[Matchett-PI]

"The issue is that we have an atmosphere where only black men are considered qualified to speak out on these matters ... And that is the point!"

No, you don't get my point.

As I said before, I disagree with you two as to what you consider to be the "motives" of the WSJ.

What makes you think that the WSJ doesn't think it is refreshing, and rare to see a black man with that point of view, and would want to print what he writes to prove that Jesse Jackson, et.al. doesn't speak for ALL blacks?

But let's just drop it, since you haven't been able to see that the WSJ could have another "motive" other than the one you two want it to be. Thank you.

[okie01]

"I disagree with you two as to what you consider to be the "motives" of the WSJ."

Dammit, I am not questioning the motives of the WSJ.

I am questioning the atmosphere in which they -- and all the rest of us -- have to operate.

Observe that I wrote "as if", not "as", in the post #10 that you're hung up on.

If I've misled you, as I apparently have, I apologize. But I need some help here.

[stainlessbanner]

You have got to be a lawyer. Your posts remind me of the character played by Damon Wayans on "Living Color" - rember the black guy in prison who always used BIG words...