how
help me
30 Answers
Tell us James!
If it's just a short quote, I just copy and paste it into the message, as I have done here. I italicize it to make clear that it is a quotation. If you want to quote more complicated sections, you just delete the parts you don't want, making sure to leave in the final "blockquote" and any divisions (div) that you want. If it doesn't come out how you expected, you can immediately edit the post, adding carriage returns, etc.
Tell us James! I'll give it a try now & see what happens.
James Santiago said:
If we keep this up, each post is going to take up a page, truce?
Do you guys know how to crop quotations? It's not as easy on this forum as on others where I am a member, but it's not that difficult.
James Santiago said:
If we keep this up
Do you guys know
Is it like this'
I am indian, am also an american, you all can call me anything you want, just don't call me late for lunch.
If we keep this up, each post is going to take up a page, truce'
Do you guys know how to crop quotations? It's not as easy on this forum as on others where I am a member, but it's not that difficult.
samdie said:
Eddy said:
samdie said:
Eddy said:
James Santiago said:
As far as I know yes. I had no idea that it was politically incorrect. I suppose that Aborigine is now no longer correct in Australia and they are now native Australian. I detect sarcasm in there. I'm no fan of useless political correctness, but I hope you'll agree that "red Indian" really isn't very flattering. I mean, it's silly to call them Indians (the fact that we did so in this country for centuries notwithstanding), and saying that they are "red" Indians seems, well, insensitive at best. Political correctness is like most things in life; it is wonderful in moderation, but annoying in excess. Most blind people I have spoken with hate names such as "visually challenged," and prefer to be called blind, for instance. However, there are other monikers that could well stand to be improved on, and I think the present term is a perfect example of that.
Hi James
Your radar is completely "off beam". I have never been a lover of sarcasm, unless it is "veiled" by a sense of comedy which to me dilutes or even negates the sarcastic element. In hindsight, I can see why you thought my comment was meant to be sarcastic but it was just stating what I thought would be a fact in the light of your "Native American" information. Political correctness also annoys me. During the 50/60's we had a large influx of immigrants from some of the Caribbean Islands, we were told it was incorrect to call them "black", it was insulting, they were "coloured". Then some years later, coloured became insulting and they were now to be called black. Political correctness means Whatever buzz word of the day takes their fancy. When I said Red Indians, that is what I was taught from the age that I began to speak. There was no intention of racism on my part.
PS: I just typed "Red Indians" in google and got 126,000 hits.
This from the guy who earlier today provided us with the funny (but sarcastic) comment about "innumeracy" (my word, not yours [well, not exactly my word]) in this forum?
I do not consider my comment about percentages to be sarcastic but a comical aside. I do consider, howoever, your comment to be sarcastic.
Aw shucks! I, too, intended my comment to be a comical aside.
Aw shucks then, you failed. If we keep this up, each post is going to take up a page, truce'
Eddy said:
samdie said:
Eddy said:
James Santiago said:
As far as I know yes. I had no idea that it was politically incorrect. I suppose that Aborigine is now no longer correct in Australia and they are now native Australian. I detect sarcasm in there. I'm no fan of useless political correctness, but I hope you'll agree that "red Indian" really isn't very flattering. I mean, it's silly to call them Indians (the fact that we did so in this country for centuries notwithstanding), and saying that they are "red" Indians seems, well, insensitive at best.
Political correctness is like most things in life; it is wonderful in moderation, but annoying in excess. Most blind people I have spoken with hate names such as "visually challenged," and prefer to be called blind, for instance. However, there are other monikers that could well stand to be improved on, and I think the present term is a perfect example of that.
Hi James
Your radar is completely "off beam". I have never been a lover of sarcasm, unless it is "veiled" by a sense of comedy which to me dilutes or even negates the sarcastic element. In hindsight, I can see why you thought my comment was meant to be sarcastic but it was just stating what I thought would be a fact in the light of your "Native American" information. Political correctness also annoys me. During the 50/60's we had a large influx of immigrants from some of the Caribbean Islands, we were told it was incorrect to call them "black", it was insulting, they were "coloured". Then some years later, coloured became insulting and they were now to be called black. Political correctness means Whatever buzz word of the day takes their fancy. When I said Red Indians, that is what I was taught from the age that I began to speak. There was no intention of racism on my part.
PS: I just typed "Red Indians" in google and got 126,000 hits.
This from the guy who earlier today provided us with the funny (but sarcastic) comment about "innumeracy" (my word, not yours [well, not exactly my word]) in this forum?
I do not consider my comment about percentages to be sarcastic but a comical aside. I do consider, howoever, your comment to be sarcastic.
Aw shucks! I, too, intended my comment to be a comical aside.
samdie said:
Eddy said:
James Santiago said:
As far as I know yes. I had no idea that it was politically incorrect. I suppose that Aborigine is now no longer correct in Australia and they are now native Australian. I detect sarcasm in there. I'm no fan of useless political correctness, but I hope you'll agree that "red Indian" really isn't very flattering. I mean, it's silly to call them Indians (the fact that we did so in this country for centuries notwithstanding), and saying that they are "red" Indians seems, well, insensitive at best.
Political correctness is like most things in life; it is wonderful in moderation, but annoying in excess. Most blind people I have spoken with hate names such as "visually challenged," and prefer to be called blind, for instance. However, there are other monikers that could well stand to be improved on, and I think the present term is a perfect example of that.
Hi James
Your radar is completely "off beam". I have never been a lover of sarcasm, unless it is "veiled" by a sense of comedy which to me dilutes or even negates the sarcastic element. In hindsight, I can see why you thought my comment was meant to be sarcastic but it was just stating what I thought would be a fact in the light of your "Native American" information. Political correctness also annoys me. During the 50/60's we had a large influx of immigrants from some of the Caribbean Islands, we were told it was incorrect to call them "black", it was insulting, they were "coloured". Then some years later, coloured became insulting and they were now to be called black. Political correctness means Whatever buzz word of the day takes their fancy. When I said Red Indians, that is what I was taught from the age that I began to speak. There was no intention of racism on my part.
PS: I just typed "Red Indians" in google and got 126,000 hits.
This from the guy who earlier today provided us with the funny (but sarcastic) comment about "innumeracy" (my word, not yours [well, not exactly my word]) in this forum?
I do not consider my comment about percentages to be sarcastic but a comical aside. I do consider, howoever, your comment to be sarcastic.
Eddy said:
James Santiago said:
As far as I know yes. I had no idea that it was politically incorrect. I suppose that Aborigine is now no longer correct in Australia and they are now native Australian. I detect sarcasm in there.
I'm no fan of useless political correctness, but I hope you'll agree that "red Indian" really isn't very flattering. I mean, it's silly to call them Indians (the fact that we did so in this country for centuries notwithstanding), and saying that they are "red" Indians seems, well, insensitive at best.
Political correctness is like most things in life; it is wonderful in moderation, but annoying in excess. Most blind people I have spoken with hate names such as "visually challenged," and prefer to be called blind, for instance. However, there are other monikers that could well stand to be improved on, and I think the present term is a perfect example of that.
Hi James
Your radar is completely "off beam". I have never been a lover of sarcasm, unless it is "veiled" by a sense of comedy which to me dilutes or even negates the sarcastic element. In hindsight, I can see why you thought my comment was meant to be sarcastic but it was just stating what I thought would be a fact in the light of your "Native American" information. Political correctness also annoys me. During the 50/60's we had a large influx of immigrants from some of the Caribbean Islands, we were told it was incorrect to call them "black", it was insulting, they were "coloured". Then some years later, coloured became insulting and they were now to be called black. Political correctness means Whatever buzz word of the day takes their fancy. When I said Red Indians, that is what I was taught from the age that I began to speak. There was no intention of racism on my part.
PS: I just typed "Red Indians" in google and got 126,000 hits.
This from the guy who earlier today provided us with the funny (but sarcastic) comment about "innumeracy" (my word, not yours [well, not exactly my word]) in this forum'
James Santiago said:
Blame it on that Spaniard (Columbus).
I'm not aware of any Spaniards named Columbus. I only know of the Italian.
You missed a thread last week in which I was quibbling with somebody's post that referred to him as being Spanish. My comment in this thread was intended as a sarcastic reference to that earlier thread.
Eddy said:
James Santiago said:
Eddy said:
Just had a htought. Maynard might be a red indian and is actually saying hello.
Eddy, do Brits actually say that (red Indian)? In America, it would be considered very insulting.
In the US we say Native American, and while that is by far the most common (and PC) term, my personal favorite, and the one I use, is Amerind, which has been around for a century, is an abbreviation of American Indian but avoids the ridiculous confusion with real Indians (from India), and is not insulting to anyone. Some people say Amerindian, which is a distant second in my book.
As far as I know yes. I had no idea that it was politically incorrect. I suppose that Aborigine is now no longer correct in Australia and they are now native Australian.
As in so many areas, I think that the U.S. is way ahead of Australia in the PC movement. (with apologies to Ms. Sherwood)
PS: I just typed "Red Indians" in google and got 126,000 hits.
Google "nig'er" and see how many you get. Frequent use doesn't make a term acceptable.
And I know that you meant no insult. Amerinds are a foreign concept to you Brits, so you probably don't pay much attention to what they are called. That is perfectly understandable.' I was just trying to broaden your horizons. 
' The reverse situation applies with Gypsies, which are/were common in Europe, but rare in the US. Most Americans don't realize that the verb "to gyp" is insulting. This is just ignorance, not malice, but the word is still insulting.
James Santiago said:
As far as I know yes. I had no idea that it was politically incorrect. I suppose that Aborigine is now no longer correct in Australia and they are now native Australian. I detect sarcasm in there.
I'm no fan of useless political correctness, but I hope you'll agree that "red Indian" really isn't very flattering. I mean, it's silly to call them Indians (the fact that we did so in this country for centuries notwithstanding), and saying that they are "red" Indians seems, well, insensitive at best.
Political correctness is like most things in life; it is wonderful in moderation, but annoying in excess. Most blind people I have spoken with hate names such as "visually challenged," and prefer to be called blind, for instance. However, there are other monikers that could well stand to be improved on, and I think the present term is a perfect example of that.
Hi James
Your radar is completely "off beam". I have never been a lover of sarcasm, unless it is "veiled" by a sense of comedy which to me dilutes or even negates the sarcastic element. In hindsight, I can see why you thought my comment was meant to be sarcastic but it was just stating what I thought would be a fact in the light of your "Native American" information. Political correctness also annoys me. During the 50/60's we had a large influx of immigrants from some of the Caribbean Islands, we were told it was incorrect to call them "black", it was insulting, they were "coloured". Then some years later, coloured became insulting and they were now to be called black. Political correctness means Whatever buzz word of the day takes their fancy. When I said Red Indians, that is what I was taught from the age that I began to speak. There was no intention of racism on my part.
PS: I just typed "Red Indians" in google and got 126,000 hits.
Blame it on that Spaniard (Columbus).
I'm not aware of any Spaniards named Columbus. I only know of the Italian.
As far as I know yes. I had no idea that it was politically incorrect. I suppose that Aborigine is now no longer correct in Australia and they are now native Australian.
I detect sarcasm in there.
I'm no fan of useless political correctness, but I hope you'll agree that "red Indian" really isn't very flattering. I mean, it's silly to call them Indians (the fact that we did so in this country for centuries notwithstanding), and saying that they are "red" Indians seems, well, insensitive at best.
Political correctness is like most things in life; it is wonderful in moderation, but annoying in excess. Most blind people I have spoken with hate names such as "visually challenged," and prefer to be called blind, for instance. However, there are other monikers that could well stand to be improved on, and I think the present term is a perfect example of that.
