before, finally, someone realizes he's not going to stop? > IMO, the big question is this......why is it so inconceivable that a > good man be guilty of saying the wrong thing? Who among us has not > started a forest fire with a spark (our tongue). Have we not asked > and received forgiveness. Why cannot Imus be extended the same grace > in light of his honesty and courage? There's a big difference. You don't have a national soapbox. While RSG may reach thousands of readers, there aren't major corporations and shareholders who are endorsing your speech here. Don Imus has the responsibility of being on the public airwaves. The airwaves don't belong only to white Americans, even if his show is heard by a predominantly white audience. As a broadcaster, Imus carries certain responsibilities that you and I don't when we're chatting here or with friends or co-workers. It's one thing to hope (and pray) that Imus's heart is transformed by this experience. It's quite another to hand the keys to the radio network back over to him. > Think of Imus's world. It's his job, his schtick, to make fun of > people, like Hillary and Bill, most politicians, etc. And there comes a point when people say, "enough is enough." > You spend years doing this and sooner or later you're going to > slip with a bad joke or remark. You're going to unintentionally > hurt someone. You know, I've been on the radio for about the same length of time as Imus. If you compare the number of hours we've both been on the radio -- live -- I would say it's about even. I have NEVER said anything racist on the air. I only personally know two people who have, and as their boss, I lobbied for four long years with the parent company (which hired them before they bought the station, so I was powerless to fire them myself) to get them ousted because I found their brand of humor offensive. To say that after all the years Imus has been on the air, it's understandable how sooner or later something racist might come out is ludicrous. It will only come out if it's in you to begin with. Besides, he's managed to go this many years without saying FUCK, SHIT, PISS, CUNT, COCK-SUCKER, MOTHERFUCKER and TITS on the air (Carlin's seven dirty words). So it's not like he's without any capacity for self-restraint. But somehow, saying "nappy headed 'ho's" on the air seemed OKAY to him. I wonder if he would have felt so free if he'd been speaking at the halftime show on the floor at the Rutgers game? Somehow I doubt it. > The measure of Imus is whether he owns up. He's apologized before. He's "owned up" to similar mistakes in the past, swearing he wouldn't repeat them. We've heard it from him before. But actions speak louder than words. > The measure of our society, in particular the likes of > Sharpton or Jackson, is if they are gracious in return. It won't matter. To some, Sharpton and Jackson could be as gracious as can be, and they'd still be criticized for (name your reason). Randy   Date: 12 Apr 2007 01:29:10 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 11 Apr 2007 17:57:35 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote: >Imus' comments or 3400 + (and counting) dead American soldiers? >Discuss. > >It appears that Imus' comments on some basketball players are more >damaging than bullets, shrapnel, chemical agents, landmines, RPG's, >snipers, and a folly of a civil war between groups of fundamentalist >muslims whose cultures we can't really even begin to fathom 'cause >they pre-date our own "culture" by millenia, almost half a world away, >and the USA. Who'da reckoned... You're absolutely right. There has been no mention of bullets, shrapnel, chemical agents, land mines, RPGs, snipers, terrorists, or American deaths in Iraq in the news for months. Are you serious? Hyperbole at best, Ben. Imus was wrong, no matter who jumped on the bandwagon. Advertisers think so, they're bailing. ___, \o     Date: 12 Apr 2007 10:17:17 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message news:fc2r13le0po72i96lfoan7vlfa82m4rcpr@4ax.com... > On 11 Apr 2007 17:57:35 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Imus' comments or 3400 + (and counting) dead American soldiers? >>Discuss. >> >>It appears that Imus' comments on some basketball players are more >>damaging than bullets, shrapnel, chemical agents, landmines, RPG's, >>snipers, and a folly of a civil war between groups of fundamentalist >>muslims whose cultures we can't really even begin to fathom 'cause >>they pre-date our own "culture" by millenia, almost half a world away, >>and the USA. Who'da reckoned... > > You're absolutely right. There has been no mention of bullets, > shrapnel, chemical agents, land mines, RPGs, snipers, terrorists, or > American deaths in Iraq in the news for months. > > Are you serious? Hyperbole at best, Ben. > > Imus was wrong, no matter who jumped on the bandwagon. Advertisers > think so, they're bailing. > ___, > \o >     Date: 12 Apr 2007 02:27:40 From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Bobby Knight wrote: > On 11 Apr 2007 17:57:35 -0700, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Imus' comments or 3400 + (and counting) dead American soldiers? >> Discuss. >> >> It appears that Imus' comments on some basketball players are more >> damaging than bullets, shrapnel, chemical agents, landmines, RPG's, >> snipers, and a folly of a civil war between groups of fundamentalist >> muslims whose cultures we can't really even begin to fathom 'cause >> they pre-date our own "culture" by millenia, almost half a world away, >> and the USA. Who'da reckoned... > > You're absolutely right. There has been no mention of bullets, > shrapnel, chemical agents, land mines, RPGs, snipers, terrorists, or > American deaths in Iraq in the news for months. > > Are you serious? Hyperbole at best, Ben. > > Imus was wrong, no matter who jumped on the bandwagon. Advertisers > think so, they're bailing. Just announced that MSNBC fired Imus. That two week suspension was a joke. It just led many people to say the whole thing was a PR stunt designed to make the Imus show well known.       Date: 16 Apr 2007 09:09:18 From: John B. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 16, 11:48 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote: > "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1176733101.543207.191470@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > Exposing a covert intelligence operative, which she was, is a felony. > > The courts have ruled that no felony occurred. Not that the law matters > more than your political rants. What courts? I'm not aware of this question ever being considered by a court.       Date: 11 Apr 2007 22:31:48 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:wOgTh.2124$3P3.1183@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Just announced that MSNBC fired Imus. That two week suspension was a > joke. It just led many people to say the whole thing was a PR stunt > designed to make the Imus show well known. Has Imus lost his radio show? Imus has been doing the radio show for decades. The Msnbc simulcast is a relatively infantile phenomenon. Otto         Date: 12 Apr 2007 01:56:03 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Otto" wrote > > Has Imus lost his radio show? > > Imus has been doing the radio show for decades. > > The Msnbc simulcast is a relatively infantile phenomenon. > > Otto MSNBC has cancelled the cable television simulcast of his radio show. CBS Radio has suspended him for two weeks, and says it will "monitor events" in the next couple of weeks. (Translation: The other shoe may still drop, or it may not.) There's one big difference between MSNBC's decision and the one facing CBS Radio. If MSNBC drops his show (as they have), only MSNBC has to scramble to come up with replacement programming to fill that hole. However, if CBS Radio drops his show, they will be essentially throwing a couple of hundred affiliate radio stations under the bus, forcing each of them to scramble for replacement programming to fill their morning drive hole. Since morning drive is, by far, the most valuable air time on radio, for CBS to do such a thing to so many radio stations -- just a couple of weeks before the Spring Arbitron Ratings Period begins -- would be tantamount to signing their own suicide note. Since Imus is just one of many progams that are syndicated by CBS Radio (Westwood One), they can ill-afford to place such a hardship on so many radio stations. It's probably the lesser of two evils. They can either continue airing Imus and take the heat from listeners and protesters. Or they can drop the show and destroy the relationships they have with hundreds of affiliate radio stations. It may come down to a business decision. Or it may be that they're stalling, in hopes that their affiliates will start jumping ship so they can pull the plug on the show without doing too much damage to their affiliates. Either way, they're in a tough spot. Look, having spent nearly 40 years in broadcasting, I've known a number of people through the years who have worked with Imus. It's no secret to those of us in the industry that he is not a good person, despite his claims to the contrary. He is a mean-spirited, arrogant, egotistical prick, who has had a reputation of treating people badly for decades, even before he became a nationally-syndicated star. If you saw the Howard Stern movie, the character in that movie that instructed Howard Stern to say "Double-yew ENNNN Bee See" was a representation of a guy who actually worked at WNBC, and has been a good friend of mine for over 20 years. As you may recall from the movie, both Stern and Don Imus were at WNBC at the time. Let's just say I heard horror stories about both of them. And I've heard from others who worked with Imus, none of whom characterize him as the "good person" he keeps claiming to be. Yes, he has a ranch for kids with cancer. To the families of the kids who go there, I'm sure Imus is a saint. But they don't spend much time around him. Regardless of how this matter shakes out in the end, it is serving a useful purpose in that it's sorting the wheat from the chaff, as a lot of people are coming out from the shadows to show their asses right now, defending the actions of a racist. And make no mistake -- Don Imus is a racist. Something inside him told him it was okay to say what he did, and that it would be "funny." This is far from the first time he's done something similar. Randy           Date: 14 Apr 2007 09:27:09 From: Ben. Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 14, 5:16 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote: > >I would urge the inquisitive type about raunchy lyrics to seek out > >the lyrics to "My Sharona," which is about as clear cut a celebration > >of pedophilia as a song can be. Meet the Knack? No thanks. > > Again...not true. The reference to youth was inspired by a 17 year > old girlfriend of the lead singer. Here's some clear cut raunch. No inference, innuendo or entendre', just raunch; from Frank Zappa's parody of "frigid" Canadian blue collar daddies: "Magdalena" There was a man A little ole man Who lived in Montreal With a wife and a kid And a car and a house And a teenage daughter With a see-thru blouse Who loved to grunt and ball- And her name was Magdalena Magdalena . . . The little ole man Came home one night To his house in Montreal. He caught his daughter In the blouse by the light And he said to himself: "She looks all right!" And he reached for a tit And grabbed it tight And threw her up Against the wall (BLUE CROSS!) Magdalena . . . My daughter dear, Do not be concerned when your Canadian daddy comes near. My daughter dear Do not be concerned when your Canadian daddy comes near. I work so hard, Don't you understand, Making maple syrup For the pancakes of our land. Do you have any idea? What that can do to a man? What that can do to a man? Do you have any idea? What that can do to a man? What that can do to a man? The little ole man With the grubby little hand Who lived in Montreal Was drooling a bit As he reached for her tit And he said to himself: "This is gonna be it!" But the girl turned around And said: "Go eat shit!" And ran on down the hall. Right on, Magdalena! My daughter dear, Do not be concerned when your Canadian daddy comes near. My daughter dear Do not be concerned when your Canadian daddy comes near. I work so hard, Don't you understand, Making maple syrup For the pancakes of our land. Do you have any idea? What that can do to a man? What that can do to a man? Do you have any idea? What that can do to a man? What that can do to a man? (Tell 'em!) Magdalena, don't you tease me like this Right in the hallway with your blouse and your tits If your mommy ever finds us like this She'll call a lawyer, oh how mom will be pissed DOODLE DOODLE DOODLE DUH-DUH DEE-UH DOODLE DOODLE DOODLE DUH-DUH DEE-UH... Magdalena, Magdalena, Magdalena, Magdalena, daughter of the smog-filled winds of Los Angeles, I'd like to take you in the closet and take off your little clothes until you are virtually stark raving nude, spread mayonaise and kaopectate all over your body and take you down to Hollywood Boulevard and we can, we can walk down the streets by the stars that say Jon Provost and Leo G. Carroll together, baby. We can go dancing up at the Cinegrill can't you see it: Frank Pernell and us, until dark, don't you understand, my baby? I didn't mean, I didn't need, I mean . . . it was so hard for me . . . I just . . . I saw you standing under the Shell pest strip late last night, in the light, with your little nipples protruding through your little see-thru thingie, and I just said: 'My god, my god, I gave my sperm to this thing!' And now I just, oh, you got me so hard, I just, I don't know what to do, Magdalena, don't you understand? So I grabbed you, but, but don't hold it against me, I mean, your mom will never know, baby, and I wantcha to come back to me, I mean . . . do you understand me? I want you to . . . I'm down on my knees to ya, Magdalena! I wantcha ta walk back to me, baby, I wantcha to turn around by the Sparkletts machine. That's it! That's it! In the little chartreuse hallway with the little neon Jesus picture on the wall, and I want you to step, baby, I want you to walk back in your five inch spike heels that you got at Frederick's, same time you and your mommy got that crotchless underwear last year for Christmas, and I want you to stroll back to me, baby Walk back, baby, don'tcha understand me, baby? I want you to walk back I'm down on bended knees, baby I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I wanna take off your little training bra Don't you understand me? I'm gonna take off you little maroon hot pants I'm gonna get down on my knees, baby, dont'cha understand what I'm saying to you? Your mom will never know, she's playing bridge with the girls, and you and I . . . you and I go sucking som'thing, baby, it's just you and I, don'tcha understand? We can make love all night long, nobody will ever know, come on, Magdalena! Please, little girl, walk back to your daddy, what did I do that was so wrong? My God, I was only following the sexual impulse like I heard on the Johnny Carson Show from a book or something I wrote, I didn't know what I was doing I got carried away What can I say like . . . like . . . walk back, baby, come on, oh, please, you gotta walk back, baby, walk back, walk back to your daddy! Come on, Magdalena, to your daddy, baby, you gotta walk back, baby, walk back, walk back, baby, walk back, your mom will never know, your mom will never know, walk back, baby, walk back, walk back, baby, walk back, Magdalena, come back, come back to you daddy, walk back, baby, walk back, baby, walk, walk, walk, walk, WALK! Walk to your daddy, come on down, stroll it around of me, I'm down on my knees, don't you understand? Your mom will never know, I told you so . . . (I love you, Magdalena!) You know what . . . I said . . .           Date: 12 Apr 2007 10:20:24 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:JPqdnfnn1LVaVIDbnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@giganews.com... He is a mean-spirited, arrogant, egotistical prick, who has had a reputation of treating people badly for decades, even before he became a nationally-syndicated star. That's pretty much the way I felt about him the first time I heard him. Same with Stern, I just dont see the attraction to these clowns.             Date: 12 Apr 2007 19:59:56 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: > That's pretty much the way I felt about him the first time I heard him. Same > with Stern, I just dont see the attraction to these clowns. Stern's a lot different from Imus. I don't like his show, but you don't see Stern constantly making fun of the powerless on his show. His barbs are directed at the powerful, which is the complete opposite dynamic of Imus. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/             Date: 12 Apr 2007 13:32:02 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message news:58711qF2e7khfU2@mid.individual.net... > > ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message > news:JPqdnfnn1LVaVIDbnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@giganews.com... > He is a mean-spirited, arrogant, egotistical prick, who has > had a reputation of treating people badly for decades, even before he > became a nationally-syndicated star. > > That's pretty much the way I felt about him the first time I heard him. > Same with Stern, I just dont see the attraction to these clowns. Wow. You and I are just finding all kinds of common ground recently. What's the world coming to? Randy               Date: 12 Apr 2007 14:28:21 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:M8OdnWDyr9x58YPbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com... > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message > news:58711qF2e7khfU2@mid.individual.net... >> >> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message >> news:JPqdnfnn1LVaVIDbnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@giganews.com... >> He is a mean-spirited, arrogant, egotistical prick, who has >> had a reputation of treating people badly for decades, even before he >> became a nationally-syndicated star. >> >> That's pretty much the way I felt about him the first time I heard him. >> Same with Stern, I just dont see the attraction to these clowns. > > > Wow. You and I are just finding all kinds of common ground recently. > > What's the world coming to? > > Randy What are you saying your becoming a "29%'er"? :-)                 Date: 12 Apr 2007 16:13:09 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message news:587filF2fsafuU1@mid.individual.net... > > ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message > news:M8OdnWDyr9x58YPbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com... >> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:58711qF2e7khfU2@mid.individual.net... >>> >>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message >>> news:JPqdnfnn1LVaVIDbnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@giganews.com... >>> He is a mean-spirited, arrogant, egotistical prick, who has >>> had a reputation of treating people badly for decades, even before he >>> became a nationally-syndicated star. >>> >>> That's pretty much the way I felt about him the first time I heard him. >>> Same with Stern, I just dont see the attraction to these clowns. >> >> >> Wow. You and I are just finding all kinds of common ground recently. >> >> What's the world coming to? >> >> Randy > What are you saying your becoming a "29%'er"? :-) Uh......no. Randy             Date: 12 Apr 2007 12:45:22 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message news:58711qF2e7khfU2@mid.individual.net... > > ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message > news:JPqdnfnn1LVaVIDbnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@giganews.com... > He is a mean-spirited, arrogant, egotistical prick, who has > had a reputation of treating people badly for decades, even before he became > a nationally-syndicated star. > > That's pretty much the way I felt about him the first time I heard him. Same > with Stern, I just dont see the attraction to these clowns. The attraction is they attract ears and eyeballs which attracts big money advertisers. Stern and Imus are/were the two biggest revenue generators for CBS radio. The hypocrisy is that guys like Stern and Imus are pushed out into the airwaves and directed by their bosses to shake things up and shock the audience. They do that. The people living in glass houses begin to shout, and the bosses and big money advertisers run for cover. I'm not excusing any of it but lets not delude ourselves into thinking that Imus is a one man show here. Big money wanted him to do what he did and they encouraged it. It's what he was hired to do decades ago. Otto               Date: 12 Apr 2007 18:28:15 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Otto" wrote > > The attraction is they [guys like Stern and Imus] attract ears and > eyeballs which attracts big money advertisers. > > Stern and Imus are/were the two biggest revenue generators > for CBS radio. All true. > The hypocrisy is that guys like Stern and Imus are pushed out > into the airwaves and directed by their bosses to shake things up > and shock the audience. > > They do that. Only partly true. I know of no radio executive in my 38 years in the radio business, about 20 of which were in management, who've ever instructed talent to "shock the audience." They hire these people to attract an audience, and in the case of the hires of Stern and Imus, executives pretty much knew what they were getting. In my own personal experience, I can point to one morning show team that worked for me that presented, for me, a difficult management challenge. I was the program director of a radio station that was being sold. The new company that bought the station went out and hired a morning team before they actually took over the radio station. So I was essentially given these guys and told to get them to "execute the format." (Which essentially means, play the music that's on our playlist.) But in terms of exerting any creative influence over what they said, they proved to be an immovable object, and with the support of the President of the company far above me on the food chain, there was little I could do. These guys made racist jokes every day. I squirmed every time I heard them do it, and I addressed it with them on an almost daily basis. But without the authority to fire them, there wasn't much I could do besides "get them to execute the format." Every time they would tell a ni***er joke, they would cleverly replace the "n" word with the name of some famous Dallas celebrity who happened to be African-American, like, say, Tony Dorsett (who was very high profile at the time they were on the air). Like Don Imus, they were equal opportunity offenders. I can't recall all the meetings I had to endure with representatives of various groups, from local African-American groups to gay rights groups to women's groups. You name it. I had to sit there and listen to them all, and pledge to do what I could to control these uncontrollable guys. It took me nigh on to four years to finally get rid of them. I could have left under protest long before, but what good would that have done? I felt the best thing was to stay there and work the system as best I could, given the limited influence I had within the corporate heirarchy. Finally, as the number of complaints mounted (and as I recall, a few sponsorship defections came along), corporate decided that it was best not to renew their contracts. We hired a new team who were far more creative, much funnier and more cerebral than the junior-high locker room crap we'd been putting out on the air for the previous four years. And to no one's surprise, our morning audience defected in droves. Before too long, I was let go (the first time in my career I'd ever been fired), and the morning team we'd brought in was replaced by another punk-ass morning guy who wasn't much different from the guys we'd gotten rid of. (The morning team I brought in went on to replace Joan Rivers briefly on FOX's ill-fated late-night programming in their short-lived parade of hosts trying to unseat Johnny Carson.) > The people living in glass houses begin to shout, and the bosses > and big money advertisers run for cover. Money does talk. No question about it. > I'm not excusing any of it but lets not delude ourselves into thinking > that Imus is a one man show here. Big money wanted him to do > what he did and they encouraged it. It's what he was hired to do > decades ago. I think it's a wee bit disingenuous to say that Imus was hired to put racist remarks out over the air. He was hired to win his time slot, and to create enough buzz about the show to attract advertisers to jump on board. That's how the business side of radio works. But to say that his bosses "encouraged him," and implying that they encouraged him specifically to offend people, well, I'm quite sure that's not true. I know of no broadcast executives who *like* it when their talent offends people. I know of no broadcast executives who *encourage* their talent to offend people. They have to field the complaint calls. Take it from someone who's been on the receiving end of those calls, it's no fun (especially when you agree with the callers). As a practical matter, broadcast executives choose to live with a certain amount of that stuff because, as you've correctly pointed out, there is a financial reward for doing so when the talent is a magnet for listeners and advertisers. But there comes a point when the talent can cross a line, and then the rewards are outweighed by the hassle of putting up with the bad stuff another day. I've been there. It's one of the reasons I chose to go into business for myself and no longer have to deal with the day-to-day "babysitting" of egomaniacal on-air talents like Don Imus. I don't miss it a bit. Randy                 Date: 12 Apr 2007 21:48:46 From: Joe Subject: Re: Randy Brown calls for a boycott "R&B" wrote: > "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message > news:461eaf1d$0$1414$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> "R&B" wrote: >>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:1176390743.611867.116170@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Apr 12, 7:06 am, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> On Apr 12, 3:01 am, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Exactly. You are too intolerant to be his friend. Tis a trademark of >>>>>> many liberals I've encountered, ironically including a fella who >>>>>> joined us while Ken and I were playing golf. After two holes, he >>>>>> asked us if we're Bush supporters. We replied yes and he announced >>>>>> that he could not play golf with Bush supporters, then slinked away. >>>>> What tipped him off? >>>>> Was it the Rush Limbaugh shit stains on your noses? >>>> Actually, I can only tolerate about 10 mins. of Rush. >>>> >>>> -Greg >>> >>> That's funny. I could only tolerate about 10 min. of Bush. (George W., >>> that is.) >>> >>> For what it's worth, if the subject came up in the middle of a round of >>> golf and I realized I was playing with a bunch of "Bushies," I would >>> leave, too. >>> >>> I have also, for the past couple of years, opted to vote with my >>> pocketbook, avoiding to patronize any business that I knew to be >>> pro-Bush. I continue to do so...gladly...and recommend to others that >>> they do the same. >>> >>> Randy >> I could not believe what I read in this post. Here is Randy Brown, >> proclaiming that anyone who does not believe in his particular brand of >> politics should be subject to a boycott and be shunned by the community. >> >> This is the United States of America in the 21st Century Randy. Are you >> turning your politics into some kind of cult? How about the constitution? >> Is that only for your kind of believers? Are you planning to only refuse >> to play golf with a "Professed Bushie" or are you getting ready to take it >> to the next step and start burning crosses on their lawns. Do I see the >> start of a new Klan here? >> >> I think for starters, I will never play golf in Georgia or with anyone >> from Georgia because they might be a closet Brownie. (OGC) >> >> Joe > > > And you're entitled to do just that for whatever reason you may deem > appropriate. > > I simply choose to withold my patronage from businesses that I believe > support an agenda that I believe is ruining the country. > > If you've got a problem with that, then do what you must. > > Randy Randy, What you do with your money and belief system is just fine with me. When you start to suggest that others join you in an economic boycott based on a belief system such as you profess I take exception. If I publicly lobby for a boycott of all Muslim businesses because I believe that they are enemies of the country and will ruin our way of life if they are not stopped, you are OK with that? How about we make it Christians, or Jews? Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and freedom of oppression? Of course you and I are nobodies and have no real impact but how would you feel if one of your political loved ones, Hillary for example, took a public stage and urged a boycott of all republican owned businesses? Or reverse that. Just asking. Joe                   Date: 25 Apr 2007 15:33:36 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Randy Brown calls for a boycott "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message news:461ee0ff$0$4938$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > "R&B" wrote: >> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message >> news:461eaf1d$0$1414$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> "R&B" wrote: >>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1176390743.611867.116170@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >>>>> On Apr 12, 7:06 am, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Apr 12, 3:01 am, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly. You are too intolerant to be his friend. Tis a trademark >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> many liberals I've encountered, ironically including a fella who >>>>>>> joined us while Ken and I were playing golf. After two holes, he >>>>>>> asked us if we're Bush supporters. We replied yes and he announced >>>>>>> that he could not play golf with Bush supporters, then slinked away. >>>>>> What tipped him off? >>>>>> Was it the Rush Limbaugh shit stains on your noses? >>>>> Actually, I can only tolerate about 10 mins. of Rush. >>>>> >>>>> -Greg >>>> >>>> That's funny. I could only tolerate about 10 min. of Bush. (George >>>> W., that is.) >>>> >>>> For what it's worth, if the subject came up in the middle of a round of >>>> golf and I realized I was playing with a bunch of "Bushies," I would >>>> leave, too. >>>> >>>> I have also, for the past couple of years, opted to vote with my >>>> pocketbook, avoiding to patronize any business that I knew to be >>>> pro-Bush. I continue to do so...gladly...and recommend to others that >>>> they do the same. >>>> >>>> Randy >>> I could not believe what I read in this post. Here is Randy Brown, >>> proclaiming that anyone who does not believe in his particular brand of >>> politics should be subject to a boycott and be shunned by the community. >>> >>> This is the United States of America in the 21st Century Randy. Are you >>> turning your politics into some kind of cult? How about the >>> constitution? Is that only for your kind of believers? Are you planning >>> to only refuse to play golf with a "Professed Bushie" or are you getting >>> ready to take it to the next step and start burning crosses on their >>> lawns. Do I see the start of a new Klan here? >>> >>> I think for starters, I will never play golf in Georgia or with anyone >>> from Georgia because they might be a closet Brownie. (OGC) >>> >>> Joe >> >> >> And you're entitled to do just that for whatever reason you may deem >> appropriate. >> >> I simply choose to withold my patronage from businesses that I believe >> support an agenda that I believe is ruining the country. >> >> If you've got a problem with that, then do what you must. >> >> Randy > > > Randy, > > What you do with your money and belief system is just fine with me. When > you start to suggest that others join you in an economic boycott based on > a belief system such as you profess I take exception. > > If I publicly lobby for a boycott of all Muslim businesses because I > believe that they are enemies of the country and will ruin our way of life > if they are not stopped, you are OK with that? > > How about we make it Christians, or Jews? You are entitled to do whatever you want. I would support that. I might not participate in your boycott. But I might if I agree with your position and believe that some economic sanctions might bring pressure. Face it, this is exactly what our nation does with other countries all the time. > Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and freedom of > oppression? Of course you and I are nobodies and have no real impact but > how would you feel if one of your political loved ones, Hillary for > example, took a public stage and urged a boycott of all republican owned > businesses? Or reverse that. > > Just asking. I would be fine with it. Either way. And don't think for a minute that it doesn't already happen now. Both ways. Randy                   Date: 13 Apr 2007 02:07:05 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Randy Brown calls for a boycott In article <461ee0ff$0$4938$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote: > "R&B" wrote: > > "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message > > news:461eaf1d$0$1414$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > >> "R&B" wrote: > >>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote in message > >>> news:1176390743.611867.116170@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >>>> On Apr 12, 7:06 am, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Apr 12, 3:01 am, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Exactly. You are too intolerant to be his friend. Tis a trademark of > >>>>>> many liberals I've encountered, ironically including a fella who > >>>>>> joined us while Ken and I were playing golf. After two holes, he > >>>>>> asked us if we're Bush supporters. We replied yes and he announced > >>>>>> that he could not play golf with Bush supporters, then slinked away. > >>>>> What tipped him off? > >>>>> Was it the Rush Limbaugh shit stains on your noses? > >>>> Actually, I can only tolerate about 10 mins. of Rush. > >>>> > >>>> -Greg > >>> > >>> That's funny. I could only tolerate about 10 min. of Bush. (George W., > >>> that is.) > >>> > >>> For what it's worth, if the subject came up in the middle of a round of > >>> golf and I realized I was playing with a bunch of "Bushies," I would > >>> leave, too. > >>> > >>> I have also, for the past couple of years, opted to vote with my > >>> pocketbook, avoiding to patronize any business that I knew to be > >>> pro-Bush. I continue to do so...gladly...and recommend to others that > >>> they do the same. > >>> > >>> Randy > >> I could not believe what I read in this post. Here is Randy Brown, > >> proclaiming that anyone who does not believe in his particular brand of > >> politics should be subject to a boycott and be shunned by the community. > >> > >> This is the United States of America in the 21st Century Randy. Are you > >> turning your politics into some kind of cult? How about the constitution? > >> Is that only for your kind of believers? Are you planning to only refuse > >> to play golf with a "Professed Bushie" or are you getting ready to take it > >> to the next step and start burning crosses on their lawns. Do I see the > >> start of a new Klan here? > >> > >> I think for starters, I will never play golf in Georgia or with anyone > >> from Georgia because they might be a closet Brownie. (OGC) > >> > >> Joe > > > > > > And you're entitled to do just that for whatever reason you may deem > > appropriate. > > > > I simply choose to withold my patronage from businesses that I believe > > support an agenda that I believe is ruining the country. > > > > If you've got a problem with that, then do what you must. > > > > Randy > > > Randy, > > What you do with your money and belief system is just fine with me. > When you start to suggest that others join you in an economic boycott > based on a belief system such as you profess I take exception. Why > > > If I publicly lobby for a boycott of all Muslim businesses because I > believe that they are enemies of the country and will ruin our way of > life if they are not stopped, you are OK with that? I won't speak for Randy, buy I'm not OK with the idea. I *am* OK with you lobbying for it. > > How about we make it Christians, or Jews? > > Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and freedom of > oppression? Of course you and I are nobodies and have no real impact > but how would you feel if one of your political loved ones, Hillary for > example, took a public stage and urged a boycott of all republican owned > businesses? Or reverse that. Political ideologies are not protected against discrimination. -- "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.                     Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:35:49 From: Joe Subject: Re: Randy Brown calls for a boycott Alan Baker wrote: > In article <461ee0ff$0$4938$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > BIG SNIP >> >> Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and freedom of >> oppression? Of course you and I are nobodies and have no real impact >> but how would you feel if one of your political loved ones, Hillary for >> example, took a public stage and urged a boycott of all republican owned >> businesses? Or reverse that. > > Political ideologies are not protected against discrimination. So it is OK with you if a leading political figure in the up coming election lobbies for an economic boycott against the other party? Or they lobby for a boycott of Canadian businesses because... well, because they are Canadian. Joe                       Date: 25 Apr 2007 15:39:27 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Randy Brown calls for a boycott "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message news:461eec06$0$9911$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > Alan Baker wrote: >> In article <461ee0ff$0$4938$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >> > BIG SNIP > >>> >>> Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and freedom of >>> oppression? Of course you and I are nobodies and have no real impact >>> but how would you feel if one of your political loved ones, Hillary for >>> example, took a public stage and urged a boycott of all republican owned >>> businesses? Or reverse that. >> >> Political ideologies are not protected against discrimination. > > So it is OK with you if a leading political figure in the up coming > election lobbies for an economic boycott against the other party? First of all, they wouldn't do that. But if they did, they would certainly be within their right to do so, knowing all the while that doing so could bring about a backlash against them (which is why no politician would ever have the balls to do it). This is so ironic. I hear all the time on conservative talk radio how universities are bastions for leftist thinking, and they point to certain radicals like that professor in Colorado a year or two ago. Do you think for a moment that once the facts of that professor were brought to light that any conservatives were going to send their kids to that university to study curriculum that he might teach? I doubt it. That is precisely the kind of thing that you're saying I'm wrong in advocating. Yet it's already done all the time. > Or they lobby for a boycott of Canadian businesses because... well, > because they are Canadian. You mean like how conservatives boycotted everything French a few years ago? Yeah, like that. I've got no problem with it. In some cases it seems pretty silly ("Freedom Fries?" puhleeze). But if there's a reason to do it, people can vote with their pocketbooks just as easily (and quite often, more effectively) than with their ballots. And I think it's a great idea. Randy                         Date: 25 Apr 2007 16:49:50 From: Joe Subject: Re: Randy Brown calls for a boycott "R&B" wrote: > "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message > news:461eec06$0$9911$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> Alan Baker wrote: >>> In article <461ee0ff$0$4938$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>> >> BIG SNIP >> >>>> Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and freedom of >>>> oppression? Of course you and I are nobodies and have no real impact >>>> but how would you feel if one of your political loved ones, Hillary for >>>> example, took a public stage and urged a boycott of all republican owned >>>> businesses? Or reverse that. >>> Political ideologies are not protected against discrimination. >> So it is OK with you if a leading political figure in the up coming >> election lobbies for an economic boycott against the other party? > > > First of all, they wouldn't do that. But if they did, they would certainly > be within their right to do so, knowing all the while that doing so could > bring about a backlash against them (which is why no politician would ever > have the balls to do it). > > This is so ironic. I hear all the time on conservative talk radio how > universities are bastions for leftist thinking, and they point to certain > radicals like that professor in Colorado a year or two ago. Do you think > for a moment that once the facts of that professor were brought to light > that any conservatives were going to send their kids to that university to > study curriculum that he might teach? I doubt it. That is precisely the > kind of thing that you're saying I'm wrong in advocating. Yet it's already > done all the time. > > >> Or they lobby for a boycott of Canadian businesses because... well, >> because they are Canadian. > > > You mean like how conservatives boycotted everything French a few years ago? > > Yeah, like that. > > I've got no problem with it. In some cases it seems pretty silly ("Freedom > Fries?" puhleeze). But if there's a reason to do it, people can vote with > their pocketbooks just as easily (and quite often, more effectively) than > with their ballots. > > And I think it's a great idea. > > Randy > > I wondered why you never got around to addressing this, looks like it was a problem with the usenet feed into the backwaters of GA. To cut through your verbosity, you agree with the principle that Obama, for example, should urge all Democrats, Liberals and African-Americans to boycott businesses owned or operated by Republicans, Conservatives or non-African_Americans in order to expedite political change. That certainly is healing! Sounds like Iraq today doesn't it. Do you think things through more than one step? Joe                           Date: 27 Apr 2007 18:21:34 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: Randy Brown calls for a boycott "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message news:462fbe3f$0$17207$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > "R&B" wrote: >> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message >> news:461eec06$0$9911$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>> Alan Baker wrote: >>>> In article <461ee0ff$0$4938$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>> >>> BIG SNIP >>> >>>>> Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and freedom >>>>> of oppression? Of course you and I are nobodies and have no real >>>>> impact but how would you feel if one of your political loved ones, >>>>> Hillary for example, took a public stage and urged a boycott of all >>>>> republican owned businesses? Or reverse that. >>>> Political ideologies are not protected against discrimination. >>> So it is OK with you if a leading political figure in the up coming >>> election lobbies for an economic boycott against the other party? >> >> >> First of all, they wouldn't do that. But if they did, they would >> certainly be within their right to do so, knowing all the while that >> doing so could bring about a backlash against them (which is why no >> politician would ever have the balls to do it). >> >> This is so ironic. I hear all the time on conservative talk radio how >> universities are bastions for leftist thinking, and they point to certain >> radicals like that professor in Colorado a year or two ago. Do you think >> for a moment that once the facts of that professor were brought to light >> that any conservatives were going to send their kids to that university >> to study curriculum that he might teach? I doubt it. That is precisely >> the kind of thing that you're saying I'm wrong in advocating. Yet it's >> already done all the time. >> >> >>> Or they lobby for a boycott of Canadian businesses because... well, >>> because they are Canadian. >> >> >> You mean like how conservatives boycotted everything French a few years >> ago? >> >> Yeah, like that. >> >> I've got no problem with it. In some cases it seems pretty silly >> ("Freedom Fries?" puhleeze). But if there's a reason to do it, people >> can vote with their pocketbooks just as easily (and quite often, more >> effectively) than with their ballots. >> >> And I think it's a great idea. >> >> Randy > I wondered why you never got around to addressing this, looks like it was > a problem with the usenet feed into the backwaters of GA. > > To cut through your verbosity, you agree with the principle that Obama, > for example, should urge all Democrats, Liberals and African-Americans to > boycott businesses owned or operated by Republicans, Conservatives or > non-African_Americans in order to expedite political change. I never said that, Einstein. I said he, or any other citizen, would be within his right to do so, and I support that right, regardless of whether or not I chose to participate. I would not expect a presidential candidate to do such a thing of course, or, for that matter, be supportive of such a notion. A president is *supposed to be* a president for ALL THE PEOPLE. The one we have right now, however, isn't. I, however, do not have the charge of being The Randy For All The People. I'm the Randy for Randy and Those For Whom Randy Cares. And if you're not one of those people (and I suspect you're not), then you can kiss my ass. Does that help clarify? > That certainly is healing! Well, at least you admit that this nation is in need of healing. I'm shocked that you would even acknowledge that. Wonder why it needs healing? Noodle on that one for a while. > Sounds like Iraq today doesn't it. You're getting warmer. > Do you think things through more than one step? I think things through farther than most people. Of course you're free to think things through and reach a different conclusion. Randy                             Date: 27 Apr 2007 19:21:57 From: Joe Subject: Re: Randy Brown calls for a boycott "R&B" wrote: > "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message > news:462fbe3f$0$17207$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >> "R&B" wrote: >>> "Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote in message >>> news:461eec06$0$9911$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>>> Alan Baker wrote: >>>>> In article <461ee0ff$0$4938$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, >>>>> Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>> BIG SNIP >>>> >>>>>> Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and freedom >>>>>> of oppression? Of course you and I are nobodies and have no real >>>>>> impact but how would you feel if one of your political loved ones, >>>>>> Hillary for example, took a public stage and urged a boycott of all >>>>>> republican owned businesses? Or reverse that. >>>>> Political ideologies are not protected against discrimination. >>>> So it is OK with you if a leading political figure in the up coming >>>> election lobbies for an economic boycott against the other party? >>> >>> First of all, they wouldn't do that. But if they did, they would >>> certainly be within their right to do so, knowing all the while that >>> doing so could bring about a backlash against them (which is why no >>> politician would ever have the balls to do it). >>> >>> This is so ironic. I hear all the time on conservative talk radio how >>> universities are bastions for leftist thinking, and they point to certain >>> radicals like that professor in Colorado a year or two ago. Do you think >>> for a moment that once the facts of that professor were brought to light >>> that any conservatives were going to send their kids to that university >>> to study curriculum that he might teach? I doubt it. That is precisely >>> the kind of thing that you're saying I'm wrong in advocating. Yet it's >>> already done all the time. >>> >>> >>>> Or they lobby for a boycott of Canadian businesses because... well, >>>> because they are Canadian. >>> >>> You mean like how conservatives boycotted everything French a few years >>> ago? >>> >>> Yeah, like that. >>> >>> I've got no problem with it. In some cases it seems pretty silly >>> ("Freedom Fries?" puhleeze). But if there's a reason to do it, people >>> can vote with their pocketbooks just as easily (and quite often, more >>> effectively) than with their ballots. >>> >>> And I think it's a great idea. >>> >>> Randy >> I wondered why you never got around to addressing this, looks like it was >> a problem with the usenet feed into the backwaters of GA. >> >> To cut through your verbosity, you agree with the principle that Obama, >> for example, should urge all Democrats, Liberals and African-Americans to >> boycott businesses owned or operated by Republicans, Conservatives or >> non-African_Americans in order to expedite political change. > > > I never said that, Einstein. Actually you did in principle, just left the names out. > > I said he, or any other citizen, would be within his right to do so, and I > support that right, regardless of whether or not I chose to participate. See, you just said it again. > > I would not expect a presidential candidate to do such a thing of course, > or, for that matter, be supportive of such a notion. A president is > *supposed to be* a president for ALL THE PEOPLE. Maybe you can explain what YOU mean by ALL THE PEOPLE. We have had a polarized electorate for a long time now, not just Bush. > The one we have right now, however, isn't. Are you not a citizen. He was elected. OR is your conspiracy theory better tah the other guy's. > > I, however, do not have the charge of being The Randy For All The People. > I'm the Randy for Randy and Those For Whom Randy Cares. And if you're not > one of those people (and I suspect you're not), then you can kiss my ass. > > Does that help clarify? > Yes it does. You are the Randy that basically says, "my way or the highway". > >> That certainly is healing! > > > Well, at least you admit that this nation is in need of healing. I'm > shocked that you would even acknowledge that. I didn't acknowledge that at all. You libbys are the ones talking about healing all the time and then the "elected dems" pretty much got in there and said stuff it. > > Wonder why it needs healing? > > Noodle on that one for a while. > > >> Sounds like Iraq today doesn't it. > > > You're getting warmer. > > >> Do you think things through more than one step? > > > I think things through farther than most people. Of course you're free to > think things through and reach a different conclusion. Based on your posts in this thread and your bullshit about Gore and global warming, you have proven that you don't. Why can't the poorer classes in latin and meso America afford tortillas right now? How much money has been spent on basic research for controlled fusion? Why is that? Why is it that "Carbon credits" are being found to be fraudulent? What has happened to EVERY culture that has switched to a grain based diet collapsed? Have you noted that the Mean IQ of EVERY culture and country that is embroiled in conflict below 95? What to you think that portends? Do you even know about that little problem? If you have been thinking things through you should be able to understand these issues and how they relate to the big picture of the world. > Randy > Joe                               Date: 28 Apr 2007 02:55:44 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Randy Brown calls for a boycott On 27-Apr-2007, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote: > Based on your posts in this thread and your bullshit about Gore and > global warming, you have proven that you don't. Climate change is constant, that is all it does, change > > Why can't the poorer classes in latin and meso America afford tortillas > right now? Liquid Pork? > > Why is it that "Carbon credits" are being found to be fraudulent? > You mean Carbon indulgences? -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.                       Date: 13 Apr 2007 02:35:12 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Randy Brown calls for a boycott In article <461eec06$0$9911$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <461ee0ff$0$4938$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, > > Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote: > > > BIG SNIP > > >> > >> Where do you draw the line between freedom of expression and freedom of > >> oppression? Of course you and I are nobodies and have no real impact > >> but how would you feel if one of your political loved ones, Hillary for > >> example, took a public stage and urged a boycott of all republican owned > >> businesses? Or reverse that. > > > > Political ideologies are not protected against discrimination. > > So it is OK with you if a leading political figure in the up coming > election lobbies for an economic boycott against the other party? Yes, it is. > > Or they lobby for a boycott of Canadian businesses because... well, > because they are Canadian. Yes, that's OK too. Next. -- "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.                 Date: 12 Apr 2007 20:43:03 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message news:YYidnZZJ9JTNL4PbnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@giganews.com... > "Otto" wrote > > > > The attraction is they [guys like Stern and Imus] attract ears and > > eyeballs which attracts big money advertisers. > > > > Stern and Imus are/were the two biggest revenue generators > > for CBS radio. > > > All true. > > > > The hypocrisy is that guys like Stern and Imus are pushed out > > into the airwaves and directed by their bosses to shake things up > > and shock the audience. > > > > They do that. > > > Only partly true. > > I know of no radio executive in my 38 years in the radio business, about 20 > of which were in management, who've ever instructed talent to "shock the > audience." They hire these people to attract an audience, and in the case > of the hires of Stern and Imus, executives pretty much knew what they were > getting. > > In my own personal experience, I can point to one morning show team that > worked for me that presented, for me, a difficult management challenge. I > was the program director of a radio station that was being sold. The new > company that bought the station went out and hired a morning team before > they actually took over the radio station. So I was essentially given these > guys and told to get them to "execute the format." (Which essentially > means, play the music that's on our playlist.) > > But in terms of exerting any creative influence over what they said, they > proved to be an immovable object, and with the support of the President of > the company far above me on the food chain, there was little I could do. > > These guys made racist jokes every day. I squirmed every time I heard them > do it, and I addressed it with them on an almost daily basis. But without > the authority to fire them, there wasn't much I could do besides "get them > to execute the format." > > Every time they would tell a ni***er joke, they would cleverly replace the > "n" word with the name of some famous Dallas celebrity who happened to be > African-American, like, say, Tony Dorsett (who was very high profile at the > time they were on the air). > > Like Don Imus, they were equal opportunity offenders. I can't recall all > the meetings I had to endure with representatives of various groups, from > local African-American groups to gay rights groups to women's groups. You > name it. I had to sit there and listen to them all, and pledge to do what I > could to control these uncontrollable guys. > > It took me nigh on to four years to finally get rid of them. I could have > left under protest long before, but what good would that have done? I felt > the best thing was to stay there and work the system as best I could, given > the limited influence I had within the corporate heirarchy. Finally, as the > number of complaints mounted (and as I recall, a few sponsorship defections > came along), corporate decided that it was best not to renew their > contracts. > > We hired a new team who were far more creative, much funnier and more > cerebral than the junior-high locker room crap we'd been putting out on the > air for the previous four years. And to no one's surprise, our morning > audience defected in droves. > > Before too long, I was let go (the first time in my career I'd ever been > fired), and the morning team we'd brought in was replaced by another > punk-ass morning guy who wasn't much different from the guys we'd gotten rid > of. (The morning team I brought in went on to replace Joan Rivers briefly > on FOX's ill-fated late-night programming in their short-lived parade of > hosts trying to unseat Johnny Carson.) > > > > The people living in glass houses begin to shout, and the bosses > > and big money advertisers run for cover. > > > Money does talk. No question about it. > > > > I'm not excusing any of it but lets not delude ourselves into thinking > > that Imus is a one man show here. Big money wanted him to do > > what he did and they encouraged it. It's what he was hired to do > > decades ago. > > > I think it's a wee bit disingenuous to say that Imus was hired to put racist > remarks out over the air. He was hired to win his time slot, and to create > enough buzz about the show to attract advertisers to jump on board. That's > how the business side of radio works. But to say that his bosses > "encouraged him," and implying that they encouraged him specifically to > offend people, well, I'm quite sure that's not true. > > I know of no broadcast executives who *like* it when their talent offends > people. I know of no broadcast executives who *encourage* their talent to > offend people. They have to field the complaint calls. Take it from > someone who's been on the receiving end of those calls, it's no fun > (especially when you agree with the callers). As a practical matter, > broadcast executives choose to live with a certain amount of that stuff > because, as you've correctly pointed out, there is a financial reward for > doing so when the talent is a magnet for listeners and advertisers. But > there comes a point when the talent can cross a line, and then the rewards > are outweighed by the hassle of putting up with the bad stuff another day. > I've been there. > > It's one of the reasons I chose to go into business for myself and no longer > have to deal with the day-to-day "babysitting" of egomaniacal on-air talents > like Don Imus. > > I don't miss it a bit. > > Randy Randy, Great post. Very informative. Otto           Date: 12 Apr 2007 07:02:58 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > There's one big difference between MSNBC's decision and the one facing CBS > Radio. If MSNBC drops his show (as they have), only MSNBC has to scramble > to come up with replacement programming to fill that hole. However, if CBS > Radio drops his show, they will be essentially throwing a couple of hundred > affiliate radio stations under the bus, forcing each of them to scramble for > replacement programming to fill their morning drive hole. Since morning > drive is, by far, the most valuable air time on radio, for CBS to do such a > thing to so many radio stations -- just a couple of weeks before the Spring > Arbitron Ratings Period begins -- would be tantamount to signing their own > suicide note. I call BS on this one, Randy. First of all, if they keep sending the Imus show out but with no network ads, and the affiliates can no longer sell local ads for that show, then they're not doing the affiliates or themselves any favors by keeping him. And that's the direction this is headed at the moment. Secondly, CBS could have an interim replacement show for Imus up easily by the time he's scheduled to be back from suspension. In fact, they must have an interim show up while he's on suspension in the first place, so there's nothing keeping them from keeping that on the air until a new offering for morning drive is put together. I hear that Sam Seder is looking for a gig. I don't think there's any way that CBS keeps Imus after this nor do I think there's any good reason why they should. He's been a cancer on the airwaves for far too long and it's time to leave that miserable era behind finally. In fact, there's a lot about the last 30 years that needs to be left behind once and for all. But Imus would be a good start. Thank God MSNBC came to their senses. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/             Date: 12 Apr 2007 12:35:07 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:0T40n9v3Ime1N34@redshark.goodshow.net... > "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: > >> There's one big difference between MSNBC's decision and the one facing >> CBS >> Radio. If MSNBC drops his show (as they have), only MSNBC has to >> scramble >> to come up with replacement programming to fill that hole. However, if >> CBS >> Radio drops his show, they will be essentially throwing a couple of >> hundred >> affiliate radio stations under the bus, forcing each of them to scramble >> for >> replacement programming to fill their morning drive hole. Since morning >> drive is, by far, the most valuable air time on radio, for CBS to do such >> a >> thing to so many radio stations -- just a couple of weeks before the >> Spring >> Arbitron Ratings Period begins -- would be tantamount to signing their >> own >> suicide note. > > I call BS on this one, Randy. > > First of all, if they keep sending the Imus show out but with > no network ads, and the affiliates can no longer sell local ads > for that show, then they're not doing the affiliates or themselves > any favors by keeping him. And that's the direction this is headed > at the moment. Oh, I will grant you that completely. I'm not saying they'll keep him on the air forever. All I'm saying is that they may keep him on the air *for a while* to give affiliates enough time to find replacement programming. In today's radio environment, a lot of stations -- especially those that carry network programming -- don't have bodies around to do the air shifts. They may not even have a board op during the pre-office hours time that the show is on the air. It's all run by a computer, with no one in the building. And the alternative morning shows that are out there may or may not even be available in their market. Could be that their competitor is already running the syndicated morning show they'd most want to carry if Imus came off. Honestly, there aren't that many options for the stations carrying Imus. There are a lot of reasons why stations would be left scrambling. All I'm saying is that CBS's language thus far in their statements have been carefully worded, and give no indication that they're prepared at this time to make a long-term commitment to Imus. It sounds to me like they're hedging their bets right now, sending a signal that no final decision has been made, in hopes that their affiliates will get the signal and start looking for a replacement. Behind the scenes, I'd bet that CBS Radio may even be peddling alternative programming to some of their affiliates right now while all this is going on, and are waiting until they've made contact with all their affiliates and helped them make other arrangements before they pull the plug on the show. They can't just take the show off and leave their affiliates scrambling for something just to keep the needle moving. That's all I'm saying. > Secondly, CBS could have an interim replacement show for Imus up > easily by the time he's scheduled to be back from suspension. Which means nothing. When Howard Stern came off the air to go to Satellite Radio, his replacements on terrestrial radio did not hold many of the Stern affiliates. A lot of stations defected, and sought out replacement programming from another provider. Stations sign up to run a particular show. If you take that show off, they're under no obligation to continue carrying the replacement host(s) you put on. Listeners are tuning in to hear the guy they're used to hearing. When he's gone, the listeners usually leave. Say what you will about Imus, he has a loyal following. Those who are abandoning him now are mostly guests who can ill-afford to damage their political careers by appearing to endorse his bad behavior by making another appearance on his show. They now seem to want to distance themselves from having ever appeared on it. But we haven't heard from any Imus *listeners*. And we probably won't. > In fact, they must have an interim show up while he's on suspension > in the first place, so there's nothing keeping them from keeping > that on the air until a new offering for morning drive is put > together. I hear that Sam Seder is looking for a gig. I would imagine CBS *will*, indeed, offer a replacement show. They should. Morning drive is too lucrative a daypart not to compete in that arena. But that doesn't mean anyone will carry the show. Some will. But how many? > I don't think there's any way that CBS keeps Imus after this nor > do I think there's any good reason why they should. I happen to agree with you. I think you've just misunderstood me. I believe Imus will come off, and I believe it will be sooner rather than later. The question is how much time do affiliates need to find something else, either from CBS or some other programming provider (or, <gasp! >, even originate it themselves). > He's been a cancer on the airwaves for far too long and it's time > to leave that miserable era behind finally. I don't disagree. And I hope this is only the start. I hope we see the same kind of recalibration of the broadcasting industry that we saw in the aftermath of the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. I have no problem with talkradio being mostly right-wing propoganda. It's a free country. But I do have a problem when some of these right-wingers spew racist views, and try to couch them in a way that gives them cover. A perfect example of this is Neal Boortz, whose parent company, Cox, is based in Atlanta, a predominantly African-American city, and which employs thousands of African-Americans here in its hometown where Boortz is based. Boortz has called former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney "a ghetto slut," and just last Tuesday was whining about the fact that blacks can use the "N" word, but whites can't. Not so subtle was the implication that he was complaining that that he can't use it. The part he doesn't get is that anyone with an ounce of decency knows this and is okay with it. When people like Neal Boortz are finally removed from the air and silenced forever, then I'll be satisfied that we've turned a corner. Replace him with another right-wing nut job. I don't care about that. Georgia is a fire-engine red state, and WSB should be entitled to cater to that audience. But it's not 1957 anymore. It's time broadcasters take a zero tolerance stance with their air talent for racist remarks. Randy             Date: 12 Apr 2007 10:23:47 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:0T40n9v3Ime1N34@redshark.goodshow.net... > "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: > >> There's one big difference between MSNBC's decision and the one facing >> CBS >> Radio. If MSNBC drops his show (as they have), only MSNBC has to >> scramble >> to come up with replacement programming to fill that hole. However, if >> CBS >> Radio drops his show, they will be essentially throwing a couple of >> hundred >> affiliate radio stations under the bus, forcing each of them to scramble >> for >> replacement programming to fill their morning drive hole. Since morning >> drive is, by far, the most valuable air time on radio, for CBS to do such >> a >> thing to so many radio stations -- just a couple of weeks before the >> Spring >> Arbitron Ratings Period begins -- would be tantamount to signing their >> own >> suicide note. > > I call BS on this one, Randy. > > First of all, if they keep sending the Imus show out but with > no network ads, and the affiliates can no longer sell local ads > for that show, then they're not doing the affiliates or themselves > any favors by keeping him. And that's the direction this is headed > at the moment. > > Secondly, CBS could have an interim replacement show for Imus up > easily by the time he's scheduled to be back from suspension. > In fact, they must have an interim show up while he's on suspension > in the first place, so there's nothing keeping them from keeping > that on the air until a new offering for morning drive is put > together. I hear that Sam Seder is looking for a gig. > > I don't think there's any way that CBS keeps Imus after this nor > do I think there's any good reason why they should. He's been a > cancer on the airwaves for far too long and it's time to leave > that miserable era behind finally. In fact, there's a lot about > the last 30 years that needs to be left behind once and for all. > But Imus would be a good start. Thank God MSNBC came to their > senses. > As Randy said, the other shoe will eventually fall. What I dont understand is how these companys can fire Imus for this yet continue to rake in millions from cRAP albums that are far more offensive that what Imus said. So will the music industry be forced to clean up their acts as well as talk radio?               Date: 16 Apr 2007 10:49:24 From: Dene Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Apr 16, 8:42 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote: > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:55:54 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> > wrote: > > > > >"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1176613488.256615.292870@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >> On Apr 14, 1:21 pm, "Dene" <gdst...@aol.com> wrote: > >>> I definitely prefer the hip hop but not enough to listen to it beyond > >>> 10 mins. It is superior to disco. I'd rather chew barb wire than > >>> listen to disco. > > >> What is disco? Is it The Bee Gees? To tell the truth, I kinda > >> like the Bee Gees. > > >Yes there were a huge part of the disco era. Stayin Alive man. > > I loathed Rock 'n Roll until disco came on the scene. > I loathed disco until rap came along. > I loathed rap until hip-hop burst out. > > Hell, Rock 'n Roll is looking like Beethoven in comparison now. I > can't imagine what monstrous music is in the future. > -- I keep coming full circle. I loved folk rock and I love the "alternative" comparable stuff the kids are doing with it again, e.g. the Wallflowers. I did turn to a hip hop station yesterday and lasted......ten minutes. I can hear the lyrics clearly. Trouble is....I have no idea what they are talking about. Damn.....I'm getting middle aged. Time for me to finance a Corvette convertible. -Greg                 Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:54:09 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote > > I did turn to a hip hop station yesterday and lasted......ten > minutes. I can hear the lyrics clearly. Trouble is....I have no idea > what they are talking about. Let me help you. They're talking about sex. About getting laid. Same thing our generation has been singing about since the beginning. Randy               Date: 12 Apr 2007 19:52:38 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: > As Randy said, the other shoe will eventually fall. What I dont understand > is how these companys can fire Imus for this yet continue to rake in > millions from cRAP albums that are far more offensive that what Imus said. 1. They're not. 2. They don't have major media and government figures lining up to appear on their records. 3. They don't get airplay, period, because FCC regs won't permit it. 4. Those records pretty much aren't being made anymore anyway. It's 2007 now, not 1992. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                 Date: 12 Apr 2007 15:58:04 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:3T40ongqIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: > >> As Randy said, the other shoe will eventually fall. What I dont >> understand >> is how these companys can fire Imus for this yet continue to rake in >> millions from cRAP albums that are far more offensive that what Imus >> said. > > 1. They're not. Not what? Offensive or they're not making millions? > 2. They don't have major media and government figures lining up to > appear on their records. > 3. They don't get airplay, period, because FCC regs won't permit it. Don't listen to radio much eh? Most rap is soo bleeped out it makes even less sense. > 4. Those records pretty much aren't being made anymore anyway. It's > 2007 now, not 1992. You cant be serious. You have kids? > > -- > Chris Bellomy > C-List Charter Member > http://clist.org/                   Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:18:33 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:3T40ongqIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> As Randy said, the other shoe will eventually fall. What I dont >>> understand >>> is how these companys can fire Imus for this yet continue to rake in >>> millions from cRAP albums that are far more offensive that what Imus >>> said. >> >> 1. They're not. > > Not what? Offensive or they're not making millions? They're not more offensive than Imus. They're not even close. They're stupid, and to some extent they're offensive, but there's a wide gulf between poor dumb black kids being publicly dumb, and a rich white guy taking that language and using it to make fun of the powerless. That's why Imus and others of his ilk are truly offensive while rappers are merely idiots. >> 2. They don't have major media and government figures lining up to >> appear on their records. >> 3. They don't get airplay, period, because FCC regs won't permit it. > > Don't listen to radio much eh? Most rap is soo bleeped out it makes even > less sense. Rap died years ago. It's called hip hop now and even that is pretty much dead. I think it's you who doesn't listen to radio much. > >> 4. Those records pretty much aren't being made anymore anyway. It's >> 2007 now, not 1992. > > You cant be serious. You have kids? Two. And I even do a radio show on which we occasionally play hip hop. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                     Date: 13 Apr 2007 09:37:09 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:2T40ovvoImcN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> news:3T40ongqIs5aN34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>> MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>> As Randy said, the other shoe will eventually fall. What I dont >>>> understand >>>> is how these companys can fire Imus for this yet continue to rake in >>>> millions from cRAP albums that are far more offensive that what Imus >>>> said. >>> >>> 1. They're not. >> >> Not what? Offensive or they're not making millions? > > They're not more offensive than Imus. They're not even close. > They're stupid, and to some extent they're offensive, but there's > a wide gulf between poor dumb black kids being publicly dumb, and > a rich white guy taking that language and using it to make fun of > the powerless. That's why Imus and others of his ilk are truly > offensive while rappers are merely idiots. > >>> 2. They don't have major media and government figures lining up to >>> appear on their records. >>> 3. They don't get airplay, period, because FCC regs won't permit it. >> >> Don't listen to radio much eh? Most rap is soo bleeped out it makes even >> less sense. > > Rap died years ago. It's called hip hop now and even that is pretty > much dead. I think it's you who doesn't listen to radio much. Rap is not dead, just rebadged. I have a 14 year old, trust me. Though the "kill whitey" stuff pretty much died in the 90s. They've moved on to hoes n bitches. >> >>> 4. Those records pretty much aren't being made anymore anyway. It's >>> 2007 now, not 1992. >> >> You cant be serious. You have kids? > > Two. And I even do a radio show on which we occasionally play hip hop. > You a DJ Chris? What station? I'll have to see if I can skip it in up here when MW propagation opens up. :-)                       Date: 13 Apr 2007 16:21:03 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: >>>> 4. Those records pretty much aren't being made anymore anyway. It's >>>> 2007 now, not 1992. >>> >>> You cant be serious. You have kids? >> >> Two. And I even do a radio show on which we occasionally play hip hop. >> > You a DJ Chris? What station? I'll have to see if I can skip it in up here > when MW propagation opens up. :-) 88.7 KTCU-FM in beautiful Fort Worth, Texas. http://goodshow.net/ -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                         Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:57:08 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:2T40qvhsI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... > MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: > >>>>> 4. Those records pretty much aren't being made anymore anyway. It's >>>>> 2007 now, not 1992. >>>> >>>> You cant be serious. You have kids? >>> >>> Two. And I even do a radio show on which we occasionally play hip hop. >>> >> You a DJ Chris? What station? I'll have to see if I can skip it in up >> here >> when MW propagation opens up. :-) > > 88.7 KTCU-FM in beautiful Fort Worth, Texas. http://goodshow.net/ > So you must be Txas Bubba then. :-)                           Date: 13 Apr 2007 18:34:39 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: > > "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message > news:2T40qvhsI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... >> MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> 4. Those records pretty much aren't being made anymore anyway. It's >>>>>> 2007 now, not 1992. >>>>> >>>>> You cant be serious. You have kids? >>>> >>>> Two. And I even do a radio show on which we occasionally play hip hop. >>>> >>> You a DJ Chris? What station? I'll have to see if I can skip it in up >>> here >>> when MW propagation opens up. :-) >> >> 88.7 KTCU-FM in beautiful Fort Worth, Texas. http://goodshow.net/ >> > So you must be Txas Bubba then. > :-) Nope. I haven't posted to Southpaw in quite a while. Writer's block. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                             Date: 13 Apr 2007 13:46:06 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:0T40r7d8I4idN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: >> >> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message >> news:2T40qvhsI321N34@redshark.goodshow.net... >>> MnMikew <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> 4. Those records pretty much aren't being made anymore anyway. It's >>>>>>> 2007 now, not 1992. >>>>>> >>>>>> You cant be serious. You have kids? >>>>> >>>>> Two. And I even do a radio show on which we occasionally play hip hop. >>>>> >>>> You a DJ Chris? What station? I'll have to see if I can skip it in up >>>> here >>>> when MW propagation opens up. :-) >>> >>> 88.7 KTCU-FM in beautiful Fort Worth, Texas. http://goodshow.net/ >>> >> So you must be Txas Bubba then. >> :-) > > Nope. I haven't posted to Southpaw in quite a while. Writer's block. > Well you should, Bubba needs some help.                     Date: 13 Apr 2007 04:10:22 From: bill-o Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 12-Apr-2007, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: > Rap died years ago. It's called hip hop now and even that is pretty > much dead. I think it's you who doesn't listen to radio much. Radio hell, just listen to any car driving by -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.                       Date: 13 Apr 2007 00:32:09 From: Otto Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message news:461f02a0$0$25243$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... > > On 12-Apr-2007, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > > > Rap died years ago. It's called hip hop now and even that is pretty > > much dead. I think it's you who doesn't listen to radio much. > > Radio hell, just listen to any car driving by I've got three teenage boys in high school and the hip hop and rap or whatever the stuff is seems rampant. I just chalk it up to being old but when I get ahold of some of the lyrics we have discussions. I realize that to generalize all of the rap and hip hop into one pigeonhole is the easy way out. I don't care for the instrumental of these genres but that's the old fart in me. What can I say--I like Zeppelin and Skynyrd. With that said, some of the rap and hip hop lyrics are just plain nasty trash. Some of the lyrics are fine. For me, as an old fart, it is hard to tell the two apart. The boys and I have banged heads over this. We seem to have found a middle ground but my vigilance is still warranted. The garbage has a way of finding it's way onto their mp3 files. As an "old man", I find it fair to discuss the idea that bad lyrics can breed bad decisions. I find it fair to illustrate that bad decisions have consequences and that they will be held responsible and will pay the price for such bad decisions. No "daddy bailouts". I try to impress the idea that they don't make decisions for me or their mom--they make decisions for themselves. It's their future--not mine. There is plenty of rap and hip hop out there. Just watch any of the music award shows(except country). Tune into the grammys or Mtv awards or the Vh1 awards and you will have no shortage of that genre. It is very prevalent and popular amongst the teens---the most malleable and easily influenced segment of our population--and the future. Otto                         Date: 13 Apr 2007 21:53:28 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote in message news:OIDTh.9986$qB4.9696@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote in message > news:461f02a0$0$25243$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com... >> >> On 12-Apr-2007, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >> >> > Rap died years ago. It's called hip hop now and even that is pretty >> > much dead. I think it's you who doesn't listen to radio much. >> >> Radio hell, just listen to any car driving by > > > I've got three teenage boys in high school and the hip hop and rap or > whatever the stuff is seems rampant. I just chalk it up to being old but > when I get ahold of some of the lyrics we have discussions. > > I realize that to generalize all of the rap and hip hop into one > pigeonhole > is the easy way out. I don't care for the instrumental of these genres but > that's the old fart in me. What can I say--I like Zeppelin and Skynyrd. > > With that said, some of the rap and hip hop lyrics are just plain nasty > trash. > > Some of the lyrics are fine. > > For me, as an old fart, it is hard to tell the two apart. The boys and I > have banged heads over this. We seem to have found a middle ground but my > vigilance is still warranted. The garbage has a way of finding it's way > onto > their mp3 files. > > As an "old man", I find it fair to discuss the idea that bad lyrics can > breed bad decisions. I find it fair to illustrate that bad decisions have > consequences and that they will be held responsible and will pay the price > for such bad decisions. No "daddy bailouts". I try to impress the idea > that > they don't make decisions for me or their mom--they make decisions for > themselves. It's their future--not mine. > > There is plenty of rap and hip hop out there. Just watch any of the music > award shows(except country). Tune into the grammys or Mtv awards or the > Vh1 > awards and you will have no shortage of that genre. > > It is very prevalent and popular amongst the teens---the most malleable > and > easily influenced segment of our population--and the future. > > Otto This stuff is not new. Do I need to remind you of the lyrics of "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen? There was not much left to the imagination in that song, a #1 Top 40 hit in 1963. For all you old men out there who dismiss hip hop as a musical genre, I'll just say it's the closest thing to "pop music" from the 1960s as you'll find out there today. While much of it is overtly sexual in nature, much of it is just as much "lovie dovie" as pop music was when we were growing up in the 1960s. And musically, some of it is no less interesting than the Motown Sound of that same era. While certain modern-day hip-hop artists' music may be considered somewhat more disposable than the more timeless music of artists like Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson, The Supremes or the Four Tops, we can't really gauge the staying power of some of today's music until time passes. I have a sneaking suspicion that the music of such artists as Beyonce, R. Kelly, Mary J. Blige, Kanye West, Outkast, 2 Pak, Lauryn Hill, Erykah Badu and others too numerous to mention will have the same kind of staying power with young people today that the music you grew up with has had with you. Frankly, rather than dissing hip hop music as a whole, you paint yourself as clearly out of touch if you don't at least make yourself aware of the large volume of it that is quite nice. (Personally, if I hear one more Led Zeppelin or Lynyrd Skynrd song, I'm as likely to go up in a tower with a rifle as I am to listen to it yet again for the ten quizzillionth time. That, as much as anything, is why I much prefer listening to current contemporary music. It's not because I'm some old fart who's trying to recapture his youth. It's just that I've played all that old crap on the radio so many thousands of times, I'm sick of it. And at some point in my youth, I made a conscious decision to never be like my dad, choosing instead to always stay current rather than becoming an old, unhip, fogey who dismissed current artists like my dad did.) I am reminded of a line once uttered by a very famous disc jockey named Robert W. Morgan on 93/KHJ ("Boss Radio") in Los Angeles, when he played a song titled "Give A Damn" by Spanky and Our Gang in 1968. When the song ended, Morgan said, "That's Spanky and Our Gang with 'Give A Damn.' Y'know times are changing. It wasn't more than five years ago that I would not have dared say 'Spanky and Our Gang' on the radio." The little joke, for those of you who don't remember, concerned the fact that in 1968, it was still a fairly new phenomenon to be able to get away with saying the word "damn" on the radio without facing consequences, a fine from the FCC, or even having your broadcast license yanked completely. But now, nearly forty years later, it's commonplace to hear other words and phrases broadcast that were once considered unspeakable on the airwaves, including "hell," "bitch," (and other popular derivatives, including "son of a bitch"), "pissed off," "tit" (yes, one of Carlin's 7 dirties), "ass," and probably a few others I'm not even thinking of. Heck, in the 1960s, you couldn't even say "butt" on the air. You can't very well lay blame for the ever-growing desensitization of society toward these words and phrases at the feet of rappers or hip hop artists. It's been going on for years, long before anyone ever heard of rap music or hip-hop. Randy                           Date: 16 Apr 2007 05:13:12 From: bill-o Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On 13-Apr-2007, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > Frankly, rather than dissing hip hop music as a whole, I don't, I diss Gansta. One of my fav radio shows is Hush, Hush on WRAS, instrumental hip hop, very nice with no egotistical rapper to ruin the groove. http://www2.gsu.edu/~www885/specialty.html -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.                           Date: 14 Apr 2007 02:08:54 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:53:28 -0400, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote: > >Do I need to remind you of the lyrics of "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen? >There was not much left to the imagination in that song, a #1 Top 40 hit in >1963. >' >Randy > Urban legend Randy. Even J. Edgar Hoover's men couldn't find anything dirty about those lyrics...even trying to play the record at slower speeds. ___, \o                             Date: 14 Apr 2007 06:18:12 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote: > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:53:28 -0400, "\"R&B\"" > <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: > > >> >>Do I need to remind you of the lyrics of "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen? >>There was not much left to the imagination in that song, a #1 Top 40 hit in >>1963. >> > Urban legend Randy. Even J. Edgar Hoover's men couldn't find anything > dirty about those lyrics...even trying to play the record at slower > speeds. I would urge the inquisitive type about raunchy lyrics to seek out the lyrics to "My Sharona," which is about as clear cut a celebration of pedophilia as a song can be. Meet the Knack? No thanks. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                               Date: 14 Apr 2007 10:16:46 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:18:12 -0000, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:53:28 -0400, "\"R&B\"" >> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Do I need to remind you of the lyrics of "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen? >>>There was not much left to the imagination in that song, a #1 Top 40 hit in >>>1963. >>> >> Urban legend Randy. Even J. Edgar Hoover's men couldn't find anything >> dirty about those lyrics...even trying to play the record at slower >> speeds. > >I would urge the inquisitive type about raunchy lyrics to seek out >the lyrics to "My Sharona," which is about as clear cut a celebration >of pedophilia as a song can be. Meet the Knack? No thanks. Again...not true. The reference to youth was inspired by a 17 year old girlfriend of the lead singer. -- ___, \o                                 Date: 14 Apr 2007 16:22:53 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote: > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:18:12 -0000, Chris Bellomy > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > >>Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:53:28 -0400, "\"R&B\"" >>> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Do I need to remind you of the lyrics of "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen? >>>>There was not much left to the imagination in that song, a #1 Top 40 hit in >>>>1963. >>>> >>> Urban legend Randy. Even J. Edgar Hoover's men couldn't find anything >>> dirty about those lyrics...even trying to play the record at slower >>> speeds. >> >>I would urge the inquisitive type about raunchy lyrics to seek out >>the lyrics to "My Sharona," which is about as clear cut a celebration >>of pedophilia as a song can be. Meet the Knack? No thanks. > > Again...not true. The reference to youth was inspired by a 17 year > old girlfriend of the lead singer. Uh, Bobby? 17? Doug Fieger was 27 when he wrote that lyric. "I always get it up for the touch of the younger kind" is pretty un- ambiguous, isn't it? -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                                   Date: 16 Apr 2007 09:45:46 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message news:0T40tjvmIj3sN34@redshark.goodshow.net... > Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:18:12 -0000, Chris Bellomy >> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >> >>>Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:53:28 -0400, "\"R&B\"" >>>> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Do I need to remind you of the lyrics of "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen? >>>>>There was not much left to the imagination in that song, a #1 Top 40 >>>>>hit in >>>>>1963. >>>>> >>>> Urban legend Randy. Even J. Edgar Hoover's men couldn't find anything >>>> dirty about those lyrics...even trying to play the record at slower >>>> speeds. >>> >>>I would urge the inquisitive type about raunchy lyrics to seek out >>>the lyrics to "My Sharona," which is about as clear cut a celebration >>>of pedophilia as a song can be. Meet the Knack? No thanks. >> >> Again...not true. The reference to youth was inspired by a 17 year >> old girlfriend of the lead singer. > > Uh, Bobby? 17? Doug Fieger was 27 when he wrote that lyric. > > "I always get it up for the touch of the younger kind" is pretty un- > ambiguous, isn't it? > The word younger is.                                   Date: 14 Apr 2007 20:25:50 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:22:53 -0000, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:18:12 -0000, Chris Bellomy >> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >> >>>Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:53:28 -0400, "\"R&B\"" >>>> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Do I need to remind you of the lyrics of "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen? >>>>>There was not much left to the imagination in that song, a #1 Top 40 hit in >>>>>1963. >>>>> >>>> Urban legend Randy. Even J. Edgar Hoover's men couldn't find anything >>>> dirty about those lyrics...even trying to play the record at slower >>>> speeds. >>> >>>I would urge the inquisitive type about raunchy lyrics to seek out >>>the lyrics to "My Sharona," which is about as clear cut a celebration >>>of pedophilia as a song can be. Meet the Knack? No thanks. >> >> Again...not true. The reference to youth was inspired by a 17 year >> old girlfriend of the lead singer. > >Uh, Bobby? 17? Doug Fieger was 27 when he wrote that lyric. > >"I always get it up for the touch of the younger kind" is pretty un- >ambiguous, isn't it? It just wasn't pedophilia. -- ___, \o                                     Date: 15 Apr 2007 00:03:59 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote: > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:22:53 -0000, Chris Bellomy > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > >>Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:18:12 -0000, Chris Bellomy >>> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:53:28 -0400, "\"R&B\"" >>>>> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Do I need to remind you of the lyrics of "Louie Louie" by the Kingsmen? >>>>>>There was not much left to the imagination in that song, a #1 Top 40 hit in >>>>>>1963. >>>>>> >>>>> Urban legend Randy. Even J. Edgar Hoover's men couldn't find anything >>>>> dirty about those lyrics...even trying to play the record at slower >>>>> speeds. >>>> >>>>I would urge the inquisitive type about raunchy lyrics to seek out >>>>the lyrics to "My Sharona," which is about as clear cut a celebration >>>>of pedophilia as a song can be. Meet the Knack? No thanks. >>> >>> Again...not true. The reference to youth was inspired by a 17 year >>> old girlfriend of the lead singer. >> >>Uh, Bobby? 17? Doug Fieger was 27 when he wrote that lyric. >> >>"I always get it up for the touch of the younger kind" is pretty un- >>ambiguous, isn't it? > > It just wasn't pedophilia. No, it was just a song about having sex with children. (?!) -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                                       Date: 15 Apr 2007 00:41:25 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:03:59 -0000, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >>>>>I would urge the inquisitive type about raunchy lyrics to seek out >>>>>the lyrics to "My Sharona," which is about as clear cut a celebration >>>>>of pedophilia as a song can be. Meet the Knack? No thanks. >>>> >>>> Again...not true. The reference to youth was inspired by a 17 year >>>> old girlfriend of the lead singer. >>> >>>Uh, Bobby? 17? Doug Fieger was 27 when he wrote that lyric. >>> >>>"I always get it up for the touch of the younger kind" is pretty un- >>>ambiguous, isn't it? >> >> It just wasn't pedophilia. > >No, it was just a song about having sex with children. (?!) Wrong Chris. If you want to pick fly shit out of pepper, it wasn't a clear cut celebration of pedophilia. Try googling. This was thouroughly debunked. -- ___, \o                                         Date: 15 Apr 2007 01:54:11 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote: > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:03:59 -0000, Chris Bellomy > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>>>I would urge the inquisitive type about raunchy lyrics to seek out >>>>>>the lyrics to "My Sharona," which is about as clear cut a celebration >>>>>>of pedophilia as a song can be. Meet the Knack? No thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Again...not true. The reference to youth was inspired by a 17 year >>>>> old girlfriend of the lead singer. >>>> >>>>Uh, Bobby? 17? Doug Fieger was 27 when he wrote that lyric. >>>> >>>>"I always get it up for the touch of the younger kind" is pretty un- >>>>ambiguous, isn't it? >>> >>> It just wasn't pedophilia. >> >>No, it was just a song about having sex with children. (?!) > > Wrong Chris. If you want to pick fly shit out of pepper, it wasn't a > clear cut celebration of pedophilia. > > Try googling. This was thouroughly debunked. Googling? I already know the lyrics. What's to google? You gotta be trolling me here. Surely. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                                           Date: 15 Apr 2007 02:18:56 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:54:11 -0000, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote: >Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:03:59 -0000, Chris Bellomy >> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>I would urge the inquisitive type about raunchy lyrics to seek out >>>>>>>the lyrics to "My Sharona," which is about as clear cut a celebration >>>>>>>of pedophilia as a song can be. Meet the Knack? No thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again...not true. The reference to youth was inspired by a 17 year >>>>>> old girlfriend of the lead singer. >>>>> >>>>>Uh, Bobby? 17? Doug Fieger was 27 when he wrote that lyric. >>>>> >>>>>"I always get it up for the touch of the younger kind" is pretty un- >>>>>ambiguous, isn't it? >>>> >>>> It just wasn't pedophilia. >>> >>>No, it was just a song about having sex with children. (?!) >> >> Wrong Chris. If you want to pick fly shit out of pepper, it wasn't a >> clear cut celebration of pedophilia. >> >> Try googling. This was thouroughly debunked. > >Googling? I already know the lyrics. What's to google? > >You gotta be trolling me here. Surely. Not at all. Calling those lyrics a celebration of pedophilia is more than a stretch, it's just not close. Pretty mild lyrics to me. In fact, Fieger fell in love with Sharona, and even met her parents, who found him to be a "nice Jewish boy". If he had been 17 and she 7, THAT would be pretty sick...but 27 and 17? No way. ___, \o                                             Date: 15 Apr 2007 16:23:03 From: Chris Bellomy Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote: > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:54:11 -0000, Chris Bellomy > <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: > >>Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote: >>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:03:59 -0000, Chris Bellomy >>> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>I would urge the inquisitive type about raunchy lyrics to seek out >>>>>>>>the lyrics to "My Sharona," which is about as clear cut a celebration >>>>>>>>of pedophilia as a song can be. Meet the Knack? No thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again...not true. The reference to youth was inspired by a 17 year >>>>>>> old girlfriend of the lead singer. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uh, Bobby? 17? Doug Fieger was 27 when he wrote that lyric. >>>>>> >>>>>>"I always get it up for the touch of the younger kind" is pretty un- >>>>>>ambiguous, isn't it? >>>>> >>>>> It just wasn't pedophilia. >>>> >>>>No, it was just a song about having sex with children. (?!) >>> >>> Wrong Chris. If you want to pick fly shit out of pepper, it wasn't a >>> clear cut celebration of pedophilia. >>> >>> Try googling. This was thouroughly debunked. >> >>Googling? I already know the lyrics. What's to google? >> >>You gotta be trolling me here. Surely. > > Not at all. Calling those lyrics a celebration of pedophilia is more > than a stretch, it's just not close. Pretty mild lyrics to me. > > In fact, Fieger fell in love with Sharona, and even met her parents, > who found him to be a "nice Jewish boy". If he had been 17 and she > 7, THAT would be pretty sick...but 27 and 17? No way. Uh huh. That explains "Good Girls Don't" I guess. She's your adolescent dream, Schoolboy stuff, a sticky sweet romance. And she makes you want to scream, Wishing you could get inside her pants. So, you fantasize away. And while you're squeezing her, you thought you heard her saying... "Good girls don't, Good girls don't, She'll be tellin' you, Good girls don't, but I do." So, you call her on the phone To talk about the teachers that you hate. And she says she's all alone, And her parents won't be coming home til late. There's a ringing in your brain, Cause you could've sworn you though you heard her saying... "Good girls don't, Good girls don't, She'll be tellin' you, Good girls don't, but I do." And it's a teenage sadness Everyone has got to taste. An in-between age madness That you know you can't erase Til she's sitting on your face. Oh, wait, that's written from the teenage boy's perspective. Yeah, right. -- Chris Bellomy C-List Charter Member http://clist.org/                     Date: 12 Apr 2007 18:44:19 From: \R&B\ Subject: Re: More outrageous? (NGC) "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote >> Don't listen to radio much eh? Most rap is soo bleeped out it makes even >> less sense. > > Rap died years ago. It's called hip hop now and even that is pretty > much dead. I think it's you who doesn't listen to radio much. Chris, the guy you're responding to is pretty typical of middle-aged white guys who think they're up on popular trends in music. They probably think Whitney Houston is considered hip. But I do think you're a little bit off base here. Rap music is still very much alive. It is part of hip-hop, but hip-hop as a music genre is closer to the kind of top 40/pop music that we 50somethings grew up listening to than anything else that's out right now. It's about the only thing I listen to. Remember, too, that I live in the rap music capitol of the world, "the A-T-L," home of So-So Def Music, Jermaine Dupri, etc. I can assure you that rap music is far from dead, and that hip-hop music is alive and well, and growing in popularity. Right there in your market of Dallas/Fort Worth, all three of the top 3 stations in the most recent Arbitron ratings all play hip-hop. (Ratings were just released last week.) They are K-104 (an Urban station, the number one station in town), Kiss-FM (a top 40, and anyone who's looked at the top 40 charts lately should know that about 60 percent of it is hip-hop crossover), and some new station I had to call a friend to ask about because I'd never heard of it, but it's a "Churban" (Rhythmic CHR) station (I forget the call letters). That these three stations have supplanted all country stations in the Dallas/Fort Worth radio ratings is astonishing. DFW has never been an especially strong market for hip-hop. But it is now. Randy                 &nb