Jim ~~ I am greatly exercised as to WHAT POINT YOU IMAGINE YOURSELF TO BE MAKING with all this. We have all read these extracts for ourselves, on the thread above. They seem to me to be cogent arguments for the imbalance Keith states to have been found in certain contexts within the conduct of this demographic. Why repeat them, except to reinforce his arguments by repetition?

I have, however, obligingly read them all again ~~ and still can't find the racism you purport to have uncovered therein. Point it out to me, please. Perhaps I am just being thick. But then again, perhaps the very suspicion of any whiff of racism by the mention of any demographic in any adverse context is enough to raise your instinctively antiracist hackles to the extent of their smothering your judgement? Just perhaps...

Don, meanwhile, goes on widening the argument to insist that other contexts than the one we are discussing are somehow relevant, but does not specify how. Please see my last post, Don, 0643 AM, addressed mainly to Jim, but also to you & Steve, as to how I find this approach counterproductive to what I take to be your position, which none of you has endeavoured thus far to dispute.

~M~