June 22, 2001

12:07 AM

Some of us work on the plantation.
Some of us own the plantation.
Facts are facts.
This hat is for those who own the plantation.
posted by sudama (73 comments total)

What the hell is wrong with these people? That was absolutely disgusting. I would like to spit on the person who wrote that copy. Or better yet have them be magically reincarnated as a peasant farm laborer in Ecuador.
It reminds me of a restaurant I went to in Atlanta a few years ago - someone else chose the place to celebrate a birthday. It was in a restored old southern plantation house. All the clients were white, the servers were black and wearing little white aprons and calling everyone sir or ma'am. In the wine cellar were pictures of the plantation with the slave owners and their slaves out front. The slaves were off to the side, of course. I'm not kidding.
What is wrong with some people that they still get their elitist kicks this way? Is racism acceptable to them when it's expensive and 'upscale'? A plantation is not glamourous, it's shameful. Some people just do not seem to get that. My friends that took me to that restaurant and loved the place don't consider themselves racist.
I wonder how much the people who make those hats get paid by the hour? Where exactly is that line between slavery and gainful employment, again, I think I forgot.
posted by hazyjane at 12:44 AM on June 22, 2001

Yeah, that's the spirit, HJ! Let's condemn the businesses who are providing gainful employment to the "peasant farm laborer in Ecuador" without knowing one thing about the working conditions, how they pay the people, who's working there or what the impact on the local community and economy has been. We should just force them to close down the factories and have the locals go back to scratching out an existence farming.

And let's take a look at the Atlanta resaurant. You see black people in positions of waiters and waitresses and think there's injustice there? How's that? We shouldn't let them have those jobs! It's demeaning! Hey, that restaurant sounds like Anthony's. Was it? On Peachtree just south of Piedmont? If you go back, try the "Soused Salmon Filet", a ring of salmon cured under fennel and leeks, wrapped around julienne celeriac and capers and resting gently upon a bed of arugula. Ahhhh.
posted by JParker at 1:02 AM on June 22, 2001

I'm surprised Mrs. Plantation Owner's hat doesn't come with mace to protect her from the advances of the hired help.
posted by anildash at 1:04 AM on June 22, 2001

As for the restaurant, if people of color aren't welcome as guests, I do not feel welcome myself.
posted by sudama at 1:17 AM on June 22, 2001

Please don't say I don't know about the working conditions in third world countries. I spent 6 months doing volunteer work in Central America with families of people working at the LL Bean factory. I'm not saying shut the factories down, I'm saying pay people a living wage (which would still be a lot less than they'd have to pay US workers) and let them work a little less than 80 hours a week.
Yes, the restaurant is Anthony's. Glad to know my description was so accurate!!
If people are in the unfortunate position of having to take certain jobs in order to survive, shouldn't we at least try to treat them fairly and not humiliate them for the enjoyment of misguided overpriveledged elitists?
No, don't think I'll be going back, sorry.
posted by hazyjane at 1:21 AM on June 22, 2001

By that reasoning JParker, a nice little Aryan Deli (Tagline: A walk-in freezer AND walk-in oven! Har!) would be a fine place to pick up some kraut because, they're not calibrating a destructive culture that treated a race of people as less than human, they've just found a catchy theme.

You're unlikely to see an Aryan-themed restaurant, however, since while Jews certainly haven't had an easy time of it in this country, they were not ever property.
Not all that long ago, Black people where little more than farm animals.
How easy to slide right back into that old shit, just as long as we pretend that it's "Southern culture".

I'll get my fish elsewhere.
posted by dong_resin at 1:31 AM on June 22, 2001

And while we're at it, fuck those ugly-assed hats, too.
posted by dong_resin at 1:32 AM on June 22, 2001

If it is Anthony's that HJ was talking about, non-whites are certainly welcome there. They passed some laws about that a few years back, remember? There were black couples eating there (and Japanese couples, too!) both times I went there. When you extend your sensitivity to the point that you can look around a restaurant, see only white people, and conclude that only white people are welcome there, you probably need to recalibrate. Hypersensitivity can be as dangerous as insensitivity. Anthony's really is a cool place. It was built in 1797, and they have a ghost. And the pastry chef is Korean.
posted by JParker at 1:33 AM on June 22, 2001

JP: It would be really cool if you said “touche.”

Anyway: “Clearly, people want things that make their lives the way they wish they were.”

“This hat is for those who own the plantation.”

“Although newborn, they start out looking good (and old). And stay that way.” T-shirt: $23.

Not my store.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:34 AM on June 22, 2001

dong, my point is that you don't know, so how can you criticize? Maybe jpeterman is doing a really, really good thing providing jobs for weavers in Ecuador. Then again, maybe not. But if you really care, go find out before you shoot off your mouth. Shouting "prejudice" and "exploitation" just to make yourself look like a caring individual is a poor excuse for doing something about the real problems that are out there.
posted by JParker at 1:39 AM on June 22, 2001

Umm, I never said black people aren't welcome there. I said the only clients there when I went were white. I doubt many black people would want to go there, considering the theme of the place is to look back fondly on the good old glory days of slavery and all.
Why does the fact that I think people should be treated fairly and with respect make me hypersensitive? Could it be because that way you don't have to feel guilty about eating that salmon?
posted by hazyjane at 1:41 AM on June 22, 2001

And Cap'n, I'll own up.

Touche.

(But to fucking of the ugly-assed hats, not the absurd Aryan deli analogy. That was pretty weak. The hats are indeed, however, ugly.)
posted by JParker at 1:43 AM on June 22, 2001

You know? The more I hear the whole argument for and against racism and prejudice, no matter where it rears it's ugly head, the more I realize that by even participating in the fisticuffs of the argument, the less possible it is for someone to sound ..oh I don't know.. sane.

I think from now on I'm gonna try to just avoid the topic entirely. I know where I stand on the subject. Bigots will be bigots. Rich white bigots will continue to wanna pay to go to a modern recreation of a plantation for dinner to get their rocks off, and rich black people will wanna go to a modern recreation of a plantation for dinner so they can laugh at the white people. Nothing I say's gonna make a difference. I don't care anymore... and the hat looks dumb. So did the copy.

Peace. I'm out.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:48 AM on June 22, 2001

Yeah, fuck the ugly hats. At least we agree on something. But I like the Aryan deli analogy. Imagine Anthony's with German food, Jewish waiters, and pictures of gas chambers down in the wine celler. Wouldn't happen though, because Jewish people have more money and power as a group than blacks do, plus German people wouldn't allow it. Southern whites allow Anthony's.
posted by hazyjane at 1:48 AM on June 22, 2001

I'm not surprised that the item description was in poor taste. The entire catalog is garbage. I thought it was a joke at first because of the Seinfeld connection, but I guess it's real. The target audience for the stuff they are trying to unload is well described in the Paul Fussell book class.
posted by hwright at 1:51 AM on June 22, 2001

Consider yourself lucky if you can avoid this topic. Some people are confronted with it every day.
posted by sudama at 1:58 AM on June 22, 2001

HJ, I know you didn't say that blacks weren't welcome there. sudama did, and I was referring to him as a potential hypersensitive. But in a nice way.

I completely missed your first response!! Ohmygod. Sorry. Now I understand why the good Cap'n was suggesting a "touche" was in order. Indeed. Er, um... touche.

I respect the conviction you have that enabled you to volunteer 6 months of your life to helping others in Central Am. That is bold and that is caring.

I know there are huge problems with labor conditions and wage inequity in C.A. and S.A., but still would like to more about jpeterman as a company, and their business practices, before spitting on them or reincarnating them as a peasant.
posted by JParker at 2:00 AM on June 22, 2001

My God, JParker, I can't believe it! We are agreeing with each other after a heated debate about racism on Mefi. This must be a first.
I agree with you that I should have found out more about JPeterman's business practices and factory conditions. I was generalizing about them to try to make a point, when I didn't (and still don't) have all the facts. I do know first hand that exploitation of workers in third world countries by US corporations does go on. And I still want to spit on the copywriter because I think that description was in extremely poor taste.
I do tend to get pretty riled up on this issue. I think it's an important one. But I don't mean to be too 'over the top' about it, because I think that's the fastest way to get people to stop listening to you (witness Zachsmind). So for the statements where I probably sound insane, I apologise.
posted by hazyjane at 2:12 AM on June 22, 2001

Yeah, okay, maybe I shouldn't judge a restaurant I've never been in, but if it is indeed a planation-themed joint, I stand by my little rant.
posted by dong_resin at 2:14 AM on June 22, 2001

Ahem. In my rant I meant to say "celebrating" rather than "calibrating", which, of course, makes no sense whatsoever.
Lousy spell checker.
posted by dong_resin at 2:18 AM on June 22, 2001

I promise you, that place is plantation-themed. I stand by your rant too, dong_resin, for what it's worth (hey, I think that's the first time I've ever typed the word dong, let along attached to resin).
posted by hazyjane at 2:22 AM on June 22, 2001

I meant, let alone. Great, now every word I type's going to end in -ong - I guess I'm getting too attached to typing the word dong.
posted by hazyjane at 2:24 AM on June 22, 2001

Yes. Know my evil. (thunder crack)
posted by dong_resin at 2:29 AM on June 22, 2001

Dong, that's "plantation", not "planation". (thunder crack)

Hazyjane, Cool! I think you're right - that may be a first.

I get worried for the good guys. Rebecca's Pocket has this site posted and the opening quote on thier web site is: "Our first mission is to care for those who make the sandals. The sandals are made in Thailand in a clean, Christian-owned factory that employs adult Christian workers who are paid a living wage."

I'd hate to see somebody like that get tarred with the same brush as, say Nike.
posted by JParker at 2:37 AM on June 22, 2001

And of course I immediately type "thier" instead of "their". (thunder crack) ...because I don't need a spell cehcker, that's why! D'oh!
posted by JParker at 2:44 AM on June 22, 2001

where's the urban sombrero?
posted by elle at 4:25 AM on June 22, 2001

this is why I always take my family to dine at McDonalds!
posted by Postroad at 5:30 AM on June 22, 2001

When wearing the hat, one should be sure to wear this apparel.
posted by Mocata at 5:37 AM on June 22, 2001

The "old empire" pitch is just a bit fucking crass, isn't it?

And the point is that the target demographic for this catalogue isn't the retired petroleum agent who listens to Test Match Special while reading the Telegraph, but the kind of people who think that owning a camel-skin coat and a bush hat while driving a Jetta in the suburbs makes them Crocodile Dundee. ("People want things that make their lives the way they wish they were.")

Compare, for instance, this site from one of London's most famous hat shops, Bates's of Jermyn Street, which is about as close as you can get to a pillar of the Old Empire:

Genuine panama hats are woven by hand in the villages of Equador as part of a centuries old traditional cottage industry. The material used is the pliable strands of fibre drawn from the leaves of the Paja Toquilla palm. The quality of a panama hat depends upon the fineness of the strands used to weave it.

J. Peterman is marketing an utterly ersatz colonialism, and that's what makes it more offensive: that a group of marketroids decided that the "plantation" thing was, heh, a neat selling point. What next?

"Pith helmets: perfect for re-enacting the days of the Raj. Cha-wallah and bullwhip supplied separately."

Gah.
posted by holgate at 6:07 AM on June 22, 2001

er·satz [ér zts ] adjective
artificial: imitating or presented as a substitute for something of superior quality (disapproving)


[Late 19th century. From German, literally "replacement."]
posted by Sellersburg/Speed at 6:49 AM on June 22, 2001

Would it make any of you feel the least bit better to know that J. Peterman has already driven itself under once using this same "We're all Ernest Hemmingway and Zelda Fitzgerald" schtick?

I do think, however, that there's a great deal of tongue implanted firmly in cheek in this catalog copy - I should think it would be enormously fun to write, actually.

If, on the one hand, we look askance at efforts to censor the Abercrombie and Fitch catalog by people who think it 'molests children', then shouldn't we also be looking at J. Peterman with the very same eye?

A wee bit of consistency is all I'm asking.
posted by gsh at 6:49 AM on June 22, 2001

I actually thought that J Peterman was a Seinfeld gag before I saw this this morning. Does anyone know the real deal with this company? Some of this stuff is a little too kitsch to be completely straight-faced.
posted by Grangousier at 6:53 AM on June 22, 2001

Regarding Anthony's. I think you would be making a big mistake judging Atlanta by a restaurant located in Buckhead. It's not a racist thing, it's a pretentious thing.
posted by trox at 7:13 AM on June 22, 2001

Grangousier: no one can truly plumb the depths of bad taste :)

I sincerely hope whoever was responsible for this copy is fired.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:35 AM on June 22, 2001

Does plantation have to mean slavery? I was under the impression it just meant live on farm? I know a bunch of skinny white guys who call the co-op organic farm they live and work at, the Plantation (without irony), and they are as skittery as any of you.

I see the disconnect, but is this to be another taboo word?
posted by thirteen at 7:54 AM on June 22, 2001

The hat itself is a crime though. Who wears such things?
posted by thirteen at 7:55 AM on June 22, 2001

Metafilter: I would like to spit on the person who wrote that copy.
posted by thirteen at 7:56 AM on June 22, 2001

Consider yourself lucky if you can avoid this topic. Some people are confronted with it every day.

And you are going to make double goddamned sure of that for us, aren't you? Here, I'll save you some time: "Ooo-ee! I feel that White Guilt (tm) on me like the Mark o' Cain!"
posted by m.polo at 7:56 AM on June 22, 2001

er·satz [ér zts ] adjective
artificial: imitating or presented as a substitute for something of superior quality (disapproving)

Off topic, but this word always reminds me of those screaming ads in the back of National Lampoon (as well as other unsavory periodicals) that would proclaim things like "GENUINE ERSATZ SPANISH FLY!"
posted by crunchland at 7:59 AM on June 22, 2001

The hat itself is a crime though. Who wears such things?

Well, if you go to a cricket match...

But the implication is that you want to act out your Man From Del Monte fantasies.
posted by holgate at 8:18 AM on June 22, 2001

does the word "plantation" connote slavery? i am aware that slaves were used as the workforce on plantations throughout the world, but when i see or hear the word "plantation", it conjures up images of wealth, a large house, lazily sitting on the porch on summer evenings sipping tea, magnolia trees, horses. iow, a gentry lifestyle.

i would love to own a plantation in the American south, but that doesn't mean i condone or celebrate slavery. people who believes that plantations (or plantation themes) are equated to slavery are hypersensitive to the matter.

are western-themed steak houses, themeparks, movies, ads, et al. racist, and do they celebrate the prejudice and genocide practiced against the Native Americans who were slaughtered or displaced in the four centuries since Columbus landed? no. when people eat a steak at the Rancho Cowboyo Steakhouse, with it's waitstaff dressed in cowboy boots, chaps, Stetsons and a holster with a toy gun, and the walls are decorated with lassos and spurs, it's about the "rugged individualism" evoked (and all those other qualities cowboys supposedly had). no one goes to a cowboy themed restaurant thinking "man, this makes me want to go out and kill some indians and steal their land!"

people are really good about forgetting and ignoring the negative aspects of something while celebrating what they considered good about it (e.g. Columbus Day is celebrated here in the US, and he's considered a National Hero™, even though there are protests every October condemning him for the first in a long line of murdering, stealing, enslaving conquerors).
posted by tolkhan at 8:24 AM on June 22, 2001

I believe that the copy that is describing the hat is referring to a Panamanian plantation. Possibly sugar cane.

"The "technology" which made summers in The Canal Zone conceivable. Almost."

The above quote from the description, seems to support my belief. A plantation is just a big farm people.

Damn I need a Mint Julep...
posted by jbelshaw at 8:32 AM on June 22, 2001

I think what also tends to prick people about this ad is it is so up front about the elitism it is supposed to convey. If you wear this hat you sit on the porch and reap the rewards of those sweating in the fields (paid or not), because Facts are facts. It's just that say, a Lexus ad is maybe a bit more subtle.
posted by Sellersburg/Speed at 8:41 AM on June 22, 2001

another attempt to revive the perfect racist symbol. It will sell because people want to make a statement. Switch from spray-painting rodent and mammal pelts to these little domes of grinning ignorance.(Glad my marxist theory course is paying off)
posted by clavdivs at 8:53 AM on June 22, 2001

JBelshaw quoth: "Damn I need a Mint Julep..."

let me venture tangentially here and ask if anyone has a good mint julep recipe. This is what I make at home:

3 shots Gentleman Jack
6 sprigs fresh Mint
1/2 tsp. powdered sugar
1 shot water

Add Gentleman Jack to mint sprigs in shaker. Distress mint (this means crush it up in the whiskey with a spoon, not antagonize it verbally or anything). Add water, sugar. Shake. Pour into highball glass over ice and fill with club soda.

mmmm!

I love this version of the julep, but mostly when I've had them in bars, they are WAY too sweet for me. Especially on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. Damn. Now I'm going to spend the rest of my workday wishing I was in LaFitte's!

Anyway, here in SoCal I have had but one halfway decent julep, at Memphis in Costa Mesa. Anyone care to pony up a good recipe?

Hell, any recommendations for a good libation this weekend would go over a treat!
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:18 AM on June 22, 2001

Kafkaesque: from cocktails.com:

2 oz. Bourbon
1/2 tsp sugar
1 1/2 tablespoon water
12-16 fresh mint leaves
float Barbados rum

In the bottom of a chilled highball glass muddle sugar, mint leaves and water until sugar is disolved. Add finely crushed ice then pour bourbon. Garnish with mint and float rum.

I wholeheartedly recommend the book American Bar for mixologists. It has so much great information.
posted by jbelshaw at 9:31 AM on June 22, 2001

I think what also tends to prick people about this ad is it is so up front about the elitism it is supposed to convey.

But it's not even real elitism, which is why the term ersatz seems so suitable. I mean, they have a pair of $650 cowboy boots that I'm sure would get you laughed out of any gathering of well-connected Texans. Which makes the sales pitch both crass and duplicitous:

"I think that giant American corporations should start asking themselves if the things they make are really, I mean really, better than the ordinary."

It's mass-marketed snobbery.
posted by holgate at 9:34 AM on June 22, 2001

my apologies for getting wildly off topic.
posted by jbelshaw at 10:06 AM on June 22, 2001

>It's mass-marketed snobbery.<

at the risk of drawing everyone's ire and utter disgust, I *like* j peterman, and I linked to the site a little while back.

I didn't take the "plantation" referenced in the ad to have anything to do with slavery.

I think j peterman is in the business of selling *romance*, and if his copy isn't your cup of tea, you should go shop elsewhere. I was one of the ones who used to look forward to the j peterman catalogue arriving in my mailbox so that I could read the product descriptions. YMMV. - rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 10:33 AM on June 22, 2001

I'm as big a sucker for the romance as you'll find. I didn't load up jpeterman.com looking for something to shock and upset me. I'm about to order this shirt because I've wanted one like it for years.
posted by sudama at 11:05 AM on June 22, 2001

That shirt would make me look so fat. I can't do horizontal stripes.
posted by thirteen at 11:15 AM on June 22, 2001

Lots of catalogs sell goods by selling the lifestyle instead. J. Crew does it, but so does L.L.Bean. Abercrombie & Fitch... Hell, MARTHA STEWART practically owns the concept!

If J Peterman's style doesn't appeal to you, then you're not the target audience, is all. Shop somewhere else.
posted by crunchland at 11:17 AM on June 22, 2001

Club soda in a Mint Julep?! Yikes! And no bourbon? What?

The best mint juleps are nothing but big bourbon slurpees. My favorite recipe is included in Walker Percy's excellent essay "On Bourbon" in Signposts in a Strange Land.
posted by trox at 11:25 AM on June 22, 2001

aaron: really.

think for a minute about the history of the fight against oppression. one after another, the larger body of people have been sensitized to the very real problems faced by people with particular characteristics that are beyond their control (race, sex, etc). it's not a matter of "popular" groups, it's a matter of where we are in the history.

if people are mean to you because of you're weight, that's terrible. but deciding that then everyone else has to suffer is nonsensical. the same experience can make you more compassionate, too.

when your group is no longer discriminated against, then you're going to fight for everyone else, is that what you're saying?

or are you going to loudly state that *you* were discriminated against all the time, and it didn't kill *you*, and continue to ignore the problem? - rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 11:31 AM on June 22, 2001

>They're important, I'm not. That's the message I get.<

that's the message they get, too. and no one listened to them at first, either.

I understand not wanting to fight for something if you think you're going to get nowhere, and I can tell you from experience that it's no fun to stand up for yourself (if you're a woman and you call someone on a sexist remark, for example, either they say to your face or behind your back that you're "a bitch". it's not certain which will happen, it's just certain that it will.)

so I don't know what to tell you about how to handle your own situation.

but (and this is what some people like to call political correctness) I think we all need to fight for a world that is kinder and more respectful to everyone. and if you're not in a position to fight for it, then I think the best thing you can do is to be it as much as you possibly can. if enough people did only that, there woudl be a perceptible change in the world.

that's why I don't use offensive terminology, not because it's politically correct, but because it's not kind and it's not respectful to the individuals involved.

but it has to be for everyone. and if it should be for everyone, then you have to be willing to do it for everyone else. - rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 11:45 AM on June 22, 2001

Well, I certainly don't have any intention of going around using offensive terminology in front of others just to annoy them. It's more a matter of just being sick and tired of being forced to hear (again, literally dozens of times per day) how horrible it is for certain other groups, often with the implication that I am not doing enough to make THEIR lives easier, when the lack of concern for hate of my group is deafening.
posted by aaron at 11:49 AM on June 22, 2001

From the ad: especially when LBO-ing somebody back. Or discouraging them from LBO-ing you in the first place.


Uh ... I don't know what that means. Is it just a clever way of saying "elbowing"? Is it the Legislative Budget Office? Anyone?
posted by Shadowkeeper at 11:57 AM on June 22, 2001

I thought it was L33T for "elbowing".

I want j peterman to offer the haX0r 7-5h1r7. - rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 12:01 PM on June 22, 2001

The same groups that have made such amazing strides continue to hog the Spotlight of Suffering.

You have such a way with words.

I'm really not oppressed for any reason whatsoever, and nobody gets how bad that makes me feel! They're all "what have you done to fight opression for US?" Like my lack of pain makes me responsible for THEM. Well until you ungrateful bastards start appreciating what you DO have, you'll get no compassion from ME!

...except Aaron. I apologize for not paying enough attention. Up until now I was picturing you as a skinny jerk.

note to shadowkeeper: Leveraged Buy-Out. Where were you in the 80s?
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 12:02 PM on June 22, 2001

Ah yes, the personal insult, the last resort of the person with nothing meaningful to say but an intense need to be seen saying it. How unsurprising to see it coming from you.
posted by aaron at 1:00 PM on June 22, 2001

It wasn't meant to be a personal insult, Aaron. It was meant to point out that I engage in username profiling based not on sizeism, but on observed behavior patterns.

Would it have been better if, rather than lampooning what I considered to be an obscenely solipsistic post, I had said "Wow Aaron, that's one of the most offensive moral rationalizations I've seen in ages," instead?
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 1:45 PM on June 22, 2001

Wow, cujoe, was that really necessary?
posted by m.polo at 1:45 PM on June 22, 2001

I dare anybody to read this post top to bottom and not be impressed with the general scope of Metafilter and it's posters.
I'm not being facetious. Look at the range of discussion that originated from an ugly hat with some unfortunate ad copy.
posted by dong_resin at 2:15 PM on June 22, 2001

Yes, cujoe, it would be better, since at least the latter is actually saying something, albeit in a way that I find exceedingly offensive myself.
posted by aaron at 3:44 PM on June 22, 2001

Wow Aaron, that's one of the most offensive moral rationalizations I've seen in ages.

Discrimination is wrong, and should be fought against on all fronts. Arguing that you "just don't care" about racism until non-whites stop hogging "the Spotlight of Suffering" is self-centered and sounds quite a bit like "offensive terminology" to me. Saying that you'll care about offenses perpetrated upon others as soon as the victims of those offenses start treating you better is mind bogglingly self centered. Yes, of course, you shouldn't be discriminated against because of your size. Yes, you would think that people who are discriminated against (for their race, sex, sexual preference, or whatever) would be more sensitive to this sort of thing. No, that doesn't let you off the hook. There is still anti-semitism in portions of the black american community, in spite of the strong presence of american jews fighting alongside the black community for civil rights. There are homosexuals who will tell you that all mexicans are lazy... it's wrong. It should be decried. That doesn't mean that we should ignore their discrimination. There are probably quite a few victims non-whites who don't discriminate on the basis of size. Heck, some of THEM may be above the socially accepted "ideal" weight. There may be one or two gay latinos running around, and ... er... well, there's Sammy Davis Jr...

I'm sorry that you didn't think I was saying anything in my first post. What I intended to say was "Aaron's statment represents faulty logic, and deserves to be mocked."

HTH.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 4:37 PM on June 22, 2001

I had a couple of "extra" quotes laying around, and I thought I'd "throw" them "in" since I didn't get quite "enough" in my last "post."

Also, there's an extra "victim" in there... apparently proofreading is one of my other faults.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 4:47 PM on June 22, 2001

i agree with dong_resin!

ROFL
posted by ggggarret at 5:42 PM on June 22, 2001

Aaron's point was made right in this thread. Would the statement, "Well, all this time I thought you were a white jerk" have been made? Probably not.
posted by Zosia Blue at 3:18 PM on June 23, 2001

i believe i know where hell is now.
posted by muppetboy at 4:38 PM on June 23, 2001

"We're fat, we're phat, get used to it!"
posted by jpoulos at 7:49 PM on June 24, 2001