View Single Post
Old
03-08-2013, 05:23 PM
  #363
saffronleaf
Registered User
 
saffronleaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country:
Posts: 3,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsfan2965 View Post
So you took a geographic term and zeroed in on his race rather than his geographic location...

Thanks for twisting that where it shouldn't have went.
No, I am not twisting words.

You said:

"Black and from Texas. The Anti-Southern Expansion Group's collective head must be exploding."

Notice the word "and" connecting the geographic term and the racial term.

You then go on to state that the Anti-Southern Expansion Group must be angry.

I think it is reasonable to infer that the two sentences are connected; the first sentence presumably explains the causal reasons for the result described in the second sentence (i.e., for the Anti-Southern Expansion Group's anger).

If you intended to say that the Anti-Southern Expansion Group will be angry because a highly touted prospect hails from Texas, then you should have said that. However, you intentionally added the term "Black" and connected it to the terms "from Texas" with the word "and."

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you intend to post what you post; that every word in your writing has relevance and meaning. If you want to disregard the term "Black" and the connecting language "and" as mere surplusage that is irrelevant to your post, then go ahead. However, you would have to concede that your writing engages in mere surplusage.

If you also want to construe the two sentences as being entirely unrelated expressions; e.g., the first sentence describes Seth Jones' race and geographic origin, and the second sentence is an entirely unrelated remark on the mindset of the Anti-Southern Expansion group, then go ahead. However, that is definitely not a reasonable interpretation of your text.

So the real issue boils down to this:

Do you believe that the Anti-Southern Expansion group is, in some fashion, against (or agitated by, or disappointed in, etc.) having black players in the NHL? Or is it that the blackness of a player is irrelevant on its own, but when coupled with a non-traditional geographic origin, it morphs into an aggravating circumstance?

I support Southern Expansion (although I think the NHL did it incompetently in some regards), but in all my discussions with people against Southern Expansion, I've never been able to discern any dislike for black players. Please do not cast aspersions on the Anti-Southern Expansion group.


Last edited by saffronleaf: 03-08-2013 at 05:36 PM.
saffronleaf is offline