You turned the discussion to the issue of whether Jim Robinson had made it clear that posting their screen names should not be done. I asked you to give us a link to his post saying that. So far, you have not done so.
That’s the point under discussion.
BTW, after reading those comments, my opinion is that, though I wouldn’t have posted those things, it’s a tempest in a teapot. The replies should have been reported and removed, but I think it was overkill to zot the entire thread.
And Parry’s article was a classic example of Parry’s misrepresentation of facts and figures. He apparently cannot control himself and be restrained by rational thought.
Obviously, I misunderstood. As far as I know, Jim has not prohibited anyone from posting the names. But I don't feel it's my place to do so. The links in 243 provide enough information to form an opinion.
I agree, but I believe the reason the thread was removed was to keep the mods from having to babysit it for the next three days or however long it was going to garner attention. We could have been deluged with troll comments as the story spread.
“A typical street whore.” “A bunch of ghetto thugs.” “Ghetto street trash.” “Wonder when she will get her first abortion.”
I don’t see where these comments are racially charged. To be racially charged, one must assume that only black women can be street whores, that only black families can be ghetto thugs, and so on and so forth. We know that this is not the case.
” BTW, after reading those comments, my opinion is that, though I wouldn’t have posted those things, it’s a tempest in a teapot.”
I would have to agree with your assessment, much ado about nothing. Though the original comments were harsh in nature, they merely scrape away the patine of subtle gentility.