Fun with a security guard

Tom dinning · Jun 29, 2015

Destination: Adelaide Public Library.

Entry requirements checked. Photos permitted in any area of the library, no flash, photos used for non-commercial purposes only.

So far so good. Besides, the security guard doesn't look like he would cause a great deal of trouble

_DSF4536 by Tom Dinning, on Flickr

A few photos in the old section, a chat to the cleaner, the smell of old books.

_DSF4366 by Tom Dinning, on Flickr

_DSF4373 by Tom Dinning, on Flickr

_DSF4376 by Tom Dinning, on Flickr

Please take note of the woman on the right sitting at the table.

After an hour or so I left the old section via the stair well where I was greeted by the aforementioed woman.
"You've been taking photos of me!"
"I don't think so. do I know you?"
"I saw you pointing the camera directly at me"
"you obviously don't know much about photography .. or my taste in women".
"I want to see those photos. I want them deleted"
"Well, that's not going to happen either way, is it?"
"I'll call the security guard"
"Don't bother. I'll come with you"

"this woman is harrassing me"
"No. its the other way around. He's been taking pictures of me".
"Is that true"
"****ed if I know. Its dark in there"
"Show me the pictures"
"All 592 of them?"'
"Er, no just the ones of this woman"
"No".
"You have to delete them"
"No"
"Give me the camera"
"**** off"
"You have to. If you dont I'll call the police"
"Go ahead."
"Show me your ID"
"**** off".

I must admit I did endeavour to explain the legalities to the three security bafoons but realised they couldn't gather enough brain power to breathe twice. The woman was, by this time, a bit bewildered by it all, possible because she had created something bigger than she expected: ie, me just hand over my photos to her.

Christine's comments as we were leaving:
"You really do look like a stalker some days. Anyway, what's she on about. Thinks she's hot or something. Big arse if you ask me"

I can now add to my list of places no longer gaining entry:

Cheers
Tom

Lee Tracy · Jun 29, 2015

How about a little sensitivity - there are many reasons why people are not OK with having their photo taken especially for women?

Tom dinning · Jun 29, 2015

I have a little sensitivity, Lee; very little.
Besides, it was light entertainment on a cold day in June.

Lee Tracy · Jun 29, 2015

takes all types I suppose, but you might still be welcome in the library if ....

Doug Kerr · Jun 29, 2015

Hi, Tom,

I recently played the security guard in a government office (place to apply for retirement and disability benefits, etc.) in a short play put on by our acting class at the University branch here in Alamogordo. It was a farce about how absurd were the rules, and the way they were practiced, in a government office.

I've been having a lot of trouble walking and even standing as a result of some spinal problems. When the instructor/director proposed to cast me in the part, I said, "I just don't think I can do it." She said, "Well we'll just change the definition of the character so he is in a wheelchair, so it will be easy for you."

I said. "Well, that is very thoughtful of you, but that would be just absurd - the security guard being in a wheelchair." "Yes", she said, "won't that be wonderful!"

The show will be put on again as part of a festival of short plays being put on by our community theater (actually an operation of the University theater department) to raise funds for its ongoing operations, and I've been cast again as the security guard - the part to be played again from a wheelchair.

By the way, Carla will also reprise her role in that play, as the office supervisor. And she has in fact written a short play that will also be presented as part of the program, of which she will be Assistant Director (she is in what amounts to a directing apprenticeship program under the head of the Theater Department, who is ex officio director of all the plays in the program).

Best regards,

Doug

Asher Kelman · Jun 29, 2015

Doug Kerr said:
Hi, Tom,

I recently played the security guard in a government office (place to apply for retirement and disability benefits, etc.) in a short play put on by our acting class at the University branch here in Alamogordo. It was a farce about how absurd were the rules, and the way they were practiced, in a government office.

I've been having a lot of trouble walking and even standing as a result of some spinal problems. When the instructor/director proposed to cast me in the part, I said, "I just don't think I can do it." She said, "Well we'll just change the definition of the character so he is in a wheelchair, so it will be easy for you."

I said. "Well, that is very thoughtful of you, but that would be just absurd - the security guard being in a wheelchair." "Yes", she said, "won't that be wonderful!"

The show will be put on again as part of a festival of short plays being put on by our community theater (actually an operation of the University theater department) to raise funds for its ongoing operations, and I've been cast again as the security guard - the part to be played again from a wheelchair...........

Doug

One of the strict cities in Orange County nearby, couldn't legally stop a lap dance and and girlie nude pole dance "adult establishment" from opening in their high street! What to do?

They added the requirement that the stage be equipped with safe ramps and adaptions for wheelchair-bound pole dancers, citing the equal and fair access to employment required in the Federal Equal Employment and american's with Disabilities laws!

So, as a wheelchair-bound security guard, you're in good company!

Asher

Doug Kerr · Jun 29, 2015

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:
Doug

One of the strict cities in Orange County nearby, couldn't legally stop a lap dance and and girlie nude pole dance "adult establishment" from opening in their high street! What to do?

They added the requirement that the stage be equipped with safe ramps and adaptions for wheelchair-bound pole dancers, citing the equal and fair access to employment required in the Federal Equal Employment and american's with Disabilities laws!

Very clever (not that I am necessarily sympathetic to their objective).

So, as a wheelchair-bound security guard, you're in good company!

Interestingly enough, the theater at the University is not ADA compliant in that regard.

A private theater house in town (once a motion picture theater), recently remodeled, is.

Best regards,

Doug

Asher Kelman · Jun 29, 2015

Destination: Adelaide Public Library.

Tom dinning said:
Destination: Adelaide Public Library.

Entry requirements checked. Photos permitted in any area of the library, no flash, photos used for non-commercial purposes only.

So far so good. Besides, the security guard doesn't look like he would cause a great deal of trouble

_DSF4536

by Tom Dinning, on Flickr

A few photos in the old section, a chat to the cleaner, the smell of old books.

_DSF4366

by Tom Dinning, on Flickr

_DSF4373

by Tom Dinning, on Flickr

_DSF4376

by Tom Dinning, on Flickr

Tom,

The value of your pictures, to me and posterity, outweighs the valid protestations of this lady, even had photography been against the rules of the place. Documentation of life is more important that privacy in this case. We only;y know, now, after the fact and after you finished doing your apparent, so obviously, "anti-socia"l behavior! One could have just have easily achieved nothing of value, apart from protecting the library denizens from your future trespass.

I believe it's one of the jobs of photographers to take risks and shine a lantern on our own lives and on the planet over which we have claimed dominion. We cannot be limited by "rules" that limit access.

As long as no person or creature is actually hurt or objectively humiliated, photography is a long term community benefit. It provides us with knowledge of all parts of our culture and the consequences of our organization and preferences.

So we need "impulsive, self-obsessed, impolite, frankly, "arseholes", to occasionally go beyond the boundaries that "zombify" most of us. Otherwise who would document these important recesses of our way of life?

Bravo for taking the risk and bearing the opprobrium. Christine is the "Madonna" and you are the "savior", sacrificing the remnants of your reputation, (and future access), to bring us these pictures!

This is not said, "tongue in cheek" - I'm dead serious! This is how photography needs to be done and thank goodness that God created arseholes like you.

Imagine, if everyone was well-mannered, (including that little boy watching the Emperor), we'd be allowed to do all sorts of stupid things without ever being challenged.

Asher

Tom dinning · Jun 30, 2015

Thank you all for your most interesting contributions.
The quality of a photograph can be measured by the amount of conversation it can generate, regardless of the topic. That these images and the story behind them would lead us to varying paths is pleasing to me; more so that 'well framed, sharp or leads the eye'.
Yes, I do push the limits, my own as well as others. My methods are often less tasteful than most. Why, only yesterday, I was walking the usual path when a dog being led by a woman on a very long lead allowed the dog to sniff at my ankles and force me into the bushes. I responded by giving the dog a swift kick and the woman the usual mouthful. She said I was 'rude'. Christine gave her the finger on my behalf. I laughed at the rediculousness of the situation. The priorities of people vary widely.
With regard to the original situation, the woman had her perspective, supported by her experiences and beliefs, the guards have there perspective supported by their training and experience, and I have mine bases on my determination to get the photo and protect my rights. When there is a clash of interests each will apply their argument to resolve the situation in their own favour.
I find that conflict amusing.
Some minor points.
I treat women with the same respect I would treat a man. I do not consider they might have different 'feelings' on matters because they are female. The reason is because I DONT KNOW. I cannot be expected to know how a person might be thinking every time I point a camera.Nor is it like
Y to make a difference when and if I find out.
The use of swear words in my everyday conversation is as suggested: as a verbal punch. They are meant to assist in my emphasis with an argument point. It's like finger pointing, facial expressions and body language. I make no apologies for using the English language to its fullest extent in my endeavors.
I am no gladiator; just a story teller. Make your own judgements. I'm on my side.
Cheers
Tom

Jerome Marot · Jun 30, 2015

Tom dinning said:
The quality of a photograph can be measured by the amount of conversation it can generate, regardless of the topic.

That is a dangerous thing to say. May I suggest you kill a few people, preferably in a gruesome, shocking way, and take pictures of the process? If you add some deviant sexuality and a few celebrities to the works, that would be even better. It would certainly generate lots of conversation, so will be of extremely high quality according to your metrics.

Besides, if I may voice a dissenting opinion, your photograph did not generate the conversation in the thread. Only your accompanying story did. Had you not written how you teased that security guard, nobody would have noticed the woman sitting at the table. So the story is good and the photograph less so.

Tom dinning · Jun 30, 2015

Jerome, my dear friend, let me explain what might have been lost in translation.

Firstly, nothing of what I say is definitive. I'm not professing as to how it is; only how it might be for some.

"That these images and the story behind them ...."
With my photos there is always a story. That includes what went before, what happened at the time and what follows. I do not intentionally take photos to stand alone.

My stories and photos are not meant to be good; only as factual as I want them. With that in mind, I also never let the facts get in the way of a story.

"...kill a few people, preferably in a gruesome, shocking way, and take pictures of the process"

Although it might have crossed my mind from time to time, I'm not one to be swayed by an extreme example in an argument. It proves nothing and suggests the author of such extremes has run out of steam. Besides, who's to say such a photo wouldn't create ongoing discussion in the right set of circumstances. I'm a big fan of Wee Gee's images.

Lastly:
"The quality of a photograph can be measured by the amount of conversation it can generate"

Since quality is subjective in the case of photographs, we could use any marker to grade them on. I was merely suggesting a possibility.
Surely its a more useful indicator than sharpness, the lens used or which gallery wall it is hanging in.

Cheers
Tom

Jerome Marot · Jun 30, 2015

Tom dinning said:
Although it might have crossed my mind from time to time, I'm not one to be swayed by an extreme example in an argument.

It is called humour, Tom, my dear friend.

Tom dinning · Jul 1, 2015

Jerome Marot said:
It is called humour, Tom, my dear friend.

It's called sarcasm.
I had actually added a comment about mentioning Hitler in an argument as a definite conversation stopper but I didn't want to offend any Nazi who might be looking in.
Christine uses extremes to bring any discussion to a halt. Words like: everywhere, always, never, disaster, nothing, starving and forever have brought me to my knees many times, usually in fits of laughter.
Cheers, Jerome.
Keep teasing me.
Tom
Xx

fahim mohammed · Jul 11, 2015

I can also read it in the following context..

" The value of your pictures, to me and posterity, outweighs the valid protestations of this lady, even had photography been against the rules of the place....."

Asher Kelman · Jul 11, 2015

fahim mohammed said:
I can also read it in the following context..

" The value of your pictures, to me and posterity, outweighs the valid protestations of this lady, even had photography been against the rules of the place....."

That's true, but a separate matter. I clearly said that Tom's "tale " or or true story was of loutish behavior in using the library as his personal playroom, showing zero respect and flouting the rules of the place.

If everyone did that, we'd have no ordered society.

But few people are that selfish! Those that are form a service. They are spies and discover where the good and bad is stored. They make useless to great pictures at times but that's not their value. That are, in my opinion, an extension of the free press. Lots of regular and irregular sources of information make up ou basis for holding the aithorities to account in an "open" and democratic society. Taken together, these data comprise our only defense against arrogance of those in power as those in authority always assume rights beyond what's just or earned.

Without this information, from whatever source, it would be a dictatorship of whatever "is"! It would be like benevolent dictatorship where those in authority could essentially prevent reporting of the way citizens interact. We need ordinary folk to pierc the limitations of discipline from time to time.

If we hadn't had photographers document whatever they wish, the string of cases of blacks being beaten, humiliated or shot for no reason in the streets of the USA would be just claims by discredited "activists". To me, even if Tom discovered nothing of significance, I want such self -involved arseholes happily snapping away, because somewhere the pictures will be the only way society gets educated about what it refuses to believe.

It doesn't mean Tom is now some saint. He could be a dirtbag - but that doesn't matter. The value of some disrespect and civil disobedience, (all at his own risk), is of such potential benefit to society, that I consider it a sort of "self-sacrifice"!

Asher

Asher Kelman · Jul 11, 2015

fahim mohammed said:
Is racism against the law, in Australia?

Against the law in the USA?, under whose jurisdiction this forum falls.

Hypocritical racists. They must be weeded out, from underneath, and pursued with all legal means at our disposal. A hyena with multiple heads festering and infesting societies with their vile bile.

Weed the racists out.

Inciting to racial hatred is, AFAIK, illegal in the UK.

However, in the USA, folk can hate anyone. They just get ridiculed as is the case with Sir Donald Trump.

Streams of major corporations have discontinued very valuable contracts in response to his slandering Mexican immigrants as bunch of rapists, drug sellers and thieves! He may be the top running candidate for the next Presidential election, but that will likely be the basis for Hilary becoming President instead. Not because she's going to be so wonderful, but this country will not elect an overtly racist and bigoted man, even if the Republicans are blessed by all the preachers and deserve their turn at the wheel!

Folk will proudly tolerate opposing demonstrations on the opposite sides of the street, some pretty damned racist. I, unfortunately do not have complete torrence for such evil, coming from the U.K. and have more than a few times ripped up the placards the fellows were carrying! However, most everyone else doesn't get so angry, the racists are mostly ignored.

Where such hate speech is really dangerous is where there are unbalanced or economically or culturally marginalized people who then become pawns in the hands of the hate mongers. So while we seem to get away with allowing hate speech as part of "Freedom of Speech" with Jewish lawyers from the American Civil Liberty Union suing on behalf of KKK or neo-nazi groups marching through a Jewish residential area, other countries would just clamp down and ban the march. I was used to this latter approach.

I do not want us to actually need the weapons that the US Constitution guarantees us allowance to own and carry, if we so wish.

Rest assured, OPF will not tolerate racism and this has been adequately communicated.

Asher

Jerome Marot · Jul 11, 2015

Could we please all come back to our senses? Calling Fahim an Arab seems hardly a proof of racism.

What did this story start about anyway? Tom photographed a library and a woman was included in the frame (together with other people). The person objected and Tom was less than polite. Probably most people here would agree that there were more courteous ways to handle the situation, but from the picture itself I do not see a picture of that woman but a picture of a library. It's hardly anything to be offended about and, would I had taken that picture, I would simply had shown the back screen of the camera to that person and things would have been resolved on the spot (it happened to me a few times, and this is how I handled the situation).

Then there are the pictures I took at the Oktoberfest. Nobody objected on the spot and plenty of people took similar pictures on that day. Nevertheless, I expressed that I am less than happy about taking pictures in this manner. But this is me and my pictures and nobody else than me has a perfect knowledge of the particulars of the situation. Nevertheless, I took the picture down, I think we had enough discussion.

From this points, things started to diverge and get out of hand, together with accusations of sexism, insults and the weird suggestion that photographers should be judged by their mountaineering abilities. Pathetic.

fahim mohammed · Jul 11, 2015

Jerome, calling this discussion ' pathetic ' is your opinion. You have a right to it. And I have a right to disagree with it.

Read the response, which was surreptiously removed, and maybe you too received it; I wouldn't know that but I did receive it.

Just shining a lantern on cockroaches that hide in the dark. A public service.
The fight must go on to eradicate these cockroaches legally, everywhere they crawl. In libraries, in schools, and in forums.

Jerome Marot · Jul 11, 2015

fahim mohammed said:
Read the response, which was surreptiously removed, and maybe you too received it; I wouldn't know that but I did receive it.

I suppose that you refer to the sentence: The Fat Arab has a bee in his thawb about something. He's goading me. If I feel like goading back I'll do it myself.

It certainly is rude, but I don't see how it could be taken as a proof of racism. In any case, if Tom had written about me "The Fat French has a bee in his beret about something. He's goading me. If I feel like goading back I'll do it myself.", I would not construct this as a proof of racism.

For it to be racism, it needs a generalisation. For example, if Tom had written: "All French do nothing but ogle loose women and drink wine", it would be racist.

You are an Arab and proud to be one as well. You have demonstrated it amply on this forum, teaching us a few interesting facts about your culture in the mean time. I'll admit that I learned a few myself. I don't see how calling you what you profess to be can be constructed as racist.

BTW: you should notice that Tom can listen. He amended his signature to your liking.

Asher Kelman · Jul 11, 2015

fahim mohammed said:
Jerome, calling this discussion ' pathetic ' is your opinion. You have a right to it. And I have a right to disagree with it.

Read the response, which was surreptiously removed, and maybe you too received it; I wouldn't know that but I did receive it.

Just shining a lantern on cockroaches that hide in the dark. A public service.
The fight must go on to eradicate these cockroaches legally, everywhere they crawl. In libraries, in schools, and in forums.

Theres' no choice but to remove demeaning remarks. So I apologize for any discontinuities. Let's get back to photography.

I value everyone's trust that this is not going to happen again without swift consequences.

Asher

Tom dinning · Jul 11, 2015

My apologies to all that were offended by my racism remark towards Fahim. It was uncalled for,unwarranted and demeaning.
There are no excuses, reasons or cause that would require me to say or repeat such a thing.
My apology is especially directed at you, Fahim. Forgiveness is not sought, nor is understanding.
Regards
Tom

Asher Kelman · Jul 11, 2015

Jerome Marot said:
I suppose that you refer to the sentence: The Fat Arab has a bee in his thawb about something. He's goading me. If I feel like goading back I'll do it myself.

It certainly is rude, but I don't see how it could be taken as a proof of racism. In any case, if Tom had written about me "The Fat French has a bee in his beret about something. He's goading me. If I feel like goading back I'll do it myself.", I would not construct this as a proof of racism.

For it to be racism, it needs a generalisation. For example, if Tom had written: "All French do nothing but ogle loose women and drink wine", it would be racist.

You are an Arab and proud to be one as well. You have demonstrated it amply on this forum, teaching us a few interesting facts about your culture in the mean time. I'll admit that I learned a few myself. I don't see how calling you what you profess to be can be constructed as racist.

Very simply, Jerome, on the way to school, even though I was "protected" by police, ruffians yelled "Jew!" or Jewboy", each the statements true. However the invective was one of hatred. Spot it's not the just the word used but the history of it.

My father could say to me, "Is that what a Jew does?" and there he is using the word Jew instead of " righteous good and considerate human being. Similarly we use being "Christian" to mean the same thing.

Words have rich values that depend on other words that they have been used with at myriads of different scenarios.

There's a video by Virginia Wolf on words that gives such an insight to context.

Now racism is not generally used in the USA to apply to the French, for example, as victims. Rather it is more often applied to the minorities and natives of the empires of the British, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch, who exploited the indigenous people they colonized and then add to the the victims of the Christian Crusades, raping and pillaging from Europe to the Holy Lands, first the Jews and then the Muslims, the accepted "victimhood" of Jews and Arabs are added to our list of victims. With the treatment of gypsies or "Roma" in Europe, they would also be readily recognized as victims of racism too.

Put in another way, all the folk who were not admitted to Country Clubs, Craftsmen's Guilds, Professions or rights to vote, (excluding "white" females, pre emancipation) were Colored, Asian, Indigenous tribes, Jews or Muslim!

We have had no knowledge of European-looking folk being excluded from a golf club or law school because they were French, German or British for that matter!

So the idea of prejudice against French being Racist doesn't work for me, but the point is still very well made....and also rather humorous.

Asher

Jerome Marot · Jul 11, 2015

Asher Kelman said:
Very simply, Jerome, on the way to school, even though I was "protected" by police, ruffians yelled "Jew!" or Jewboy", each the statements true. However the invective was one of hatred. Spot it's not the just the word used but the history of it.

The necessary point for racism is generalisation. Generalisation was present in that case, the ruffians would have aggressed any boy recognisable as a jew in the same manner.

now racism is not generally used in the USA to apply to the French as a victim.

Actually, there was a period not that long ago, where it became fashionable to call potato chips "freedom fries".

We have had no knowledge of European looking folk being excluded from a golf club or law school because they were French, German or British for that matter!

Of course there were. We have had enough wars in Europe to call our immediate neighbours with less than polite generalisations about their appearance, customs, imagined sexual habits, etc...

So the idea of prejudice against French being Racist doesn't work for me, but the point is still very well made....and also rather humorous.

Obviously, I only chose the French because I am from that nationality myself. Nothing more.

This being said, Tom has presented excuses, so I do not think we should pursue that discussion any further. It is not really related to photography.

Asher Kelman · Jul 11, 2015

]

Jerome Marot said:
The necessary point for racism is generalisation. Generalisation was present in that case, the ruffians would have aggressed any boy recognisable as a jew in the same manner.

Interestingly, they picked on Jews who were poor and were religious and wore hats or were excused from Christian bible study classes, (compulsory in the UK at the time). They seem to have the smarts not to mess with Jews who were soccer players or who were well dressed. Somehow they felt that then they would get put in juvenile hall, (i.e. jail).

Jerome Marot said:
Of course there were. We have had enough wars in Europe to call our immediate neighbours with less than polite generalisations about their appearance, customs, imagined sexual habits, etc...

Perhaps, xenophobia or ethnic prejudice are more appropriate. The fact is that the concept of "race" is itself rather odious and even, "racist". The features we think distinguish "races", like facial features, are the most readily influenced by simply living in a packed city, even without genetic mixing or mutations.
Skin color and shape of mouth lips and nose and such trivial variations are unimportant biologically. The genes that count are the ones which allow us to survive. But of course, you know this.

Jerome Marot said:
Obviously, I only chose the French because I am from that nationality myself. Nothing more.

Yup, that's one of you most endearing features. I owe the rights to be considered "a person to be counted as a citizen", through Napoleon's enforcement of "The Rights of Man". Of course, I could take credit via a British line of origin, in the works of Locke, Hume and others that influenced the evolution of the concept of inalienable rights of all persons to be respected for their humanity and equal worth.

But being German is also pretty wonderful too, sharing heritage with Goethe and Mozart and Kant and the origin of aspirin! I'd be proud of that too.

Asher

fahim mohammed · Jul 11, 2015

Jerome, calling me an Arab in of itself might seem to be an innocuous statement of fact.

On stressing the comment, which you conveniently failed to ' notice ' the adjective describing an Arab,
you innocently post a second response in which you make up for your ' oversight ' by saying ' I presume you mean fat....' What else did you think I was referring to in the first instance? The fat opera singer?

Racism needs generalization, you say. Given the op's surreptiously deleting the post, which in itself gives an indication of what the writer himself thought of the post, you step in with your weak justifications to what you consider not to be a racist statement.

I pointed out one slip from the writer. I have no clue how many other such statements might have been elsewhere. I can only surmise.

Then you go on about my culture and how I gave some interesting insights into it. Once again you
Skip over the fundamental issue. The adjective. That is where the racial stereotyping begins.

' stinking Jew ', ' fat Arab', foul smelling, garlic eating Frenchman' and so on.

Based on what is available for me to read of the op's posts and the language used and the subsequent
Actions to prevent it being read by the General forum, I can only conclude it to be a racist statement.

Like Asher's father calling him a ' Jew ' would be acceptable to him; but being called a ' Jew ' by a member of the UKIP would not necessarily be so. And me being called a fat Arab by anyone on this forum shall elicit an appropriate response.

It always starts with one. Then two. Then the ' innocent ' supporters. I intend to confront such racism
At the first go.

p.s. after what I thought would be the ending of the matter, you step in and post. And conveniently suggest that since Tom had already given a response there was no further need to discuss the subject.

You should have considered this before you penned a response. That surely invited others to respond.
Not act like sheep and do your bidding and stay silent.

Asher Kelman · Jul 11, 2015

Let me rephrase my comment, above, on "Words" and how they work, wired as they are to so many other words, like neurons in the brain.

Words have such rich values as they depend on other words that themselves have been used with myriads
of scenarios. Real words, thus have almost no full "standing" in dictionaries, just live dynamically
in actual language, where they evoke fine tuned, (even contrary), uniquely, context-dependent meaning.

There's a video I recall by Virginia Wolf on words that gives such an insight to context.

I will find the link to the video, as it is a a treasure.

Asher

Asher Kelman · Jul 11, 2015

Give yourself a treat! here's the only recording Virginia Woolf ever made!

Asher

Jerome Marot · Jul 11, 2015

fahim mohammed said:
Jerome, calling me an Arab in of itself might seem to be an innocuous statement of fact.

On stressing the comment, which you conveniently failed to ' notice ' the adjective describing an Arab,
you innocently post a second response in which you make up for your ' oversight ' by saying ' I presume you mean fat....' What else did you think I was referring to in the first instance? The fat opera singer?

Racism needs generalization, you say. Given the op's surreptiously deleting the post, which in itself gives an indication of what the writer himself thought of the post, you step in with your weak justifications to what you consider not to be a racist statement.

I pointed out one slip from the writer. I have no clue how many other such statements might have been elsewhere. I can only surmise.

Then you go on about my culture and how I gave some interesting insights into it. Once again you
Skip over the fundamental issue. The adjective. That is where the racial stereotyping begins.

' stinking Jew ', ' fat Arab', foul smelling, garlic eating Frenchman' and so on.

Based on what is available for me to read of the op's posts and the language used and the subsequent
Actions to prevent it being read by the General forum, I can only conclude it to be a racist statement.

Like Asher's father calling him a ' Jew ' would be acceptable to him; but being called a ' Jew ' by a member of the UKIP would not necessarily be so. And me being called a fat Arab by anyone on this forum shall elicit an appropriate response.

It always starts with one. Then two. Then the ' innocent ' supporters. I intend to confront such racism
At the first go.

p.s. after what I thought would be the ending of the matter, you step in and post. And conveniently suggest that since Tom had already given a response there was no further need to discuss the subject.

You should have considered this before you penned a response. That surely invited others to respond.
Not act like sheep and do your bidding and stay silent.

Fahim, I really think that your interpretation of the facts is exaggerated and I am simply trying to calm things down. Nothing more.

Fun with a security guard

Registrant*

New member

Registrant*

New member

Well-known member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Well-known member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Registrant*

Well-known member

Registrant*

Well-known member

Registrant*

Well-known member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Registrant*

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Well-known member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Well-known member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Well-known member