Michael Oke, II wrote:
> Nobody is playing anything, except perhaps for you.
So you're not playing.... they you..... ok, understood. I'll try and
explain it in simple terms.
>   You put forth an 
> allegation of racism but backed it up with religious examples so I 
> merely asked you to provide some clarification of your point.
Yes, no problem. You see, I don't think there is a word for
"religious-ism" or "discriminat-ism", so racism may well do. The point
is that you are discriminating and being pejorative to a whole group of
people, be it race or religion is incidental.
Let's see if I can make it simpler, it is as if I were to discriminate
you based on IQ (as in "US born low IQ") or on lack of humour ("US born
Humourless"). Get it?

>   Perhaps 
> it is something that you are incapable of and, if so, I'll just have to 
> accept your post at it's face value.
>   
That might also be. But in that case I would clarify it in Spanish and
you, with your renowned gift of tongues, would see my meaning.

>
> -----
> ::moii
> -----
>
> Ricardo Aráoz wrote:
>   
>> Michael Oke, II wrote:
>>     
>>> When did Muslim become a race?
>>>   
>>>       
>> You are certainly playing dumb, so I'm not going to answer.
>> ...
>> ..
>> .
>> You ARE playing dumb. Are'nt you?
>>
>>     
>>> -----
>>> ::moii
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Ricardo Aráoz wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Do they have "US born Catholic", "US born buddhist", "US born 
>>>> episcopalian" categories too? Or are they just being racist as usual?
>>>>     



_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to