Yeah Phillip S, I repeated the question, because I want to know exactly where you stand before I start pulling your logic apart.

1. You claimed it is "not deemed racist" for a person of one race to call people of his own race a racist name. Deemed by whom?

2. If it is not "deemed racist" (by persons unknown) for a person of one race to call people of his own race by a racist name, why did you attack me for calling the Russians "Ivans?" Surely that is no different to calling the Americans "yanks?'

3. If it is not "deemed racist" (by persons unknown) for a person of one race to call people of his own race by a racist name, does that mean it is not "deemed racist" (by persons unknown) to call French people "frogs" and Italian people "wogs?"

Since you presume to tell me what is right and what is wrong, I think that the onus is now upon you to explain just how your anti racist morality works. You can not reform my wicked ways, unless you explain to me what the rules are, and by what logic they work.

Please hurry. I am fascinated, and I eagerly await your reply.

Phillip S?

Where arrrrrrrrrrrre youuuuuuuuuuuuu?

Damn, another moral puritan who does the runner when you fixate on him, and ask him a few uncomfortable questions.

LEGO - I did not reply straight away, just testing your level to getting frustrated, appears it is very low.

Now Quote "1. You claimed it is "not deemed racist" for a person of one race to call people of his own race a racist name. Deemed by whom?"
You know that is the case you are just trying to extricate your self from the position you put your self in.

Quote "You can not reform my wicked ways," That to me is an admission you know you were wrong, but the rest indicates you just can't accept it.

Good try but we will just build up your frustration level a bit more.

You know you meant it as racist or derogatory.

I thought that you would squib out, DavidS

Four simple questions relating to the logic of your moral declarations(one of which was rhetorical), and you dodged all three of them.

Conclusion? You are aware of the contraditions in your own Alice in Wonderland ideology, and you know that you have no way at all of justifying those contradictions. All you could do was stand on your dignity and stonwall.

Now you know why I did not bother to respond to your earlier posts. I have seen such sneery and self righeous posts like yours before, and I knew they were indicative of a person who advocates issues that he or she has never really thought about. I predicted that if I challenged you, you would go to water and stonewall.

I was more interested in crossing swords with Mr O'Neill who had the courage to write 250-300 word articles. Such people I consider to be worthy opponents who's attitudes can be swayed by the force of reasoned argument. But since Mr O'neill has left the arena, I was with great reluctence that I turned my stare on you.

Congratulations, you reacted exactly as I predicted you would. Long on sneery one liners and pointed questions, but you ran for cover when challenged.

I doubt if I will bother with you again. Please come back when you have grown a backbone and you are prepared to defend the moral values that you advocate. And thank you for displaying to any impartial reader the weakness of your position.

LEGO - Quote "Now you know why I did not bother to respond to your earlier posts"

You did not reply because you know were wrong.

The rest of your post is just to disguise the fact you were wrong and rather than admit it you try to extricate yourself with a load of meaningless questions and comments.

FACT you are racist.

To Quote you "I doubt if I will bother with you again." Could I be so lucky, I hope so. Time will tell.

Yup. I am a proud racist. That's the only thing you have got right so far.