View Single Post
Old
03-09-2013, 11:03 PM
  #370
Wingsfan2965*
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
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.
Black was referring to the fact that the NHL is reaching a demographic that it has previously not been very good at reaching, which, in part, is due to the Southern expansion. The phrase "Anti-Southern expansion" is exactly that, a geographic phrase, referring to the people who don't believe hockey belongs in the south. The fact that a Texas born African American is a top draft prospect is a testament of the fact that it has/is working.

So maybe you could quit trying to turn my basic post of "The Anti-Southern expansion group really must be upset because of the expansion showing success" into "The Anti-Southern expansion group must hate Jones because he's black."

Wingsfan2965* is offline