Wat happen, moderators sleepin or wat? SMDH!
Like dey wake up.
Somebody edit my post 
SMH!
Shake harder...
I think you were spot on. It's not the first occasion that VB geh a lil too gratuitous with that language. (I was smh @ the gall of his insertion of a smiley face in his comment).
It's not the first time VB responded to such language, putting the shoe on the other foot.
Not surprisingly, you seeing what you want to see. And it probably won't be the only time either.
Laughable charge.
I see both you and the person you were engaging as having acted inappropriately on this and on other occasions. But leave that fella out of it, and address this squarely yuhself... I've gone firmly on the record with the other poster, so the nonsense about me seeing what I want to see ... yuh could haul that elsewhere.
The fact is you have a purposeful tendency of using certain words as if innocuous in intent, but in fact, your actual intent is far from benign, innocent or merely the casual result of "putting the shoe on the other foot." Stick to trivia. I doh traffic in folly.
JC has said some horrendous things on this forum ... practically all in passion and out of emotion. Your acknowledged calculus is more disturbing. Time to start seeing the world more reflectively rather than refractively and reflexively. Cyah see how you have any moral high ground here at all, yet adventurous enough to suggest I wearing blinders? Steups!
Unlike yourself I can make my point in a succinct manner.
As regards to my original response to you, there is no evidence to contradict me.
You may not approve of the response itself; however, there is nothing to suggest otherwise other than your opinion.
You are right, on certain occasions, it's not innocuous, but rather there to open the blinders of some.
You may not approve of the delivery but I simply respond to certain brands of ignorance. To quote you, it's far from benign or folly, I never preached otherwise. You have obviously taken it a certain way but what is good for the goose is good for the gander or shouldn't be had by either.
VB
It's correct, honorable and appropriate to educate the forum on hypocrisy or double-standards regarding the experience of citizens of Indian descent in Trinidad & Tobago. I don't support woeful tales of comparative misery such that one ethnic experience has a legacy of more
significant detriment than the other. Leh me tell yah, I understand that a portion of the historical discourse in T&T has been painted in a way that marginalized Indo-T&T. That is historical reality.
I not on the use of pejorative language. I doh support nutten that will rivet ethnic divides. Iz high time you subscribe to that view in word and deed. Yuh cyah use that kind of language selectively. Yuh either support it or you don't. Period.
What ah trying to tell yah, is that when yuh want to bring attention to issues of this nature that concern you ... pelting ethnically insensitive big rocks not going to get yuh progress.
I doh have to contradict you because your response concedes that my initial comment to you was rooted in truth. Plus, just because you repeat a word that has been used pejoratively to describe a group with which you identify, doh mean that it's okay to sling a parallel pejorative (whatever your intent).
Dichotomizing the world into African and Indian, in a conversation with JC will not produce universal truth and cannot produce universal truth ... because that is not his lens of priority and because he has a valid truthful experience too. The least allyuh could do is use this as a mutually respectful basis of departure for future discussions of this nature ... rather than as an arrival at an unproductive final conclusion.
Aside from that, you end up projecting biases in your choice of words ... not necessarily because yuh racist, but because you have a historical frustration with what decades of an African-focused cultural narrative in Trinidad & Tobago has produced. Ultimately that deletes from the sensitivity and education yuh want to share, and creates at minimum an inference of prejudice.
Yuh right, not succinct ... exhaustive. Take heed.
