Adam

If you don't mind addressing a couple statements from your last post.

Yan asks:
"Is repatriation to Africa a 'special' kind of repatriation when it involves Rasta? "

and you reply:
"Obviously, Rastas take our name from rastafari, so out focus would be on Ethiopia and the land he set aside for us.

This leads me to question, if white "repatriation" is not a serious problem, why would "White Rastas" be focusing "on the land he set aside for us." As has been pointed out already, the writing is on the wall.

A next question asked:
"How is it now 'not Rasta' to talk about Africa as a whole?"

And you reply:
It's not. but it IS rasta to focus on Ethipia and specifically Shasha

Was this really the only focus of Haile Selassie and all Rastas? As a self proclaimed follower, and a supposed expert on the topic I think you really limit your views with an unwillingness to face the truth of what Haile Selassie tried to accomplish. That in itself is your right. But when coming to a forum where many are looking for more depth, it is dishonest to share this limited view of yours while knowing there is a bigger picture. It almost comes across as a control issue from your side. There is a school of thought that Rasta is from creation, and some have pointed out that there were Rastas before the 1930s.

The biggest offence, one you have done repeatedly whenever your views are challenged, is to try to persuade others to visit your webpage to get links to other sites. Perhaps this too is another one of your control issues. After all, you know it is against the rules to post urls to boards, but yet you still feel to mention how they can find your links at this time now that they have disagreed with you again. This comes across to me as someone with unspoken dishonest motives. Now if you bother to respond to this, I am sure you will try to come across with your surprised innocence but know this, others do see through this.