>>i guess you
>>feel i'm being insensitive to
>>irish women. *lol*
>
>you got it. i'm crushed.

you'll get over it.
>
>i'm not in the dark about
>that, which is what i
>tried to make clear. in
>your opinion, i gave too
>much credit to okp activists
>in assuming that most of
>them also understand this. i'll
>accept that as a possibility.
>
you are in the clouds if you believe that all okp activist are enlightened. that's not a possibility but a fact. the okp activist board is about discussion of activist subjects moreso than enlightenment. everyone brings their own baggage and hangups to the table and let them out here in case you haven't noticed.
>
>you're taking the points i make
>in this forum and putting
>them in a different context.
>because i look at the
>statements of many activists and
>see them as being aware,
>and operate with that as
>a given, you assume i'm
>completely ignorant of the situation.
>refiguring my perception of activist
>to include those okp's who
>don't get it, okay. read
>more books- i do that
>on my own, and i
>don't need your prompt. about
>that pedastal...
>
unlike yourself, i haven't assumed anything. and i don't think you're ignorant of the situation as much as you simply lack overall understanding. and from all that you've written, that much is pretty obvious.
>
>one, my assumptions are no more
>off base than you telling
>me that in verbalizing _your_
>insinuations, i'm telling on myself/putting
>myself in a bottle/etc. make
>no mistake about that.
>
point taken.

>two, fine. you said it for
>no reason, and nobody needed
>to hear what you had
>to say. i guess we
>are both equally guilty of
>reading too much into what
>the other has to say.
>still, my comment was made
>because i felt that it
>needed to be said, whether
>you thought i had a
>point to make or not.
>
everyone needed to hear it considering how black women are both portrayed and treated by society. i just said i was expressing myself more than trying to make a point. you're still assuming i see...
>
>i didn't say relationship, i said
>personal business, i.e., once again
>my "feenin for brothas". i
>didn't say you made the
>assumption, i said some do.
>read.

point taken.
>
>taking another black history course isn't
>going to change my opinion
>that all women are equally
>beautiful, if that's what you're
>referring to.
>
we both agree that all women are beautiful. i said that without actually writing it in my first post.
>
>i freely admit it, and you
>just confessed it. i'm also
>willing to bet that neither
>of us are comfortable with
>that. nothing's twisted. it seems
>to me that you think
>my head is in the
>clouds.
>
whether i confessed or not is irrelevant. both are obvious facts. i'm willing to bet that you're more comfortable in your position than i am. and remember that dead horse? you're beating the skin off of it with the "i'm-ignorant-head-in-the-clouds stance you're taking.

>>i see you intentionally left out
>>the crackhead and terminal cancer
>>patient. good try, but
>>you get the point.
>
>i'm not *with* a crackhead or
>a terminal cancer patient. nitpicky,
>but yes, i get your
>point.
>
once again, you're choice, right?
>
>that wasn't my question, though. i
>ask out of curiosity, because
>who you're with and who
>you love aren't always one
>and the same. and yes,
>i know that you can
>choose to be or not
>to be with someone, whether
>you love them or not.
>
to answer your question: people don't always get with the person they're in love with. or the person you fall for might come out of left field. but the fact remains; you decide to get with that person you fall for, regardless of whether you seem them coming or not. the ultimate choice is yours to make. point blank. whether you like it or not. you choose. if you want to be with a black man, you'll choose a black man. if you want an irishman, you choose him also.
>
>i take no offense at your
>stated preferences. i have no
>reason to. the point at
>which this started was when
>you said that white women's
>diversity is debatable. where do
>i put white women on
>a pedastal? where do i
>say that white women are
>more x or y than
>anybody else? my whole point
>was that nobody should forget
>the value of any woman.
>what i said wasn't even
>in response to you or
>anything you said- your post
>just provided the inspiration for
>a point that i felt
>needed to be made in
>response to the thread as
>a whole.
>
no, this actually started when you replied to my original post. you could've put your two cents in anywhere else on this post. but you chose mine and you tried to make your point when it's a given that white women are constantly shown in a diversified setting. since okp activist are so "enlightened" we would know this, right? so your point was basically moot. and you didn't need to say that white women are the dominant female human species. your rebuttal to my post spoke volumes.
>
>honey, i really hope this isn't
>interfering with anything major in
>your life. right now i'm
>having fun, and trying to
>understand your viewpoint while communicating
>mine. hopefully, you're doing the
>same. this doesn't have to
>involve negativity or personal attacks,
>even though we're both pushing
>buttons.
>
sweetheart, this isn't interfering at all. if it was, i wouldn't give this post the time of day. it's fun for me also. especially considering that you've been caught with your hand in the proverbial cookie jar about five or so times. my viewpoint hasn't changed a bit. if you're having problems understanding it, then maybe your head is in the clouds. i understand where you're coming from. but i also understand that you could've made your point elsewhere, and left me alone to express my love and preference for black women. i think i have that right without interruptions. don't you? and i'm not really pushing any buttons. if i was, you'd know it.