From: c60a-ee@danube.Berkeley.EDU (60a Class Account)
Subject: Re: This Interracial thingy?
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:57:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.051956.29998@sbcs.sunysb.edu> ejohnfel@csws17.ic.sunysb.edu () writes:
 >Hmmmm,
 >
 >	Ya know I was enjoying this whole long series of posts on
 >this interracial thing until my bullshit detector went bust. Lets set a
 >few things straight Einstein (That means you Bill)...
Thanks, Kepler.

 >Bill writes...
 >>They're slimy bastards who don't know shit about culture, just look at
 >>	them, going after Chinese-ge females because "They're easy"
 >>	Easy for what?  Easy to get into bed, because that's all Caucasian-cu
 >>	wants... F**K F**K and then more F**King.
 >
 >	Concerning this point, THE STREET GOES BOTH WAYS bud. Since I must
 >admit there is quite a bit of F**King going on, the most important point is
 >that it takes two to tango, unless there is an awful lot of rape going on
 >that I don't hear about. And besides, I've never met and easy AFs, one
 >AAF though, but that was a rumor. Say, you couldn't intro me to some of the
 >easy AFs you know Bill, could you?
SHEESH, YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND SARCASM, DO YOU?
AND QUOTE ME OUT OF CONTEXT TOO. THANKS.
DID YOU NOT REALIZE THAT I WAS IN "DWIGHT MODE"?
<sigh>  so few people understand sarcasm nowadays.

 >        You know this really ties in wth some thoughts I've been having...
 >why is that some people find eating pigs knuckles normal? Or liver for that
 >matter? Bill, face it, they like ASIAN women. It is NOT normal when you
 >hate somthing that you like, then you are schitzo, know what I mean partner..
Schizo?  Who ME?  No I'm not.  Yes you are, don't lie.  No I'm not.  You
are! I'm not!....ARGH!!!!!!

>
>Bill...
>>The Caucasians-cu don't know shit about respect.
>
>	Bravo, very good generalization, apparently neither do you. Hmmm,
>does that make YOU caucasian-cu?

Bravo, Mr. Intelligent.   You've won an alround paid trip to the 
Bahamas, where, after a long needed rest, perhaps you'll be able
to understand sarcasm.

 >>They don't call their parents in respoect, no they use their first names.
 >
 >	I am adopted, however, my cousin calls his parents, Ma'am and Sir.
 >Does that count? My best friend friend George "the Boomer" Boomgaard calls
 >his pop "dad" and his mom "mom". What would you like us to do, lay prostrate
 >on the floor and praise our almighty parental units? Do you?
Thanks for proving a big point for me.  DON"T FREGGING GENERALIZE.
And heres the question of the day:  WHO LIKES TO GENERALIZE?  (ie,
who was I emulating while posting above quoted article?)
BZZZT, sorry, Mr. Johnfel, you've missed the whole point.

>Bill again...
>>They don't give a shit about their wifes, look at the high devorce rate
>>	(but wait, aren't Asian divource rates on par with Caucasian?
>>	Doesn't matter, I'm taking a Dwight-like view, remember?)
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ thought that would
make if much too obvious that I was being sarcastic.... seems like
some people also need to read more carefullly, huh? Mr Johnfel.

>Bill...
>> <Still in Dwight mode>
>
>	Spare us with the sophmoric humor, one jerk is enough.

Oooo, that really hurts... 	<SARCASM, written in big bold letters
				 so even the most foolish will understand>


>	As for inferior morality, when I read this... thats when my BS
>detector hit its max and blew up. Which morality is this we are referring

Get a new detector.... however, I doubt it'll help.  It's the thing behind
the detectorr that makes the difference. 

>	Is Dwight dead yet? Excuse my ramblings, let me not digress... I have
>plenty of ammo left.
Almost... but heck, I was on a roll, and he gave me soo much material to work
with.

>	Hold on a sec Bill, your logical arguments are beginning to fade
>here. Who stole China's self-esteem? According to Lu Shen China caused its
>own internal problems, and 
[Lu Shen qualifications deleted]
>in China when it hit bottom. He felt China's problems were due to it's own
>self-neglect, Chinese were numb to what was happening to them in some
>instances.
Ah, I see the problem, I HAD so much fun pretending to be Dwight I lost
myself there for a sec.  Let me see.... taking away our pride... oh yes,
I think I was speaking about the Chinese people in general, not
the few specific people who really held power.  Let me rephrase then:
Because they (the whites) and the Manchus and the other Manchurian corrupt
officials who let the Empire go to hell took away our (the Chinese people,
who never really had power because we're culturally generally not power 
hungry... Taoism, Buddhism, etc.etc.etc.) pride.

>	I don't know who you hang out with but let me tell you this, Chinese
>history is full of the same SH*T that went on in Europe and America. I hear 
[deleted]

NO WAY!  Wow, I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA.   NOT.
Let's see..... Kings, Emperors, Monarchies.... hmmm, could it be that
only a handful of people were actually ruling?   Could it be that the
same SH*T that you so aptly point out happen because of the lack of
"Democracy" (In the idealistic sense, not the BS that one get, which
is more aptly re-labeled Beauracrasy).... But let us look at European
history, now that you mention it.  Rome, that's an easy one.
Corruption all over the place.  Yet, the Roman's were proud.  Why?
Never conquered (until towards the end... by the Church, no less)
Let's look at something closer to this era.... The French.  Boy where
they Proud while Napolean was winning.... corruption? yeah it existed.
People being killed?  Tons.  National Pride?  Yup.  Why?  well, until
the attempt at Moscow, Napolean was undefeated.  Did they lose their
pride after Moscow?  I'd say they did.
Or howabout college?  Big Game, Cal vs. Stanford.  School pride ran
rampant throughout both schools.  Until Cal lost, (again).  Bye, Pride.
So, did the corrupt Chinese officials cause a lost in pride?  I don't
think so.  The inept Chinese officals, however, did. 

[How great a comunity USB is]
hey that's great.


>	But we do generalize about others evilness don't we? Hmmm, my racism
>detector is beginning to hum.
It is?  GET A NEW DETECTOR.

>> We don't even generalize about Caucasian-cu and it's evilness.
>
>	Wait a sec, then what was the biz about inferior morality? Now you
>really got me confused. Will the real Billy Chan please stand up!
Sh*t, man, are you really that oblivious to sarcasm, or must I really
put <Sarcasm> all over the fu*king place?   (btw, I barely ever cuss,
as those who know me will attest.  Why?  Can't pronounce '*'s)

>> We just say, they're nice people, sure, but we'd rather marry our own
>> people.
<note, not being sarcastic there, for those who's 'detector's are over-
sensitive, or who's 'detector's are oblivious...>
>
>	But what if they don't, does this make THEM a bad asian/Chinese?
DID I SAY THAT?  OBVIOUSLY NOT.

>Obviously not. To each his own, if Dwight wants to be caucasion, let him?
I already answered this in an 'earlier' post...

>	Dwight writes..
>>>But naturally, Chinese-cu jerks think that this is okay and normal.
>	First off, they ain't jerks, second, its not, I am sorry to
>tell you this, but that is reality Dwight, people feel what they feel.
>You nor I have the right to tell them what they should think and calling
>them "jerks" isn't going to win any brownie points with'em, I submit
>Billy boy as my proof.

Thanks, finally, something that's shows that you do understand somewhat.
(I'm reading your submission of me as proof to be: Proof that calling
us 'jerk's really irk us)
>
>(continuing Dwight's diatribe)
>>>50 or so posts to this group; not one of those posts accuses Mr. Chan's
>>>parents of being morally depraved.  However, if you go back to those posts
>
>	There is a new vision among the younger generation that believes
>in tolerance. This too includes understanding. EVEN ones owns parents, for
>better or worse. Mr. Chan's parents may have a traditional view, this does
>not make them depraved, it simply points out that they were born in a different
>time, when tolerance and compassion were in short supply. (although some days
>I believe its beginning to happen again).
YES!  ANother good point!  Wow, my impression of you begin to change...
guess it's my lack of flagging <sarcasm> that did you in.
However, you're right, tolerance seem to be runniing on the low side.
I submit the RodneyKingFiasco as item A.

>
>>about Caucasian-ge men, you will find that many of those posts denounce 
>>Caucasian-ge men (and Chinese-ge women who go out with them) as being morally
>>depraved.

I wrote this?  I think you're missing a set of '>' there, Mr. Johnfel.
I hope so, since Dwight was saying "However, if you go back to those posts"
and seems like it picks up with "about Caucasian-ge men, you will..."

>
>	This too offends me greatly. I have seen Chinese/Japanese/Korean
>girls/guys on campus with few same nat. friends because of this interrac. situ.
>I think it is offensive, these are good people. And they certainly aren't
>depraved. And if a bit of interracial lust tickles their fancy, fine with me.

Woah!...what interrac. situ.?  What's offending you?  Dwight's statement
or what you've seen (ie. denouncement of interracial marriages?)

>>HEY, Are you that much of an imbecile or do you not realize this is
>>Soc.culture.asian.american.  Take a good look at the name. ASIAN AMERICAN.
>
>	Ohhhhhhhhhh, name calling, very very chic Bill, whats next a lynch
>mob?
True, I did say once that calling names don't  achieve anything.  However,
it does vent out some anger, and gets the point across that I was
irritated/irked/angry.

>	Elitist swine..... 8)
HAHAHAHAHAAHA  good one.

>>Dwight, Mr.Caucasian-ge who thinks like the Nazi's, out to destroy all
>>Chinese-ge out of hand, GO BACK TO soc.culture.KKK.
>
>	Oh, ok, thats pretty good too. (shucks, no lynching).
Does that mean that you _do_ understand my sarcasm?   

[Domino theory deleted to ssave what space I can spare :)]
>non-related garbage) (Gee, I guess I'm one of the jerks? Nahhhh)
Nah.

>	Do us a favor Bill, stick to the logic arguments, your personal
>attacks are stupid and petty, you aren't petty are you?
Nope... pissed is more like it. :)

>Dwight writes..
>>these Chinese-cu boys is that they think that they own Chinese-ge women
>
>	This IS very true, mind you, not all Chinese-ge, just the few who can't
>accept reality, or grew up in some distant village, City-Folk seem a little
>more tolerant (at least in my experience).
Something that's true only in a few cases shouldn't be "very true", right?

>>supply of Chinese-ge women is being diminished by the Caucasian-ge men.
>>That's the essential truth of the matter.
>
>	Correct in a way, considering that this is not China, there are X
>amount of Chinese ladies and X amount of Chinese gentlemen, since I assume
>it is harder for AMs to find CFs then AFs to find CMs (or more precisely CMs
>to find AFs willing to date them). I would say there is a slight gap here.
>Wouldn't that worry you? Lets face it, every body wants to be loved, from
>the most efeminate (sp) man to the most gung-ho-macho-dude (even though he
>hates to admit it, even to himself "the jerk"), and if you only want a
>specific type of person, and that person is quickly becoming a non-option
>for you, wouldn't that piss you off?
>
>
>Still Bill... (ho hum)
>>supply of women _is_ being diminished by the Caucasian-ge men, so he 
>
>	Now that I'd like to see, dream on.....
even though you just stated above that this is correct?  I fail to
understand you, Mr. Johnfel, as you clearly failed in understanding me.
Or do you think I was speaking about China?  Nope, I'm still in SCAA,
so I speak only about SCAA, not SCC.

>	Hmmmm, more personal attacks eh, running out of ammo eh Bill?
Nope, had to go study for a final.

>>Dwight: Commit suicide, and I hope next time, for your sake, you become
>>	Caucasian-ge.
again...<sigh>  why do I even bother explaining.  If you can't see
my sarcasm, I guess you never will.  Or do you really think I'm such
a heartless guttersnipe?  Oh well, can't change your views for you.

>>[about my final]
>
>	I hope you pass.
probably won't.  Replying to this has cost me 2:45 hours of sleep...
but then again, this was fun.   NOT!

>	For those intelligent enough to at least find some middle ground
>and simply accept things at face value, I applaud you, you have taken
>a major step forward.

AH, that's the problem, you took me at Face value, where taking someone
at face value totally misses the point.

>	I am no great philospher, nor do I intend to convey and aire
>of superiority, as I certainly am not. And I have no illusions that this
>post will end the bickering. :(
Too bad, you did.  Nice disclaimer though. 

>PS- Let the flames begin, I'm wearing my asbestos undies.
Nah, let's get back to a real discussion.  Why did Clare have to write
me to tell me that she was only being sarcastic in her post about my
parents?  <sigh>  Why was I so curious as to see what she was responding
to? <sigh>  Why do I only have 3 hours of sleep before a final?  <sigh>
Why am I whining?  My answer?  I'm only human. :) 
(not like most of you care anyway :)

Eeeks...long .sig deleted... haven't you people heard about the
netiquette of 4 lines only?  then again, who am I to talk about netiquette.

Billy H. Chan <bhchan@soda.berkeley.edu>  posting from danube because
I missed Mr. Johnfel's post the first time.  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american