Quelle dommage.

Concordian, are you back?

And for what it s worth, I think Quaker was being a dick about it, especially since the way he made the accusation made no sense, there being only one picture there. He was also pretty obviously taking advantage of what I figured was an honest mistake to bait you about it.

And that’s all you need to know.

That’s pretty much all you need to know.

As for your charge that I have accused you of being a racist, you have once again misread, finding only what you expect to find. There s a difference between characterizing what you wrote and characterizing your beliefs. I don t expect you to grasp this rather plain distinction, but there you have it.

I didn’t misread anything. How in the world could you characterize my beliefs, unless you talk about what I wrote. You don’t know me, except from what I write. You include a gratuitous insult, while not even saying “I don’t believe you’re a racist” or “If I implied you were a racist, I apologize.”

In other words, you apologized for nothing.

And here’s my favorite line: You can t defend what you wrote initially

Did I have to?

Did you defend what you wrote?

I had nothing to defend — I certainly didn’t offend you. If anything, I offended the man described in the article. And I didn’t even do that.

You just don’t get it, do you, Quaker? The only thing I was wrong about was how you would wimp out of the apology you owed me.
I find you’re so – called apology to be worthless, and unworthy of a man. You claim I “begged for an apology”, when you wrote:

you want an apology and retraction? Tell us your thought process in deciding to put your assumptions about Mr. Clark in writing. Explain why you didn t find it extraordinary that the man being released would be freed on evidence that implicated him in two other crimes. Tell us why you assumed he would quickly  sue somebody s ass off.
If you can explain how you arrived at these conclusions without making race-based assumptions about Mr. Clark, I ll retract and apologize.

I did — but you didn’t.

So I repeat:

now that I ve done what you wanted, and I don t expect you do what you promised, we can end this BS… This incident will not change your mind about me, as it has changed my mind about you.

Go f*ck yourself.

What does a stupid ass remark like that make you?

I thought you were one of the one or two people who weren t such dumbasses

you re a f*c*i*g a*s*o*e.

That  apology was to show up Quaker  which his cowardly silence has done, and show you for the jerk you are.
Merry Christmas, bozo!

What a joke. You are pathetic.

Unlike the other halfwits who inhabit this wimpy assed thread,

And all that’s just from this thread. If I cared to find more examples, they wouldn’t be hard to find. So you’ll excuse me if I take your “I’m mortally offended” act as no more than that.

All that, arising out of this:

Aw, they all look alike. Right, Frank?

The article Oliver posted was about a black man, convicted in Georgia of rape and held for 25 years. The evidence now shows he was innocent.

You read the article, which was about two men, and assumed that everything written desribed just this one guy. Your mistake revealed that when you read the article, you weren’t at all surprised when you concluded that the innocent man must be guilty of something. You added more evidence of the ugliness of your assumptions when you speculated that he would try to turn this injustice into a financial windfall.

Is that racism? It’s my belief that every white person in this country, myself included, bears the stain of racism. It’s part of our national culture, it’s pervasive, and it can’t ever be entirely erased. All one can do is try your best to act right and think right when it comes to race. Making the assumption that an innocent black man must be guilty of something was the error made by the jury that robbed Mr. Clark of 25 years of his life. You made precisely the same error in your comment.

As for your charge that I have accused you of being a racist, you have once again misread, finding only what you expect to find. There’s a difference between characterizing what you wrote and characterizing your beliefs. I don’t expect you to grasp this rather plain distinction, but there you have it.

I’m tired of spanking you over this one, Frank. You can’t defend what you wrote initially, so you’re reduced to profanity, denial, and begging for an apology (even as you admit that you offered one yourself only to show me up).

Very well.

I retract my statement, “Aw, they all look alike. Right, Frank?” It does not accurately characterize what’s wrong with what you wrote and has been taken as a slam against your character. I apologize for that.

I still find your initial erroneous comment careless and offensive.

And who’s “us”? The editorial ‘us’ or the imperial ‘us’?

Excuse me, but did anybody see this?
Arnold s DNA profile was matched in 2003 to two unsolved rapes in DeKalb and Fulton counties. He has NOT been charged with either crime.
He was basically doing  time served for the other two rapes. Not to mention that, until the original suspension of capital punishment by the Supreme Court (one of their earlier examples of repealing multiple state laws in one fell swoop – but I digress), rape was a capital crime in many states, so he might have been executed for that.
He ll probably sue somebody s ass off, and make a fortune. No wonder he s not bitter. He got less than 25 years for two rapes, and he ll probably pick up a hundred grand or more, net, in the  wrongful imprisonment suit.

No mention of race
Dave M’s correction {2:59 pm}:

Frank – get it straight. The  Arnold whose DNA matches the two rapes referred to in your quote is NOT Mr. Clark who was cleared. Mr. Arnold was the guy whose DNA matched the donor in the crime Mr. Clark was wrongly convicted of committing.

No mention of race
Quaker in a Basement’s comment {3:17 pm – 18 minutes later}

Aw, they all look alike. Right, Frank?

The Defense rests

I assumed he would sue somebody’s ass off, because I’ve seen similar stories on television, where the report of his intention to sue accompanies the report of his family reunion. That’s cynicism, not racism.

Since I know I’m not a racist, and you have your own evidence of my tolerance, I fully expect you to take the cowardly, liberal way out, and tell me that I didn’t mean that, or that I should have said that before.

So, now that I’ve done what you wanted, and I don’t expect you do what you promised, we can end this BS. You will go to your grave believing conservatives are racists, as Oliver does.

This incident will not change your mind about me, as it has changed my mind about you.

That  apology was to show up Quaker  which his cowardly silence has done, and show you for the jerk you are.
Merry Christmas, bozo!

Cowardly silence?

No, Frank. Just waiting to find out if was an apology or an “apology.”

When one misreads, you find what you expect to find. Otherwise, you’d ask yourself “WTF?” and go back and re-read.

OW posted about a man held for 25 years for a crime he didn’t commit. You “misread” the article as saying the man was guilty anyway. That didn’t set off any “WTF?” bells for you. You quickly concluded that all us silly liberals were up in arms about a guy who “got less than 25 years for two rapes” and now was going to “sue somebody’s ass off and make a fortune.”

Tell you what: you want an apology and retraction? Tell us your thought process in deciding to put your assumptions about Mr. Clark in writing. Explain why you didn’t find it extraordinary that the man being released would be freed on evidence that implicated him in two other crimes. Tell us why you assumed he would quickly “sue somebody’s ass off.”

If you can explain how you arrived at these conclusions without making race-based assumptions about Mr. Clark, I’ll retract and apologize.

Or we can just sit here and listen to the silence.

Like I said, you went from here:

I think Quaker was being a dick about it, especially since the way he made the accusation made no sense, there being only one picture there. He was also pretty obviously taking advantage of what I figured was an honest mistake to bait you about it.

to here:

You made an [sic] bad assertion that I will guaran-damn-tee you was based partially on the race of the people involved. I don t believe for one red-hot minute that you would have been so quick to post that ignorant tripe if the guy had been white.

in 2 hours and 27 minutes!

And you’re blaming me for it

Draw your own conclusion.

Next time, leave me alone.

No, really. Leave me the fuck alone.

“Outsmarted?” By a guy who can’t keep two names in a news article straight, and then proceeds with racist assumptions on that basis?

Hardly.

Happy holidays, Frank. Just because you don’t watch O’Reilly doesn’t mean you’re not another cookie-cutter clone of him.