Did I mention that or did you assume it?
Neither.
That question wasn't rhetorical. I really do want to know the answer to it, but I make no assumptions about your impression at all.
Allow me to explain.
Since the portion of my post that you quoted in post #98 was merely an explanation of
why my previous question was rhetorical. In essence, I was explaining why the question in question was asked for effect and not for a formal answer. Typically with rhetorical questions the answer is obvious, and I admit that in this case I assumed that anyone who read the question would be aware that the answer to it was obvious.
However, you pointed to that same obvious answer as evidence that I fail at comprehension. You even said that it was
where I failed at comprehension.
The only way on an Earth where intelligent thought can exist where
that could be the exact point where I failed at comprehension is if that presumably obvious answer was actually incorrect (or at least assumed to be incorrect by the person making the claim that this was the place where I failed at comprehension).
Thus, I felt it necessary to ask a direct question about your presumptive belief that Byrd and Duke helped the Spooners keep their farm.
If that is your presumptive belief, then I would then ask for evidence of these two actually helping the Spooners save their farm under the primary assumption that somehow my information is incorrect regarding their lack of assistance with regard to the Spooner farm.
But if that
isn't your presumptive belief, then I must hope beyond hope that it was all some sort of subtly brilliant form of self-effacing humor because, frankly, the alternative is a disturbing indictment of our education system.
Now, one could say that your red herring question that triggered this particular exchange was based on your own belief that there is some sort of systemic injustice in our country with regards to a double standard regarding accusations of racism.
One could
even say that this primary belief of yours has some degree of merit in some cases. Just not
this case.
The sad truth is that your adherence to this belief in
this case is not founded on actual evidence.
In fact, it can only exist in an absence of the evidence because the real reason people are defending Shirley Sherrod in
this case is because she
did ultimately put forth
as much effort as she could bear in favor of the Spooners to a degree that actually
saved their farm.
While the discussion of your perceptions of a systemic injustice base don a double standard may make for an interesting discussion in general, it provides for a piss poor argument against this particular woman because it can only be brought into the discussion when one is devoid of any knowledge of this particular case.
So, in essence, while your arguments may have merit in some other context, they are a variation of the "Chewbacca defense" when it comes to
this discussion.
"Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?.... No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense!"