From: jpak@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Pak)
Subject: Re: One white boy
Summary: There's no need for talk that deepens old wounds!!!
Keywords: World peace, harmony, brothers-in-arms
Reply-To: jpak@manute.sps.mot.com (Kinder and Gentler Jim)
Organization: Motorola Inc.  Austin, Tx.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 00:41:30 GMT

In article <23445@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (jj, clueless old white boy) writes:
In article <1992Aug12.224309.16606@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jpak@manute.sps.mot.com writes:
>>[in response to Mr. Bradshear]
>>
>>BTW, yours is predictable reply #6.  Thanks, I'll make sure to add this one
>>next time I argue with JJ.
>
>Thanks for admitting that you don't bother to respond to JJ,
>you just show your utter lack of respect for my humanity by
>using any old excuse you can invent to attack me (and, it seems,
>others who DARE to disagree with your highness).

Well, well!!  I read this just a few minutes after I sent out that post
complimenting you on your very nice reply to Mr. Quan's questions.  This
is the thanks I get!!  But don't mind me, sir, a very famous person once
said, "If a man strikes you on one cheek, turn around and offer him the
other."  That's the law I believe in, and the one I've followed devoutly
for the large portion of my adult life!!

As for my rather flippant remark above about arguing with you in the future,
I am very grieved that you took offense to it.  I am sorry.  I was merely
trying to inject a flippant comment and should have added a liberal dose of
smileys to it.  It is a very similar mistake to the one made by a certain
Mr. Martin, who unfortunately, I had the great misfortune of reacting to
his remarks much the way you reacted to mine.  No offense, aye James?

As for the larger charge, I grievously beg to differ.  I have not in general
attacked you in the past out of sheer arbitrariness or because I disregarded
your humanity.  I did so because in my former hot-headed state I was genuinely
upset at some of the tones of your postings that seemed to come off to me as,
well, pardon my frank language, ahem, holier-than-XXXX.  No need to spell it
out!!  (My face is turning red now!)

However, I apologize profusely if any such rhetoric on my end in the past
has been interpreted on your end as a denial of your humanity.

>Face it, Pak, every time you cheat at rhetoric, you show more
>and more people your real agenda, and that's demeaning us
>clueless white boys.  I think you use "boy" the same way
>an old southern "gentleman" does, you know.

Sir JJ, in the future, I will not again make the mistake of adding flippant
comments about yourself in any of my writings without a liberal dose of
smileys, lest you again make a (very honest, I might add) misinterpretation
of the meaning of those remarks.

As for my real agenda, I believe both you and Mr. Tse had solved that little
puzzle a few months ago.  Namely, to satisfy my lingering hormonal urges,
preferably with a gravitationally-challenged member of the distaff sex.
(Again, readers, pardon my rather crude frankness.  But urges are urges!!)
Originally, I had attempted to frequent professional wrestling matches, as
was helpfully suggested by a member of this esteemed newsgroup.  But when
that method bore no fruit, I attended my first session at the local Jenny
Craig offices.  (Not just to meet "distaffs," mind you, but to also shed a
few "nasties" around my waistline!!)  And might I add, presto!!!  Bingo!!!
I've never felt so popular in my entire adult male life!!  My agenda has
been greatly "satisfied," if you know what I mean.  :-) :-) :-)  And to the
good of this entire newsgroup, I might add!!

[Disclaimer:  I am not in any way affiliated with the Jenny Craig Corporation.
 I am merely a satisfied customer.]

As for the use of the term "boy," oh no, I mean to demean nobody in the
manner of an old-style southern gentleman!! (some of whom I've had the proud
honor to meet in my encounters in my proud home state of Texas!)  I merely
used the term so that male members of the Caucasian race who possessed a good
deal of maturity could instantly and laughably discern that the term "boy"
clearly delineated a type of rather childish male that most emphatically did
not apply to them.  In the past, I believe you had shown dissatisfaction
with the tendency of others to use the terms "white men" or "CMs" too broadly.
By using the term "boy," a term which tends to denote a younger or more
immature male, instead of the term "man" or the more generic term "guy," I
was simply taking great pains not to offend the great majority of Caucasian
male readers who (1) read this newsgroup, (2) possess great maturity, and
(3) hold no foolish stereotypes against members of the Mongoloid race, be
they female or even male.

I hope those fellows out there will see that the purpose of my using that
rather offensive term (meaning boy) was to not lump them with others who may
be less mature than themselves.  I am rather grieved that you, JJ, could not
see this, especially since an explanation was given by myself and directed
specifically to you in that very posting.  In any event, my apologies!  I
will attempt very hard in the future to resolve even those kind of
discrepancies.

Cheers, and may you all have a very good evening!!

Kinder and Gentler Jim
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american