Is this racist?

Berlin at night

lounakin wrote: »

= The excuse of closeted racist people who don't see they're just blurring lines and hide it behind sarcasm.
Free speech is a strength and yet you blanket people who are sick of hearing dumb ethnic generalisations that serve no purpose under one derogatory term.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, I rattle the cage with a gentle comment, and WALLOP the pc brigade come crawing out from their rock with the insults. fREEDOM OF SPEECH has been so attacked these days that its impossible to make a point without the pc douchebags screaming racist or Nazi in your face.

That mayor who lost his job over what he said about blacks in his constituency, was lambasted and has his name destroyed by hysterical white-guilt pc moralists. He was never given a chance to explain himself without being screamed at.

I got his point, a lot of people I know got his point, but you people have no ears except what u want to hear.

That is all.

Duggys Housemate

lounakin wrote: »

It's the same, whether it's derogatory or not, you're making a generalisation about a superficial physical attribute. It's the same as saying Asians are good at maths etc... racism is insidious and is equally annoying when it's supposed to be positive.

Asians are good at maths.

Defiler Of The Coffin

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Asians are good at maths.

FYP. Needed italics

Edit: And emboldeness

Duggys Housemate

A good test to eschew ideologies is to apply the intelligent alien test. Would an alien come to Earth see different parts of the world as having different characteristics? Would he, analysing America, work out without recourse to history that it was a nation of people from Europe, Asia and Africa based on visible differences in phenotype from those areas; and would he see areas where characteristics were more uniform as having less immigration and having had a longer time to develop phenotypal and genotypal uniqueness meaning populations arrived there, intermarried, and created a genetic bottleneck. Of course he would.

whether he sees this as race or not is beside the point - humans are diverse. Your eyes are not deceiving you.

9959

franktheplank wrote: »

I haven't been following this thread but i'm gonna throw this into the mix just for the hell of it.

There are those that think the concept of race is racist. By grouping people on the basis of skin colour you're acknowledging a distinction based on skin colour.

I don't know if that makes calling somebody a racist racist, it kinda gets confusing after a bit.

You might be genuinely confused and that's fair enough, but I genuinely believe that the vast majority of people know what racism is when they hear it or read it, it seems to me that some people spend an inordinate amount of energy trying ingeniously to devise or imagine ways and scenarios in which racism can be given free rein, unencumbered and without censure.

Sure, racism will always be with us in various guises, but people are becoming less tolerant of it and more assertive in rejecting it for what it is; mean-spirited, harmful and wrong.

Duggys Housemate

9959 wrote: »

You might be genuinely confused and that's fair enough, but I genuinely believe that the vast majority of people know what racism is when they hear it or read it, it seems to me that some people spend an inordinate amount of energy trying ingeniously to devise or imagine ways and scenarios in which racism can be given free rein, unencumbered and without censure.

Sure, racism will always be with us in various guises, but people are becoming less tolerant of it and more assertive in rejecting it for what it is; mean-spirited, harmful and wrong.

Rather, people are getting increasingly tired of normal conversations being policed by the self appointed priesthoods of "anti-racism".

tfitzgerald

Odysseus wrote: »

Hang on, it is ok it it is used in a positive sense, but not if in a negative. That in and of itself is PC overload/overboard.

I don't understand. If you make a statement about something and its a positive statement that it can be viewed as PC/overboard. If that was the case you couldn't say anything at all. On a side note I nearly fell down an open manhole sorry bout that. i meant to say An open personhole today on the way home from work:)

9959

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Rather, people are getting increasingly tired of normal conversations being policed by the self appointed priesthoods of "anti-racism".

I'm not sure what an abnormal conversation is in the context of this thread, are you?

lounakin

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Rather, people are getting increasingly tired of normal conversations being policed by the self appointed priesthoods of "anti-racism".

"normal conversations'? Really? Rather the musings of 30 year old single men showing their lack of experience and small-mindedness... oh! Don't all black people have big lips? Oh isn't it funny how all asians are good at maths? Oh and all irish people are alcoholics!
That my friend, is the conversations of people who have only been recently exposed to diversity and it's sad.

Edit: I'm talking more in general, no offence to the OP who clearly stated it was more about the perfect woman rather that a conversation about racial stereotypes.

woodoo

parc wrote: »

An example of the girl not actually knowing what racism is. Happens a lot especially those who are never in contact with black people.

If the guy said he loves
swedish girls blone hair/bone structure
spanish girls tans
italian girls accents

would the girl say it's racist. Ridiculous woman tbh

That is it in a nutshell, but as soon as you mention a black person in that context people get all confused and label it racist.

ToddyDoody

If in doubt, the answer is yes.

woodoo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I love black people, i hate black people - both statements are equally stupid and equally racist.

I despair

9959

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I don't understand. If you make a statement about something and its a positive statement that it can be viewed as PC/overboard. If that was the case you couldn't say anything at all. On a side note I nearly fell down an open manhole sorry bout that. i meant to say An open personhole today on the way home from work:)

I'm not doubting that you've heard of such a thing, but if I ever heard someone refer to a manhole as a personhole, I too would think it funny, but I have never heard it so described.

woodoo

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Rather, people are getting increasingly tired of normal conversations being policed by the self appointed priesthoods of "anti-racism".

I'm with you on that, people will jump on anything.

I bet there are some on this thread that would consider the following racist;say you compliment a black person on a particular garment they are wearing suiting their skin tone.

lounakin

Hick1sfm wrote: »

I take it your a fellow hippy with nothing better to do. Lay off the bong and you might be able to read more clearly. I never mentioned anything of the sort. It was your hippy counterpart that brought that up.

Oh that's precious, I shall keep this insightful description from the master of "judging a book without even having read one." I don't think you realise how idiotic it reads when someone says 'you must be...' and proceeds to describe something not remotely true.
By the way, it's "you're". I'm surprised with all that free time you didn't find your way back to school.

woodoo

This is a very interesting quote from the article linked a few pages back:

"Today official anti-racism is nothing more than a form of etiquette, a form of sensitivity and linguistic correctness, practiced by ‘right thinking people’. It is little more than a politically loaded form of policed politeness. In the process, anti-racism has tragically become an authoritarian form of micro-management of the white working class, who it is assumed are constantly on the edge of bigoted abuse and violence".

lounakin

woodoo wrote: »

This is a very interesting quote from the article linked a few pages back:

"Today official anti-racism is nothing more than a form of etiquette, a form of sensitivity and linguistic correctness, practiced by ‘right thinking people’. It is little more than a politically loaded form of policed politeness. In the process, anti-racism has tragically become an authoritarian form of micro-management of the white working class, who it is assumed are constantly on the edge of bigoted abuse and violence".

I'm sure there are such people, but not everyone who is offended by a 'racist' statement is a right thinking person. Sometimes they just feel targeted. I think people forget that Ireland is becoming more multi-ethnic and that we are not all white, middle class men on this board jumping on the PC wagon. Ethnic difference are what make the world an interesting place, but having endless conversations making generalisations is not what it's about. It's symptomatic of an underlying lack of knowledge or rather, exposure and it's infuriating. That said, saying all black women have big lips is not THAT bad.

old hippy

Hick1sfm wrote: »

Re reg no. Only truths I'm afraid

I'm afraid I haven't yet read any truths from you. I look fwd to your eventual maturation and ripening.

Duggys Housemate

lounakin wrote: »

I'm sure there are such people, but not everyone who is offended by a 'racist' statement is a right thinking person. Sometimes they just feel targeted. I think people forget that Ireland is becoming more multi-ethnic and that we are not all white, middle class men on this board jumping on the PC wagon. Ethnic difference are what make the world an interesting place, but having endless conversations making generalisations is not what it's about. It's symptomatic of an underlying lack of knowledge or rather, exposure and it's infuriating. That said, saying all black women have big lips is not THAT bad.

It's interesting that your prejudice assumes "whiteness" here? What does that mean? There are dozens of white ethnic groups and the op's friend could have said he liked blond swedish women and everything would be rosy. Not that all swedes are blond but it is common.

old hippy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

It's interesting that your prejudice assumes "whiteness" here? What does that mean? There are dozens of white ethnic groups and the op's friend could have said he liked blond swedish women and everything would be rosy. Not that all swedes are blond but it is common.

Not all Swedes are white, either.

Duggys Housemate

lounakin wrote: »

"normal conversations'? Really? Rather the musings of 30 year old single men showing their lack of experience and small-mindedness... oh! Don't all black people have big lips? Oh isn't it funny how all asians are good at maths? Oh and all irish people are alcoholics!
That my friend, is the conversations of people who have only been recently exposed to diversity and it's sad.

Edit: I'm talking more in general, no offence to the OP who clearly stated it was more about the perfect woman rather that a conversation about racial stereotypes.

Rubbish. Certain ethnic groups have tendancies to certain traits. But let me explain some simple logic to you. English ( and most human) languages are not exact. The statement

Men are taller than women

means that men are on average taller. Not that all men are all taller than all women. Conversely this statement is of the same form but means something different.

the rich are richer than the poor.

In that (admittedly tautological) statement it does, conversely, mean that all the rich are richer than all the poor. You have to know from context. You are therefore muddying the waters when you say the original is like saying "All Irish are alcoholics" All in not implied in most cases, on average is meant. So all these generalisations are true in the on average sense.

Greeks are browner in skin tone than the Irish
The Germans are taller than the spainish
Men are taller than women
Men earn more than women
Asians are better at maths than Europeans.

In the ops case he noted a trait which is not universal to a human population but more common to it and said he liked it.

The pc police need to learn some stats.

Duggys Housemate

old hippy wrote: »

Not all Swedes are white, either.

In all of these cases I am using ethnicity.

old hippy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Rubbish. Certain ethnic groups have tendancies to certain traits. But let me explain some simple logic to you. English ( and most human) languages are not exact. The statement

Men are taller than women

means that men are on average taller. Not that all men are all taller than all women. Conversely this statement is of the same form but means something different.

the rich are richer than the poor.

In that (admittedly tautological) statement it does, conversely, mean that all the rich are richer than all the poor. You have to know from context. You are therefore muddying the waters when you say the original is like saying "All Irish are alcoholics" All in not implied in most cases, on average is meant. So all these generalisations are true in the on average sense.

Greeks are browner in skin tone than the Irish
The Germans are taller than the spainish
Men are taller than women
Men earn more than women
Asians are better at maths than Europeans.

In the ops case he noted a trait which is not universal to a human population but more common to it and said he liked it.

The pc police need to learn some stats.

Interesting pov, spoilt only by the godwinesque pc police comment.

old hippy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

In all of these cases I am using ethnicity.

Which ethnicity?

9959

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Rubbish. Certain ethnic groups have tendancies to certain traits. But let me explain some simple logic to you. English ( and most human) languages are not exact. The statement

Men are taller than women

means that men are on average taller. Not that all men are all taller than all women. Conversely this statement is of the same form but means something different.

the rich are richer than the poor.

In that (admittedly tautological) statement it does, conversely, mean that all the rich are richer than all the poor. You have to know from context. You are therefore muddying the waters when you say the original is like saying "All Irish are alcoholics" All in not implied in most cases, on average is meant. So all these generalisations are true in the on average sense.

Greeks are browner in skin tone than the Irish
The Germans are taller than the spainish
Men are taller than women
Men earn more than women
Asians are better at maths than Europeans.

In the ops case he noted a trait which is not universal to a human population but more common to it and said he liked it.

The pc police need to learn some stats.

Can you adduce 'some stats' to substantiate your theory that people from Bangladesh, Qatar, Laos, Kyrgyzstan, The Maldives etc. (Asia) are 'better at maths' then Germans, Italians, Swedes, Irish etc. (Europeans), or is your use of the word 'Asians' just another lazy generalisation?

Perhaps you mean people from China, Japan and possibly South Korea, though three countries do not constitute Asia.

"So all these generalisations are true in the on average sense"

Stating that German men, on average, are taller than Spanish men is hardly controversial and you know it, therefore you are muddying the waters by giving us this utterly useless, anodyne piece of information as an example of a generalisation, for it is a harmless generalisation based on statistics, and nothing else.

However, generalisations based on personal observations and sometimes hurtful opinions regarding race and ethnicity are potentially dangerous, so it is prudent to be careful with language in this regard, if you don't agree or find this concept difficult to comprehend, fine.

Duggys Housemate

9959 wrote: »

Can you adduce 'some stats' to substantiate your theory that people from Bangladesh, Qatar, Laos, Kyrgyzstan, The Maldives etc. (Asia) are 'better at maths' then Germans, Italians, Swedes, Irish etc. (Europeans), or is your use of the word 'Asians' just another lazy generalisation?

Perhaps you mean people from China, Japan and possibly South Korea, though three countries do not constitute Asia.

"So all these generalisations are true in the on average sense"

Stating that German men, on average, are taller than Spanish men is hardly controversial and you know it, therefore you are muddying the waters by giving us this utterly useless, anodyne piece of information as an example of a generalisation, for it is a harmless generalisation based on statistics, and nothing else.

However, generalisations based on personal observations and sometimes hurtful opinions regarding race and ethnicity are potentially dangerous, so it is prudent to be careful with language in this regard, if you don't agree or find this concept difficult to comprehend, fine.

Oh look at you. Let's take the last point first, you don't seem to get elementary logic.

I was arguing against the idea that you could not generalise and if you accept that we can say

Germans are taller than Spainards

but also argue that we shouldn't generalise on race or ethnicity I can only suggest that you never please vote again. You've decided, post facto, that saying Germans are taller is "harmless" but that kinda thing is bad on general. That makes no logical sense, nobody is any wiser as to what you think is permissible.

As for the former point, I tend to use Asian to mean Japan, China etc. your googling of other ethnic groups in China misses the point that China is so huge in population it exceeds the population of a few dozen other groups , so your list is meaningless As for the stats they are freely available on the PISA reports 2012.

Gauss

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Rubbish. Certain ethnic groups have tendancies to certain traits. But let me explain some simple logic to you. English ( and most human) languages are not exact. The statement

Men are taller than women

means that men are on average taller. Not that all men are all taller than all women. Conversely this statement is of the same form but means something different.

the rich are richer than the poor.

In that (admittedly tautological) statement it does, conversely, mean that all the rich are richer than all the poor. You have to know from context. You are therefore muddying the waters when you say the original is like saying "All Irish are alcoholics" All in not implied in most cases, on average is meant. So all these generalisations are true in the on average sense.

Greeks are browner in skin tone than the Irish
The Germans are taller than the spainish
Men are taller than women
Men earn more than women
Asians are better at maths than Europeans.

In the ops case he noted a trait which is not universal to a human population but more common to it and said he liked it.

The pc police need to learn some stats.

Bang on the money.

Cavehill Red

Itwasntme. wrote: »

I understand what people mean when they make such statements. It's not racist to say black people have big lips. A great many of us do. It's simply ignorant.

It might be rude (as opposed to ignorant) to say such things in the face of someone with such physical traits. I don't otherwise see how it counts as ignorance, though.
I do certainly concur with you that there are way more important battles to be fought.
Finally, there are green and blue people now? I'll never be able to keep up.

Itwasntme.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It might be rude (as opposed to ignorant) to say such things in the face of someone with such physical traits. I don't otherwise see how it counts as ignorance, though.
I do certainly concur with you that there are way more important battles to be fought.
Finally, there are green and blue people now? I'll never be able to keep up.

Ignorant for two reasons:

1. The person saying it's racist to say black people have big lips assumes that I (and other people who have them) don't like having full lips and that we will be offended. Same as you saying it's rude. If you said to someone, 'white people have fine hair', would that be rude? No. Would it be racist? No. Because it's supposed to be a compliment. What's wrong with having big lips? Fine it's not to everyone's taste (<--giggle) but don't think I am not happy with having full lips or a big bum, etc.

2. It's a generalisation. That's ignorant.

Cavehill Red

Itwasntme. wrote: »

Ignorant for two reasons:

1. The person saying it's racist to say black people have big lips assumes that I (and other people who have them) don't like having full lips and that we will be offended.

No, it doesn't. The OP shows that many people admire such traits. It would only be rude to comment on someone's appearance to their face, and yes, it would be equally rude to do so in the context of commenting on a white person's hair too.

Itwasntme. wrote: »

2. It's a generalisation. That's ignorant.

Ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge. Generalisations are not precise, but the previous page demonstrates a good argument for why they are often useful in conveying concepts.
Fundamentally, I find the dismissal of disliked opinions as 'ignorant' to be somewhat ignorant in itself - ignorant of the meaning of the word 'ignorance.' This was wonderfully satirised in South Park, when they depicted Michael Jackson accusing everyone of ignorance all the time.

Condatis

There is really nothing wrong with racism.

The problem is with racist discrimination.

To refer to racist characteristics is not abuse – it is descriptive.

Itwasntme.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, it doesn't. The OP shows that many people admire such traits. It would only be rude to comment on someone's appearance to their face, and yes, it would be equally rude to do so in the context of commenting on a white person's hair too.

Ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge. Generalisations are not precise, but the previous page demonstrates a good argument for why they are often useful in conveying concepts.
Fundamentally, I find the dismissal of disliked opinions as 'ignorant' to be somewhat ignorant in itself - ignorant of the meaning of the word 'ignorance.' This was wonderfully satirised in South Park, when they depicted Michael Jackson accusing everyone of ignorance all the time.

It would be rude to comment on a person's appearance even if it's considered a compliment? I understand that it's rude if it's a negative and my argument is that the person I referenced in the OP's post assumes that it is a negative to have these traits. That person is ignorant. Ignorant because of the assumption.

Semantics at this point really. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, information or awareness of something in particular. I actually chose the word carefully. It was not a flippant statement. A generalisation indicates a lack of all three to a certain extent.

Cavehill Red

Itwasntme. wrote: »

Semantics. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, information or awareness of something in particular. I actually chose the word carefully. It was not a flippant statement. A generalisation indicates a lack of all three to a certain extent.

Not semantics at all. Nor did I suggest you were flippant in your usage, just incorrect.
Generalisation does not necessarily consist of a lack of knowledge or information so much as a summation of it for purposes of brevity. Nor does it imply a lack of awareness either.
It's not always appropriate to generalise obviously. But that doesn't make the practice of generalisation ignorant in and of itself. In fact, it is often a very illuminative and potent method for conveying information succinctly.

Itwasntme.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not semantics at all. Nor did I suggest you were flippant in your usage, just incorrect.
Generalisation does not necessarily consist of a lack of knowledge or information so much as a summation of it for purposes of brevity. Nor does it imply a lack of awareness either.
It's not always appropriate to generalise obviously. But that doesn't make the practice of generalisation ignorant in and of itself. In fact, it is often a very illuminative and potent method for conveying information succinctly.

Not semantics at all? Really? Are we not arguing the meaning of a word?

You're right about the generalisation being a summation for purposes of brevity but we tend to make generalisations because we don't have all the facts (knowledge, information, etc) to make more informed statements and the result is an ignorant statement.

Cavehill Red

Itwasntme. wrote: »

Not semantics at all? Really? Are we not arguing the meaning of a word or my interpretation of it?

You're right about the generalisation being a summation for purposes of brevity but we tend to make generalisations because we don't have all the facts (knowledge, information, etc) to make more informed statements and the result is an ignorant statement.

'Semantics' has a secondary demotic meaning which amounts to attempting to dismiss a point as irrelevant because it queries the terms of reference. That's the sense I suspect you initially used it in. As we've seen, the definitions are actually quite important, though.
Your definition is strangely circular, in that it actually fulfills your own requirements for generalisation. YOU might generalise because you do not have the full information, or you might know many people who do, but to suggest that everyone does would be in error, and nor would it be a factual summation of knowledge, which is how I would describe generalisation.

seannyboy127

No its not , the member of your group that called it racist is mentaly deficient , am i right ?

Itwasntme.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

'Semantics' has a secondary demotic meaning which amounts to attempting to dismiss a point as irrelevant because it queries the terms of reference. That's the sense I suspect you initially used it in. As we've seen, the definitions are actually quite important, though.
Your definition is strangely circular, in that it actually fulfills your own requirements for generalisation. YOU might generalise because you do not have the full information, or you might know many people who do, but to suggest that everyone does would be in error, and nor would it be a factual summation of knowledge, which is how I would describe generalisation.

This bit actually made me laugh out loud. I exchanged 'not have full information' for ignorant and the result was quite funny. I wonder if that is how you intended or if I am over thinking it. I actually didn't know that it had a secondary demotic meaning but no, that is not the sense in which I initially used it. Neither did I suggest that all people who generalise do it because they lack all the information- I said 'tend'. Meaning sometimes.

And saying a generalisation is a factual summation of knowledge...that is a debate for another day. I don't want to get into now as I have about 40 minutes to sleep before my day begins. I'll be back though. Have no fear.

Cavehill Red

Itwasntme. wrote: »

This bit actually made me laugh out loud. I exchanged 'not have full information' for ignorant and the result was quite funny. I wonder if that is how you intended or if I am over thinking it. I actually didn't know that it had a secondary demotic meaning but no, that is not the sense that I initially used it in. Neither did I suggest that all people who generalise do it because they lack all the information- I said 'tend'. Meaning sometimes.

And saying a generalisation is a factual summation of knowledge...that is a debate for another day. I don't want to get into now as I have about 40 minutes to sleep before my day begins. I'll be back though. Have no fear.

We're at risk of dragging the thread off-topic with this discussion, I suspect. I think we're in agreement that the OP's friend was not being racist in expressing a preference for certain physical features.

Itwasntme.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

We're at risk of dragging the thread off-topic with this discussion, I suspect. I think we're in agreement that the OP's friend was not being racist in expressing a preference for certain physical features.

That we are and this thread being dragged off topic might not be such a bad thing. Although I've heard that people get infractions for this kind of carry-on. :P Goodnight. Or good morning. Whatever. I am screwed either way.

9959

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Oh look at you. Let's take the last point first, you don't seem to get elementary logic.

I was arguing against the idea that you could not generalise and if you accept that we can say

Germans are taller than Spainards

but also argue that we shouldn't generalise on race or ethnicity I can only suggest that you never please vote again. You've decided, post facto, that saying Germans are taller is "harmless" but that kinda thing is bad on general. That makes no logical sense, nobody is any wiser as to what you think is permissible.

As for the former point, I tend to use Asian to mean Japan, China etc. your googling of other ethnic groups in China misses the point that China is so huge in population it exceeds the population of a few dozen other groups , so your list is meaningless As for the stats they are freely available on the PISA reports 2012.

For your information Bangladesh, Qatar, Laos etc. are countries in their own right and NOT "other ethnic groups in China".

"I tend to use Asia to mean Japan, China etc.", what about little old India and Pakistan, or are they too small to merit inclusion as Asian countries?

There is nothing remotely racist in stating that, based on statistics, German men are, on average, taller than Spanish men, that's why its irrelevant.

What I think is permissible is a moot point, I don't make the laws.
However, I do think that people shoud try not to be offensive with language, particularly in relation to matters of race and ethnicity, if this proves to be too difficult a task for some, then so be it.

Would the person referenced in the opening post have said 'big lips like black women' had there been a black woman present?
I seriously doubt it, my guess is that he would have said that he liked women with 'big lips' and left it at that, not out of fear, but out of good manners and common courtesy.

By the way, I can't find anything in Pisa Reports 2012 concerning 'big lips', can you help here?

Itwasntme.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It might be rude (as opposed to ignorant) to say such things in the face of someone with such physical traits. I don't otherwise see how it counts as ignorance, though.
I do certainly concur with you that there are way more important battles to be fought.
Finally, there are green and blue people now? I'll never be able to keep up.

I take back what I said this morning about saying black people have big lips is ignorant. It isn't. You're right. I guess I meant that it is ignorant as a generalisation and not of itself as a statement.

Monty Burnz

Ush1 wrote: »

Same as saying Irish people have fair skin, Asians have smaller apertures, etc..

What what?

old hippy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What what?

Yes, I presumed the poster was using that tired old cliche to show how ridiculous it is. At least, I hope he or she was!

Ush1

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What what?

I was talking about mainly northern asians to be fair. What are you asking about?

Ush1

old hippy wrote: »

Yes, I presumed the poster was using that tired old cliche to show how ridiculous it is. At least, I hope he or she was!

What cliché?

old hippy

Ush1 wrote: »

What cliché?

I think you're well aware of what cliche.

Ush1

old hippy wrote: »

I think you're well aware of what cliche.

No I'm not, please explain?

old hippy

Ush1 wrote: »

No I'm not, please explain?

Asians and apertures. Not going to spell it out for you.

Nodin

Let's just agree that everybody has lovely apetures and leave it at that.

Itwasntme.

Nodin wrote: »

Let's just agree that everybody has lovely apetures and leave it at that.

Are you sneakily trying to let us know you have a lovely aperture Nodin? Huh? Huh?