Skip to main content

nmaginate, i'm not coming with any deception. it should be obvious that i am a supporter of the NOI - but that has nothing to do with the topic.

also, the brother who was interviewed did not select the title of the article so don't put that on him.

other than that, if you didn't benefit from the info - that makes about 4 of you in this thread but that's still less than the number of people who have expressed appreciation for the piece. so ...... please save the unfounded insinuations and allegations for someone else. deceptive is not my style but maybe it's yours since you want to be so quick to accuse me of that?
quote:
umbra, after getting clowned so bad by nmaginate i'm surprised you're still up in here adding more stuff that is clownable.


I wouldn't expect someone from the NOI to even comprehend what I regard as clowned. When I was in grammar school the kids in Ida B. Wells projects called me Goofus every day. I won a National Merit Scholarship my senior year in high school. There is an expired MENSA membership card in my wallet. I took their IQ test to get in back in the 80s. I didn't have to take the test, all I had to do was show them my SAT score but I took the test out of curiosity anyway.

Nmaginate is always bringing up reading when he is getting on people. Do you think he has ever repaird a class AB, complementary symmetry direct coupled amplifier with a differential input? It has been almost 30 years since I was doing that on a regular basis. I switched from repairing stereos to computers in 1978. I was compiling a C program to do a job for Comcast last night.

You and Nmaginate will have come up with a whole new style of insults for dealing with us BIG HEAD people. You are mostly just wasting your time.

umbrarchist
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:

nmaginate, i'm not coming with any deception. it should be obvious that i am a supporter of the NOI - but that has nothing to do with the topic.


It has everything to do with the topic, especially when you try to pawn this stuff off:

people who knew malcolm and who were there or people who weren't there, didn't know him, and have a bias toward the NOI which prevents them from being objective about the situation

You were PROJECTING. Shango and a number of others said little upon which your label of "bias towards the NOI" is founded.

Now this doesn't have anything to do with "the situation":

quote:
umbrarchist

Nmaginate is always bringing up reading when he is getting on people. Do you think he has ever repaird a class AB, complementary symmetry direct coupled amplifier with a differential input?


lol

quote:
other than that, if you didn't benefit from the info - that makes about 4 of you in this thread but that's still less than the number of people who have expressed appreciation for the piece.


And those who "expressed appreciation"... NOI? or what? Who are you referencing? Please try again. I expressed appreciation for you posting the info. Now what is your problem?


quote:
so ...... please save the unfounded insinuations and allegations for someone else. deceptive is not my style but maybe it's yours since you want to be so quick to accuse me of that?


Nope! You apparently did not reveal your pro-NOI bias. My "insinuations" and "allegations" were validated when you said:

it should be obvious that i am a supporter

You should have said you were as soon as Umbra asked you:

Posted July 22, 2006 07:12 PM
Are you a member of the NOI?
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
You and Nmaginate will have come up with a whole new style of insults for dealing with us BIG HEAD people. You are mostly just wasting your time.

umbrarchist


still LOL @ you, umbra. based on your previous comments you are somewhere around 54 years old and it's sad to see that it seems you feel a need to flaunt your so-called intelligence and educational achievement. is that what you need to do to feel good about yourself and to make it seem that you're somehow better than other people?

what's more sad is that you really think someone has time or the desire to come up with a new style of insults to deal with you "big head" people. still LOL and shaking my head.

and you're 54 years old? you say i'm wasting my time but i already told you that i wasn't going to waste time with your runaround. if i'm wasting time, what are you so threatened about that you're all up in here raising a ruckus?

stop the madness!
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

It has everything to do with the topic, especially when you try to pawn this stuff off:

people who knew malcolm and who were there or people who weren't there, didn't know him, and have a bias toward the NOI which prevents them from being objective about the situation

You were PROJECTING. Shango and a number of others said little upon which your label of "bias towards the NOI" is founded.


well, i disagree with you. honest brother and umbra made their bias known and you even specifically said umbra was showing his bias, didn't you?

when i speak, i'm not just speaking of people on this board. i'm sure you know, as well as i, that there are plenty of other people who are biased against the NOI and speak as umbra and honest brother, and even shango speak.

i still say that knowing whether or not i'm NOI member is irrelevant to the discussion. the topic is malcolm x .... not me.

and again, why use the term of me trying to "pawn" something off - is that what you yourself are guilty of and that's why you're making the allegation toward me?

also, i made it very clear why i did not respond to umbra's question. when folks want to come with all kinds of questions for me but then avoid answering my questions to them, i don't waste my time. i believe i explained that clearly.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:


well, i disagree with you. honest brother and umbra made their bias known and you even specifically said umbra was showing his bias, didn't you?


I said "Shango and a number of others"... That did not mean ALL. You have Shango, myself and ZAKAR and, perhaps, NegroSpiritual. You can't pin an anti-NOI bias on either one of us (which is why you named who you named).

BTW... Sorry rhetorical questions pretty much get dismissed out-of-hand with me. You either make your argument sound or you don't. This one was so weak, you knew you had to beg me to validate you by way of deception and suggestion.

Implicit in my statement was the exclusion of those who registered obvious bias. Please get a clue.

quote:
i still say that knowing whether or not i'm NOI member is irrelevant to the discussion. the topic is malcolm x .... not me.


Nope. You'd done a whole lot of talking about the "people who are biased against the NOI". The "topic" is no more about them than you yet you run your mouth freely about them and the bias they bring to the table. It's only honest and fitting of someone with INTEGRITY to state and own their bias upfront (authors of books, etc. do that all the time, it's like ethical or something) if for no other reason than as a point of reference as to know where the person is coming from and what has shaped their views.

That you see it as something that would be "off topic" even as you've repeatedly talked about NOT Malcolm X but the anti-NOI bias, real or perceived, from posters here only shows even more deception on your part. You want to pretend like your bias doesn't impact your perspective in the discussion that grew out of folks reacting to what they perceived the article to be about. Sorry, but your pro-NOI bias has everything to do with the that discussion. But I'll let you show me how many times you kept the subject on Malcolm as opposed to you focusing on things, people "irrelevant" to the discussion.

quote:
and again, why use the term of me trying to "pawn" something off - is that what you yourself are guilty of and that's why you're making the allegation toward me?


SHOW & PROVE. Don't be a coward and make sissy suggestions. Demonstrate how I'm "guilty" of anything you want to erect as a (weak) defense or diversion from your cowardly, deceptive ways.

State you biases upfront... and clearly especially when asked. It's not that hard and your bias is "no secret" and permeates this discussion you've participated in.
quote:
umbra made their bias known and you even specifically said umbra was showing his bias


I don't have any problem admitting a bias about the NOI. Their "mythology" spaeks for itself.

Look at the technology we are using to communicat on this message board. The problem with my education is that my REAL EDUCATION I had to do myself. The nuns didn't teach crap about science at my grammar school but I built a telegraph for a science project for some public school kids.

Malcom X and MLK were both killed before the moon landing and this technology we are using is partly the result of the space program.

I was on a Black Muslim website years ago called Seventh Family, I think they shortened it to Fam, and they were going on and on about Allah. Any discussion about technology. NO!

Malcolm is DEAD. Where do we go from here?

umbrarchist
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

I said "Shango and a number of others"... That did not mean ALL. You have Shango, myself and ZAKAR and, perhaps, NegroSpiritual. You can't pin an anti-NOI bias on either one of us (which is why you named who you named).


what are you even talking about? what are you even trying to argue about when you came in the thread thanking me for the information? you didn't need to know my NOI status then so why all of a sudden are you acting like you got turned out ... and you need to know? you didn't need to know when you first came in here.

quote:
BTW... Sorry rhetorical questions pretty much get dismissed out-of-hand with me. You either make your argument sound or you don't. This one was so weak, you knew you had to beg me to validate you by way of deception and suggestion.

Implicit in my statement was the exclusion of those who registered obvious bias. Please get a clue.


well then you should get a clue. if there were people in here who expressed bias - clearly - why did you need clarification? duhh!

quote:
Nope. You'd done a whole lot of talking about the "people who are biased against the NOI". The "topic" is no more about them than you yet you run your mouth freely about them and the bias they bring to the table.


please review all of my posts in this thread and then get back with me on this.

quote:
It's only honest and fitting of someone with INTEGRITY to state and own their bias upfront (authors of books, etc. do that all the time, it's like ethical or something) if for no other reason than as a point of reference as to know where the person is coming from and what has shaped their views.

That you see it as something that would be "off topic" even as you've repeatedly talked about NOT Malcolm X but the anti-NOI bias, real or perceived, from posters here only shows even more deception on your part. You want to pretend like your bias doesn't impact your perspective in the discussion that grew out of folks reacting to what they perceived the article to be about. Sorry, but your pro-NOI bias has everything to do with the that discussion. But I'll let you show me how many times you kept the subject on Malcolm as opposed to you focusing on things, people "irrelevant" to the discussion.


YAWN!!! i'm not pretending anything. when i said it should be obvious that i'm an NOI supporter - that should indicate that i know that my comments come across as one who supports the NOI.

quote:
SHOW & PROVE. Don't be a coward and make sissy suggestions. Demonstrate how I'm "guilty" of anything you want to erect as a (weak) defense or diversion from your cowardly, deceptive ways.

State you biases upfront... and clearly especially when asked. It's not that hard and your bias is "no secret" and permeates this discussion you've participated in.


again, what are you even talking about? you've created this great big straw man argument and you're just flailing your arms tearing that straw out. do your thing because i don't have time.

you think what you want to think about me - i don't give a damn. you say what you want to say about me - i don't give a damn. you weren't spitting all that when you came in this thread thanking me for the info but now you've flip flopped in a cowardly and sissified manner. do your thing because like rhett butler said, "frankly my dear, i don't give a damn!"
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

I said "Shango and a number of others"... That did not mean ALL. You have Shango, myself and ZAKAR and, perhaps, NegroSpiritual. You can't pin an anti-NOI bias on either one of us (which is why you named who you named).


what are you even talking about? what are you even trying to argue about when you came in the thread thanking me for the information? you didn't need to know my NOI status then so why all of a sudden are you acting like you got turned out ... and you need to know?


First, thanks for admitting how your "ya'll just against the NOI" BS is just that. Complete BS. I'm "even talking about" how your silly little comments didn't and don't make sense; how you did not contradict or contend with what I said even as you tried to act like you did.

The discussion "turned" away from the article itself and you got to talking OFF SUBJECT. That's why your status is important. Umbra was clear in stating his... What really is your problem stating yours, clearly?

Don't cry to me. I dismiss that stuff out of hand too.


quote:
well then you should get a clue. if there were people in here who expressed biasp. - clearly - why did you need clarification? duhh!


Make your statement follow... I said: "REGISTERED OBVIOUS BIAS".

GET A CLUE and figure out how to make a sound argument not just an argument that sounds...

quote:
when i said it should be obvious that i'm an NOI supporter - that should indicate that i know that my comments come across as one who supports the NOI.


When you were asked a direct question... YOU made a convenient excuse not to answer it. I guess that's what you're talking about. It should have been obvious to me that you wouldn't answer because....

quote:
you think what you want to think about me - i don't give a damn.


Dude, like I said... don't cry to me. I don't think anything about you except for how you've tried to run this game here where you wanted to discredit others for their bias but don't want yours to be in play in the discussion.
Well, I do think you were a bit ashamed to announce your NOI support/membership plainly when asked because of whatever YOU THINK people think about the NOI.

Yep. That's about it. That's everything that had anything to do with things that went down in this thread. And I still thank you for the information and still stand firm on saying you won't get away with setting Double-Standards in the way things get discussed. Absolutely no contradiction there.


quote:



Also, again... What's the title of AWM's book?


quote:
Last edited {1}
quote:
what are you so threatened about that you're all up in here raising a ruckus?


Who's threatened.

The internet is a new form of entertainment. It beats the hell out of television. I normally have 6 forums open in firefox and am using 3 different handles.

The people in China talk all kinds of wierd stuff about economics. I bet most of them never heard of Malcom X.

umbra
ngaminate, abdul wazir muhammad doesn't have a book. what's the name of yours?

also, in my book you've pretty much discredited yourself and my need to even feed into what you're trying to keep going. you came in this thread thanking me for posting the information .... then later on, you're chiming in with others saying you didn't get anything out of it. what's next? are you going to flip flop back to where you started? i'm thru with the game you're trying to run but if you want to keep running in a circle by yourself, feel free.

i've explained my NOI status many-a-time on various message boards but i rarely go against my message board rule that i don't bother with anyone's questions who is avoiding mine. i've been living by that on message boards for a mighty long time. now if you have a need to make up a myth about me making an excuse not to answer a question - do your thing and be happy about it! just know that you have chosen to operate off of erroneous ASSumptions.

you've made some ASSumptions about why you THINK i did this or that, or why i said or didn't say this or that but again, your ASSumptions are incorrect. you're welcome, however, to run all the way to nigeria and back with them. LOL

do your thing N.

hasta~
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
TO BRUSH MALCOM OFF ONE OF OUR PREMIRE INTELLECTS IS SAD.


there was nothing in the article that suggested malcolm should be brushed off. where did you get that impression? there was nothing posted in this thread that suggests he should be brushed off so i'm curious as to where that came from.

what is being suggested is that everybody on all sides of this reflect on the possibility or reality that neither extreme is representative of real balance when it comes to this discussion.

those who think malcolm was a perfect saint - need to get real. those who think the NOI was perfect, need to get real. those who think the government didn't play both ends against the middle need to get real. that's what really needs to be looked at - IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:

in my book you've pretty much discredited yourself


And your book matters to me... HOW?

quote:
you came in this thread thanking me for posting the information .... then later on, you're chiming in with others saying you didn't get anything out of it.


Nope. I pointed out what was a point I thought was worth emphasizing and why. So your claim that I said "I didn't get anything out of it"... Well, it's FALSE and obviously stated becauses you got this ridiculous notion that there are some kind of teams here - you trying to act like I switched sides or whatever your problem is with people being critical of the content of the piece when it hardly lived up to it's billing.

quote:
what's next? are you going to flip flop back to where you started?


Dismissed out of hand. You have no argument. But keep posing questions that the weak and aimless do.


quote:
now if you have a need to make up a myth about me making an excuse not to answer a question - do your thing and be happy about it!


More of that Weak & Aimless stuff. "IF"... It's still an excuse no matter what your rule is. That info., you providing it, wasn't contingent on whatever thing you and Umbra had going on. Again, it's about INTEGRITY.

Again, you tried to play that Double-Standard game and lost.
well then N, if my integrity with you is non-existent,i should expect for you to move along and find other people here to interact with that you believe have integrity.

and let me correct myself. you didn't say you didn't get anything out of the interview, you said this after initially coming in giving thanks for the info:

quote:
And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview.


other than that ...... would you like the final word in our exchange?
Peace...

I am a registered Fruit Of Islam in the Nation Of Islam. Unfortunately, I missed most of this discussion..I did not really see this thread moving into it's present direction until now.

Minister Farrakhan stood with Betty Shabazz before she died to publically refute those who wish to divide the black community on the issue of Malcolm X and the NOI.

To those outside the Nation Of Islam there will always be questions, however, to those of us in the ranks this issue is crystal clear. Malcolm was an FOI..He was not only a member of the Nation, He was one of the great pioneers of the work. Malcolm was a victim of a plot created by the enemy of the rise of Black people...I have read the words of Malcolm himself, and the words of the FBI agents who visited Malcolm in an to seperate him from his teacher, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad.

There are elements in the black struggle who love this divisive talk. They love to raise the history of Malcolm as a way to discredit the NOI and it's leaders...They do this out of jealousy and hatred.



Kai
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
1Mile... (if I've missed, pardon me)... You should just admit your NOI bias and be done with it. I have no problem with the NOI and I'm in complete agreement with ZAKAR's statement.

And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview. But, being honest, we know or at least I know this is something that does differ from some of the prevailing White-washed narrative:

quote:
They try to say that Malcolm went over there and saw White Muslims that he had never seen before. When he went over there the first time, [he] saw the reality of the fact that Islam is the brotherhood of man and that the purpose of Islam is to bring about a universal brotherhood. That's not something that Elijah Muhammad didn't know but you're not gonna have brotherhood when you have people who will not submit to God and the equality of things [unless] they are in an exalted position.

Malcolm was no stranger to what was going on in the Middle East. [He] had a mindset, ideas and things that he was trying to do before time. The White man tried to utilize Malcolm to keep a permanent separation between those who admired [him] and those who tried to follow Elijah Muhammad, and now Min. Farrakhan.


Me, I was looking for more of a personal perspective from someone who knew him on a personal level and would treat the story like a biography and not some old tired defense of Elijah Muhammad. That, he can keep. He can defend Elijah Muhammad without the ploy of acting like he's going to provide new, different or untold (hardly known) insights into The Life & Times of our dear brother.

Anyway... The popular mythology (which doesn't isn't necessarily "popular" or accepted here amongst a core of rather astute brothers/sisters) tries to spin Malcolm's HAJJ experience into something that it was not. That's why ZAKAR's statement is ON POINT!




My integrity is RIGHT THERE!!

NEXT!!!!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
TO BRUSH MALCOM OFF ONE OF OUR PREMIRE INTELLECTS IS SAD.


there was nothing in the article that suggested malcolm should be brushed off. where did you get that impression? there was nothing posted in this thread that suggests he should be brushed off so i'm curious as to where that came from.

what is being suggested is that everybody on all sides of this reflect on the possibility or reality that neither extreme is representative of real balance when it comes to this discussion.

those who think malcolm was a perfect saint - need to get real. those who think the NOI was perfect, need to get real. those who think the government didn't play both ends against the middle need to get real. that's what really needs to be looked at - IMO.


First, the part in bold? What's that got to do with ZAKAR's point?

Also, how does this article forward your "Get Real" idea?

Clearly, it doesn't. But you can point out how it does.
yes, moving along ...... the link to the full article can be found here: http://bhonline.org/index.php?topic=130.0

and for anyone who didn't know, i'm the same poster who put up the "a modern day moses and aaron" thread on the spirituality board - a topic that is also NOI related. those of you who knew that probably figured out that i am an NOI supporter and didn't unnecessarily stumble over this thread.

those who did find an excuse to stumble ... that's on you. one thing about it, if you hadn't used my NOI position as an excuse to cause a ruckus, it's probably a sure thing that you would have come with some other excuse to divert attention from the topic and onto yourself. ;-)

LOL
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
it's surprising that someone so intelligent would have joined in the first place.



I am a registered MGT in the Nation of Islam. Many here are aware that I rarely find it necessary to include my thoughts where people have made up their minds, or in particular have alternative agendas. I find this a complete waste of my time and mental energy.

However, though it was my initial intent to stay out of this thread, the direction it has taken has gone down farther than expected.

I must say that we all carry a significant amount of intelligence within that has not been cultivated or utilized within society. It is within the ranks of the NOI that Malcolm's genius was cultivated and allowed to flourish. It was through his exposure as an NOI member that we have come to know and love Malcolm...



Peace,
Khalliqa
quote:
Originally posted by virtue/Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
it's surprising that someone so intelligent would have joined in the first place.



I must say that we all carry a significant amount of intelligence within that has not been cultivated or utilized within society. It is within the ranks of the NOI that Malcolm's genius was cultivated and allowed to flourish. It was through his exposure as an NOI member that we have come to know and love Malcolm...



Peace,
Khalliqa



Fair enough ... eloquently stated ... but why pick on my tiny contribution to this thread? ... Smile
quote:
Originally posted by virtue/Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:

Fair enough ... eloquently stated ... but why pick on my tiny contribution to this thread? ... Smile


*erm* because you're "safe"... Big Grin

Seriously, I wasn't picking on you... I couldn't continue to watch and say nothing....


and I was praying you wouldn't mind...


Peace,
Khalliqa



relax ... you're safe ... cool ...
quote:
...what is being suggested is that everybody on all sides of this reflect on the possibility or reality that neither extreme is representative of real balance when it comes to this discussion...


for clarification purposes, when i made the above statement i was not saying that the article suggested the above. the "suggestion" made is mine and reflects one of my purposes for this topic, however, if you read the article/interview closely, you will see that bro. wazir does not make excuses for the jealousy that malcolm fell victim to from some in the NOI. nor does he blast malcolm to hell or "brush him off." his position is very balanced, in my opinion, and there is nothing in the article that should be said to have been coming from the angle of anything negative.

he stated facts and recollections as he remembers them and as he experienced them. he shared information about malcolm's brothers - even tho it wasn't very much info. even tho some say they got absolutely nothing new out of the article - it would really be surprising to me if they knew any of the information that bro. wazir shared about malcolm's brothers and what happened with them after malcolm's death.

but anyway, just some clarification.
quote:
Originally posted by virtue/Khalliqa:

It is within the ranks of the NOI that Malcolm's genius was cultivated and allowed to flourish. It was through his exposure as an NOI member that we have come to know and love Malcolm...



And that has NOT been an issue (Umbra not included) and, no matter how eloquent and On Point, doesn't go to speak to the Alternative Agendas that would seek to over emphasize that fact and then flipped that (per their agenda) into something else.


quote:
his position is very balanced, in my opinion, and there is nothing in the article that should be said to have been coming from the angle of anything negative.

he stated facts and recollections as he remembers them and as he experienced them.


And that "balance" thing is in dispute. My initial post highlighting how the interview intro. termed it as a "perspective" rather one that was "objective" still stands. Since the pretense was to speak about his experiences and give some type of rendition of Malcolm's life and times then there is little "balance" when he kept inserting Elijah Muhammad into the mix so frequently.

It comes off as the same ole Apologetics.

quote:
he shared information about malcolm's brothers - even tho it wasn't very much info. even tho some say they got absolutely nothing new out of the article


The problem with that is your bias had you lumping people indiscriminately into that category. You tried to claim... wanted to claim that as my position. You were wrong. Your uncontrolled bias and sensitivity had you speaking falsehoods.

Indeed, you reached for the same exaggeration machine those you took issue with did. And, somehow, when I presented a nuanced view, because I wasn't totally "on your side", you wanted to say I "flipped flopped."

Now, what brought on this "Get Real" stuff because plenty of folks have essentially said just that about the interview and didn't see it as "balanced".

I feel like brothers/sisters with/for the NOI who want to speak on this should "Get Real" and at least attempt to take a dispassionate approach to telling their story, about the NOI, Elijah Muhammad (who wasn't the topic of conversation but was always prominent in it) and Malcolm. That's why I suggested the biography approach or expected that type of treatment.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
Originally posted by virtue/Khalliqa:

It is within the ranks of the NOI that Malcolm's genius was cultivated and allowed to flourish. It was through his exposure as an NOI member that we have come to know and love Malcolm...



And that has NOT been an issue (Umbra not included) and, no matter how eloquent and On Point, doesn't go to speak to the Alternative Agendas that would seek to over emphasize that fact and then flipped that (per their agenda) into something else.


Yes, Sir Duly Noted...

quote:


I feel like brothers/sisters with/for the NOI who want to speak on this should "Get Real" and at least attempt to take a dispassionate approach to telling their story, about the NOI, Elijah Muhammad (who wasn't the topic of conversation but was always prominent in it) and Malcolm. That's why I suggested the biography approach or expected that type of treatment.


This dialogue was not started by a member of the NOI... but a supporter of the NOI, supporter is not someone in the ranks of NOI who can speak for NOI, only about their own perceptions of NOI, those of us in the ranks of the NOI do not approach such subjects this way.....

I am not completely sure of the OP's intent here.... just what I observe as a link to a new board with a controversial article that offers little to those who have concrete opinions regarding this issue...

This is an issue that has been handled by the Minister before via satellite, press conference, talk shows etc....

Our, NOI, focus has been unity.... not divisiveness... hence my initial statement above...

I will cease to comment further on this matter.... I have only entered this conversation because of other things that were said that I simply wished to comment on....


Peace,
Khalliqa
N, i'm not sure why you continue to try to engage me - someone you think has no integrity. i know when people lose credibility with me, i'm not found trying to keep a conversation, dialogue or anything else going with them.

i mean really, this is my response to your second post to me:

quote:
nmaginate, i'm not coming with any deception. it should be obvious that i am a supporter of the NOI - but that has nothing to do with the topic.

also, the brother who was interviewed did not select the title of the article so don't put that on him.

other than that, if you didn't benefit from the info - that makes about 4 of you in this thread but that's still less than the number of people who have expressed appreciation for the piece. so ...... please save the unfounded insinuations and allegations for someone else. deceptive is not my style but maybe it's yours since you want to be so quick to accuse me of that?


you came at me accusing me of deception when you don't even know me. you, nor anybody else in this thread who would be found dropping innocent looking seeds while claiming the muslim title, knows what my motives were/are in this. you've made some ASSumptions. you come at me accusing me of deception and expect a hearty welcome? and then you try to portray yourself as some equitable person? then you were found asking me for proof of something about you when you had no proof about what you insinuated about me?

these are the types of games that i don't make a lot of time for. if you want to make ASSumptions, erroneous ones at that, and base your actions off of them, i'm not going to stop you. nor am i going to be found trying to change your mind. no, you do your thing.

you and i view things differently and i don't have a problem respecting that you don't see things as i do. there's nothing to go back and forth about - you view things your way and i view them mine. the problem is when you come in with your ASSumptions and try to act like they're reality. no, i don't like that.

quote:

The problem with that is your bias had you lumping people indiscriminately into that category. You tried to claim... wanted to claim that as my position. You were wrong.


would you please point out where i did this. that's why i say i don't even know WTH you are talking about. where did i claim any such thing about your position? most of my response to you had to do with you and your ASSumptions about me.

quote:

Your uncontrolled bias and sensitivity had you speaking falsehoods.


what falsehoods did i speak? i just pointed out how you were the one speaking false statements and ASSumptions about me.

quote:

Indeed, you reached for the same exaggeration machine those you took issue with did. And, somehow, when I presented a nuanced view, because I wasn't totally "on your side", you wanted to say I "flipped flopped."


again, i really don't know WTH you're talking about. i think it's a valid point that i brought up about you coming in the thread saying thanks for the info, and then later you're found saying something to the effect that little of value was in the interview. what was the point of saying thanks?

quote:

Now, what brought on this "Get Real" stuff because plenty of folks have essentially said just that about the interview and didn't see it as "balanced".


and you're still at. you're telling me WHY i made the "get real" statement and like i said, do your thing, i'm not going to try to stop you or convince you that your delusions are not correct. go ahead with it but don't be upset that i don't let your ASSumptions, delusions and repitition define my reality. in other words, your perception brother is not my reality and is not necessarily anybody's reality - not even your own.

quote:
I feel like brothers/sisters with/for the NOI who want to speak on this should "Get Real" and at least attempt to take a dispassionate approach to telling their story, about the NOI, Elijah Muhammad (who wasn't the topic of conversation but was always prominent in it) and Malcolm. That's why I suggested the biography approach or expected that type of treatment.


well, i never claimed to be a rep for the NOI and i never would claim that. the title of the piece was "the true history of malcolm x & the NOI" and since much of that history had a lot to do with elijah muhammad, no one should be surprised that that name will appear in abundance in the discussion.

now, if you find i have no integrity in your eyes, as i find you have none in mine, it would seem to be more sensible for you to move on and find others to conversate with.

okay?
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:

N, i'm not sure why you continue to try to engage me - someone you think has no integrity. i know when people lose credibility with me, i'm not found trying to keep a conversasion, dialogue or anything else going with them.


Yet, you said:
in my book you've pretty much discredited yourself

But you're still in this "conversation" with me. Go figure. Roll Eyes

quote:
you came at me accusing me of deception when you don't even know me.


And that would matter... HOW?
I don't need to "know you" to assess what you've said and done here.

Moving on...

quote:
you've made some ASSumptions. you come at me accusing me of deception and expect a hearty welcome?


Where was my "hearty welcome" statement at? C'mon dude.

quote:
and then you try to portray yourself as some equitqable person?


I called my view/comments "nuanced". You can call them whatever fits whatever you're trying to do with all this laughable stuff. Very laughable.

quote:
these are the types of games that i don't make a lot of time for.


Yet you're wasting your time and mine with this posin' BS:

if you want to make ASSumptions, erroneous ones at that, and base your actions off of them, i'm not going to stop you. nor am i going to be found trying to change your mind. no, you do your thing.

you and i view things differently and i don't have a problem respecting that you don't see things as i do. there's nothing to go back and forth about - you view things your way and i view them mine. the problem is when you come in with your ASSumptions and try to act like they're reality. no, i don't like that.




quote:
The problem with that is your bias had you lumping people indiscriminately into that category. You tried to claim... wanted to claim that as my position. You were wrong.

would you please point out where i did this.


Talk about games... Don't catch yourself in the SHAME, 1Mile:

quote:
Posted July 23, 2006 02:00 PM

...in my book you've pretty much discredited yourself and my need to even feed into what you're trying to keep going. you came in this thread thanking me for posting the information .... then later on, you're chiming in with others saying you didn't get anything out of it. what's next? are you going to flip flop back to where you started? i'm thru with the game you're trying to run but if you want to keep running in a circle by yourself, feel free.



Here it is again... This is what you said:
"you came in this thread thanking me for posting the information ...later on, you're chiming in with others saying you didn't get anything out of it..."

That WHERE... That was the first of a double-post on 3. That's WHERE.

quote:
where did i claim any such thing about your position?
N, i already stated previously in this thread that i am not a brother which means i'm also not a "dude." if you know that, and you're just being immature - that's on you, otherwise, you can cease referring to me as "dude."

next, as far as me saying you came in giving a thanks for the info and then later were found saying you got absolutely nothing out of it .... i didn't put the words in quotes, so i was not directly quoting you but these were your words:

quote:
And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview.


now, if you got something out of the interview, i'm sure even you will admit that is not indicated by your own words.

now, if that's all you're tripping over and that's your example of me trying to lump you into a category with others or telling falsehoods, you know what i say....

do your thing. i don't have anymore time to waste.
Ha!! C'mon, dudette!

You go from claiming you didn't say "I got absolutely nothing out of the article" lumping me in with people who said they didn't to trying to play dumb like my statement saying "there really wasn't MUCH..." = "I got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING out of it..."

Toooooooo funny.

I mean, it's not easy to do that math.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING = 0
Not MUCH = something more than 0, however slight it might be


And you said all that after I made this post that said exactly what I got out of the article and what I could get out of it if what I expected or felt would be useful info. was present in the article:

quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
1Mile... (if I've missed, pardon me)... You should just admit your NOI bias and be done with it. I have no problem with the NOI and I'm in complete agreement with ZAKAR's statement.

And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview. But, being honest, we know or at least I know this is something that does differ from some of the prevailing White-washed narrative:

quote:
They try to say that Malcolm went over there and saw White Muslims that he had never seen before. When he went over there the first time, [he] saw the reality of the fact that Islam is the brotherhood of man and that the purpose of Islam is to bring about a universal brotherhood. That's not something that Elijah Muhammad didn't know but you're not gonna have brotherhood when you have people who will not submit to God and the equality of things [unless] they are in an exalted position.

Malcolm was no stranger to what was going on in the Middle East. [He] had a mindset, ideas and things that he was trying to do before time. The White man tried to utilize Malcolm to keep a permanent separation between those who admired [him] and those who tried to follow Elijah Muhammad, and now Min. Farrakhan.


Me, I was looking for more of a personal perspective from someone who knew him on a personal level and would treat the story like a biography and not some old tired defense of Elijah Muhammad. That, he can keep. He can defend Elijah Muhammad without the ploy of acting like he's going to provide new, different or untold (hardly known) insights into The Life & Times of our dear brother.

Anyway... The popular mythology (which doesn't isn't necessarily "popular" or accepted here amongst a core of rather astute brothers/sisters) tries to spin Malcolm's HAJJ experience into something that it was not. That's why ZAKAR's statement is ON POINT!

If AWM presents factoids about how Malcolm evolved with definitive quotes from Malcolm on substantive things like that (as opposed to the vague: "Brother Randolph, with what I've seen and what I've heard, if I were to turn back Allah would be justified in dropping me off of the Empire State Building on top of my head.")... then there is indeed value to be had in him writing this book.

But, if it's to constantly try to affirm Malcolm's love for Elijah Muhammad as a way to try run down the same ole tired Apologetics for the NOI... then whatever little tidbits he has to offer will get lost in the sea his NOI perspective he can't remove himself from.

So, I'd have to side with Umbra when it comes to that. If AWM is going to pretend to give a "true" history, Malcolm can't be a way for him to try to exonerate whatever he feels to be the flawed perceptions people have about the NOI.

But if the book is more "everyday with Malcolm" tidbits like that of an biography (as opposed to an NOI Apologetic) then even with his clear NOI bias the book is worth it.


But go ahead... Admit that you are NOI, if you are and cut with the deception.



That was: Posted July 23, 2006 11:24 AM
Your post with your FALSE claim (Mathematically Challenged FALSE claim) about me "chiming in with others..." was: Posted July 23, 2006 02:00 PM.

By that time we had been back and forth and you made several posts giving you ample time to be familiar with what I said and plenty of time NOT to be Stuck On Anti-Mathematically Stupidity.

Clearly, I knew/know what I said... The problem here is either you didn't or you just wanted to display your WILLED or chosen IGNORANCE. And the fact that you would say this (dismissing your error as if it is not an error and exactly what I said it was)...

"...if that's all you're tripping over and that's your example of me trying to lump you into a category with others or telling falsehoods..."

... then (lol) we really need to have a CREDIBILITY and INTEGRITY conference. lol
N, all i can do is apologize to you if you were offended by me mis-stating what you said. i came back and corrected myself after i went back and reviewed. if that's not good enough for you - i'm not really worried about it.

you said what you said and what you said does not indicate that you got much of anything out of the piece. IMO. if you did get something out of the piece - that is not made plain in the way you said what you said.

no offense but if you think i'm clocking your every post and deciphering everything you have said - i'm not. you know you've said quite a bit up in this thread but i'm NOT paying close attention to all (or much) of it.

if you want to act like you've never mis-stated what somebody said - do your thing. i've done it before and don't have a problem coming back and correcting myself after i've gone back and reviewed.

now, as you seem to like to do, you've over-inflated the incident to fit with the ASSumptions you have made about me and like i'm forever saying, do your thing and have fun with it.

afterall, either you were calling me "dude" because you actually didn't know i was a woman, or you read my previous statement, knew i was a woman but still persisted in the immaturity.

you didn't make an acknowledgement either way, let alone correct yourself so it's appropriate to post your words back to you. maybe you'll pay more attention to them (for your own benefit) than i do:

quote:
Clearly, I knew/know what I said... The problem here is either you didn't or you just wanted to display your WILLED or chosen IGNORANCE. And the fact that you would say this (dismissing your error as if it is not an error and exactly what I said it was)...

"Ha!! C'mon, dudette!"

... then (lol) we really need to have a CREDIBILITY and INTEGRITY conference.


yes, and you need to be in the front row at the conference N.

good bye~
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:

IMO. if you did get something out of the piece - that is not made plain in the way you said what you said.


That's not up to your "opinion." And obviously this betrays your "I corrected myself" pretense:

quote:
quote:
The problem with that is your bias had you lumping people indiscriminately into that category. You tried to claim... wanted to claim that as my position. You were wrong.


Posted July 23, 2006 07:57 PM
would you please point out where i did this. that's why i say i don't even know WTH you are talking about. where did i claim any such thing about your position?


That was only a few posts ago. I responded to your question there pointing our WHERE YOU CLAIMED THAT then you came back with this:

quote:
as far as me saying you came in giving a thanks for the info and then later were found saying you got absolutely nothing out of it .... i didn't put the words in quotes, so i was not directly quoting you but these were your words:
quote:
And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview.
now, if you got something out of the interview, i'm sure even you will admit that is not indicated by your own words.


But let's move on to more entertaining things...

quote:
if you want to act like you've never mis-stated what somebody said - do your thing. i've done it before and don't have a problem coming back and correcting myself after i've gone back and reviewed.


lol lol lol lol

You don't have a problem... Okay! Wink

quote:
yes, and you need to be in the front row at the conference N.


Yep! Just so I can make sure I hear that "CORRECTION" speech.... FOR THE FIRST TIME.
Using your word of inquiry... *** WHERE? ***

LOL! lol Too funny!
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi: July 23, 2006 12:22 PM
well then N, if my integrity with you is non-existent,i should expect for you to move along and find other people here to interact with that you believe have integrity.

and let me correct myself. you didn't say you didn't get anything out of the interview, you said this after initially coming in giving thanks for the info:

quote:
And, in truth, there really wasn't much that was presented in the interview.


other than that ...... would you like the final word in our exchange?


d'oh! @ N
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

Clearly, I knew/know what I said... The problem here is either you didn't or you just wanted to display your WILLED or chosen IGNORANCE. And the fact that you would say this (dismissing your error as if it is not an error and exactly what I said it was)...

"...if that's all you're tripping over and that's your example of me trying to lump you into a category with others or telling falsehoods..."

... then (lol) we really need to have a CREDIBILITY and INTEGRITY conference. lol


Double... DOH!!! Eek


That was an example of what? Since you wanted to pretend that it was an example of you "trying to lump me in..."?

Just asking...
quote:
  • in my book you've pretty much discredited yourself and my need to even feed into what you're trying to keep going. ...if you want to keep running in a circle by yourself, feel free.

  • well then N, if my integrity with you is non-existent, i should expect for you to move along and find other people here to interact with that you believe have integrity.

  • N, i'm not sure why you continue to try to engage me - someone you think has no integrity. i know when people lose credibility with me, i'm not found trying to keep a conversation, dialogue or anything else going with them.

  • now, if you find i have no integrity in your eyes, as i find you have none in mine, it would seem to be more sensible for you to move on and find others to conversate with.


  • lol
    just some notes to the board:


    • is there an "ignore" feature on this board?
    • strange how N is resorting to subterfuge and diversion to keep attention away from the well shown FACT that he's guilty of the same things he's accusing me of
    • he was shown that with the dude/dudette example, but he comes back with more silliness
    • he was shown where i "corrected" my previous mis-statement, but he comes back with more silliness. never mind that he spent a time span of 10 hours ranting and harping over that which he could have found, had he taken the time to look. that which he would have seen, had he not been so hasty to continue running his mouth and mounting his campaign against me.
    • he cannot even acknowledge these things but can come back rolling on the floor and acting like his own foolishness hasn't been exposed. it's like dealing with a child.


    again, is there an "ignore" feature on this board anyone?
    Last edited {1}

    Add Reply

    Post
    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×
    Link copied to your clipboard.
    ×