DAFNz are Genetically Defined *Mutantz*

Bob LeChevalier said:

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"P.Comm" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> We're talking SCIENCE. Science defines NO types of
>> humans.
>
>Not as far as YOU KNOW - and as far as I know - NOT
>YET. Key words,

babe.

Quoted message said:

I can't say what science might determine in the future.
I live now, and a I know what I know now. "Not yet"
means "no".

As I said, I note that researchers seem to be working
TOWARD knowing such things. WHY?

Why not?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Look at the subject line. The racists KNOW that there
is genetics for all this, and they therefore KNOW what
science does NOT know, and are WRONG.

I don't quite REact to things as you do. LMAO - I just
noticed the subject line. Okee dokey.

In other words, you jumped into a discussion without
knowing what the issue is, because you like to defend
racists.

The original post, under that thread title, cited the
"racist" AP news article by those "racist" Associated_Press
journalists, which used the term "mutant" in reference to
the DAFN DNA:

INSTANT REPLAY -- projo.com1082218906.htmOpen ↗
************************ exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt
*********************
04.17.2004 -- Testing confirms African-American burial
ground

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) - DNA testing has confirmed that
bodies uncovered at a grave site are African-American
and confirmed a genetic trait that will make it easier
to identify Africans, a researcher said. Last fall,
crews digging a new sewer line found 13 coffins with
human remains.

Samples from four coffins were sent to the Boston University
School of Medicine, where Dr. Bruce Jackson works on the DNA
African-American Roots Project, trying to link African-
Americans to their ancestral heritage.

The tests backed up historical research which found the site
on city maps dating back to 1705 identified as a "Negro
Burying Ground." Jackson said scientists found what is known
as a "deletion" of two base sequences in the DNA, which is
found in about 95 percent of African- Americans and
Caribbean blacks.

"It implies that the *MUTATION* existed among Africans even
two or three centuries ago," he said. "Its a true marker.
What we see in modern African-Americans is a marker that has
been passed down. Its going to make it a lot easier to
identify Africans now." [....]
***********************************************************-
*************

C'mon, Bob, is the AP a bunch of *racists* ???

toto said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why did you not adopt an American baby - there are so
many orphans here? Why not adopt a black American baby,
especially with your sense of having a DUTY to them for
the past

This ought to be good...

Racial consciousness led to restrictions and even bans on
white parents adopting black babies, even when the
alternative was a succession of foster homes. The stated
belief was that white families would be unable to provide
black or bi-racial children with a healthy black identity.

That policy may have existed locally but sure isn't/wasn't
nationawide. Certainly Bob could have gotten a half-DAFN
somewhere with a little effort, being such an accomplished
Bullsh#t_Artist. Bottomline is a Russian is 99+ % white.

I was wondering if perhapz his wife had something to do with
it? Maybe he is married to a *racist*. "No fkg way, Bob, are
we going to take an IQ-75 DAFN!! Get your lazy DAFN-
loving_A## over to Ukraine and find us a *white* baby..."

"toto" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why did you not adopt an American baby - there are so
many orphans

here? Why

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not adopt a black American baby, especially with your
sense of having a

DUTY

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to them for the past

This ought to be good...

Racial consciousness led to restrictions and even bans on
white parents adopting black babies, even when the
alternative was a succession of foster homes. The stated
belief was that white families would be unable to provide
black or bi-racial children with a healthy black identity.

What is a "black identity"? There's no such thing as
race, remember?

Quoted message said:

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be
heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Mon, 3 May 2004 22:06:03 -0400, "Bull Connor"

master.of.slave.apes said:

"toto" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Why did you not adopt an American baby - there are so
> many orphans

here? Why

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> not adopt a black American baby, especially with your
> sense of having a

DUTY

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> to them for the past

This ought to be good...

Racial consciousness led to restrictions and even bans on
white parents adopting black babies, even when the
alternative was a succession of foster homes. The stated
belief was that white families would be unable to provide
black or bi-racial children with a healthy black
identity.

What is a "black identity"? There's no such thing as race,
remember?

Race is socially constructed, thus there are those who
believe that a child who would be identified as black by the
color of his skin and the shape of his features needs to
have contact with others for whom this is also an identity.

Teaching children who are discriminated against how to deal
with such matters is best done by those who have personally
experienced it.

I don't agree that bi-racial adoption is a bad thing, but
this was the theory and still is. Most agencies will not
allow *white couples* to adopt healthy *black* babies
even today. This was even more true in the time period
when Bob adopted his children. In the 1960s, the racial
barriers were being broken and white families were
adopting black children.

In 1972, the National Association of Black Social Workers
took a vehement stand against the placement of black
children in white homes. I don't believe that these people
are correct in their position, but it is their position
which has become part of the adoption culture. In 1999, btw,
there was a lawsuit which contended that the social agencies
delayed and denied transracial adoptions due to this
position taken by the social workers involved in these
cases. The law does not support this, but the agencies
procrastinate and delay placement.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>They don't have that information. You know that if
>anyone DID have it

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>the field - they'd not so easily come forth with it.
>Or perhaps you

don't

Quoted message said:

>want to know that.

I know that it is false. While there might be political
pressure against it, we have innumerable examples of
science ignoring or overcoming political pressure. If
nothing else, racist scientists like Jensen would come
out with such a thing if it existed.

You see - WHY do you call Jensen a racist?

Because he is.

Quoted message said:

I doubt his own colleagues think of him in that light.

Yes.

sciencedaily.comarthur jensenOpen ↗

"jensen racist" gets 12000 hits on Google, so I'm sure
there are plenty more cites if you need them.

Quoted message said:

Jensen was condemned as racist in the late 1960s by a
generation of
academics reacting to the racist atrocities of the Second
World War.

Well, REacting to what the Nazis did in ww2 - and branding a
man who was never considered a racist - a racist due to that
REaction is stupid. It's irrational. It's no different from
what Stalin did, Bob.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He's still a professor, respected.

He's still a professor because of academic freedom in this
country. He is not respected.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is lots of evidence that scientific results are
PHRASED in politically correct manner. But the science
still comes out.

They aren't just phrased - as Skeptical1 pointed out,
certain little tid bits are deemphasized and other things
are put in the forefront - leading

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a false understanding.

That may be the case in the popularizations. But
scientists aren't as dumb as the lay public and they
see the implications both of what is said and what is
not said.

Implications - seen due to REaction. Bottom line - FEAR.

Quoted message said:

It was either you or Alberto or ?? who posted an

Quoted message said:

article that actually REFDUTED the very things you were
saying when read

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a person IN the field that really knew what was being
said - Skeptical1.

Skeptical1 is not "in the field". He is a substitute
teacher in Oakland CA schools.

Quoted message said:

Now Bob, you're saying that science always comes out with
the facts - um, defense weaponry comes out with the facts
about what they have the

capacity

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to do, eh?

Weaponry is technology, not science. The science
underlying most defense weaponry is public. The
engineering is classified.

Germ weapons, biological weapons, are biological science
- they are top secret. It kinda leaks out what the govs
HAVE after years of them having it and no one knowing
they had it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Heh. If such a marker - genetic - was ever found, I KNOW
that the first people to take over the entire study would
be the DOD - or DIA. CIA? Guaranteed. NO ONE would know
about it.

False. How would DoD or DIA or CIA know about it?

Lmao - I need to redefine "naive" just for you.

They would

Quoted message said:

probably read about it on the Internet, where such things
typically appear first these days. They could take over
all the studies they want, but the information on the
Internet would still have been made public.

Information on the internate is a double edged sword. We
have medical doctors - real ones, INSISTING that the gov
made AIDS and gave it to people. And we have more of them
saying the same thing and making it so damned absurd that NO
ONE but conspiracy kooks believe it. There is information -
and DISinformation. Government agencies like the ones I
mentioned use BOTH.

Quoted message said:

And why would they take it over?

Quoted message said:

What OTHER freaking USE would such information have?

Science does much research without particular concern for
whether it has any "use".

Bob - almost all, if not all, of our technology came from
weapons research.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Knowing I have the genes to make brown, green, hazel,
gray or blue eyed kids - what the hell does that tell me
other than NOTHING? Useless information.

Useless to you perhaps. But quite useful to scientists
trying to understand human biology and evolution.

Understand it for what purpose? Just to know it for the sake
of knowing? Funds spent on that kind of HOBBY?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All of the

Quoted message said:

non-scientific methods of determining race (which
is all there is) rely on someone making a
subjective decision based on limited information,
and reporting it.

BUT SO IS TAXONOMY IN GENERAL - it's the SAME
criteria, Bob.

Biological taxonomy is based on the capability to
interbreed, as well as on genetic isolation. Human beings
can freely interbreed and no "race" is genetically
isolated.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. 0

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People SEE cats are different from dogs. SEE. So they
type them as

different what -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Family, right? Yeah, Order is Mammalia.

If cats interbred fertilely with dogs, then they would be
the same species.

Coyotes and Jackals can interbreed freely with dogs - they
are NOT the same species - and the genetics WAS DONE now.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about -
especially LIMITING taxonomy to something like "humans" for
[censored]'s sakes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What freaking criteria is there (wholly BOGUS) that
classes cartelaginous animals as vertebrates and

lumps

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them in with BONED animals?

Genetics

WRONG.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What criteria to separete invertebrates from vertebrates
in the first

place?

Quoted message said:

Having a backbone?

Not good enough - so say experts. That's not genes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ONE THING? The medical zoological book I have on
invetebrate zoology says the same thing - it's 100%
CRITERIALESS!

"Division of the animal kingdom into vertebrates and
invetebrates is artificial and reflects human bias in
favor of man's own relatives.

Yes. That is why biologists don't put a lot of emphasis on
that particular division.

Quoted message said:

One characteristics of a single subphylum of animals is
used as the basis for separation of the entire animal
kingdom into two groups. One could just

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

logically divide animals into molllusks and non mollusks
or arthropods

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

non arthropods. The latter classification could be
supported at least

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the standpoint of numbers, since approximately 85 percent
of all animals

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

arthropods!" TOUCHE

I see nothing controversial.

YOU snipped. Nothing contro... they still use those
divisions. Genetics have not yet been done on these animals.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The closest alternative is to use the new DNA test,
which are probabilistic and determine if one
particular ancestor has genes similar to current
people living in Africa (who are *defined* by
reference standard to be "black"😉 But this is one-drop-rule-
ism carried to its extreme - if mitochondrial DNA is
used it is being based on the "race" of your mother's
mother's mother, and if it is based on the Y
chromosome, it is being based on the race of your
father's father's father, etc.

Right now, they want to make a haplotype map. At least
they SHOULD wait until they have all the data - and not
publish [censored] that's old and invalidated one month later.
And then what are they going to DO with

this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

information? You know, it's like the Bushist Mars
pipedream - what the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

USE is it when we don't even have proper health care in
the USA? Waste

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

money. What are they going to DO with this
haplotype info?

Science.

Hobbyism.

Quoted message said:

Science is done for the purpose of doing science, to
understand the universe. Whether someone can use this
information to make money is irrelevant to science (except
that it is sometimes easier to get funded if someone is
convinced that they will make money if the research is
successful).

Imo - if it's done and it doesn't better the PEOPLE - then
it's hobbyism.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For that matter, what are they going to DO on Mars? Look
around?

Science.

Ruibbish. How much money so far on FAILED missions there?
There is only so much money to go around. You can't have a
"better world" with governments wasting money on this kind
of - [censored]. From what I see of you - you are in favor of a
better world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At the cost of how many billions?

No one knows.

Yes, it's known. Accounts are kept.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Speed of light travel is nowhere near having - and it's
UNFEASABLE - first of all, how would they get moving
since mass would

make

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them TOO HEAVY to go anywhere?

Without more science, this will be forever true.

LMAO - are you an idiot or what? More science is not going
to change the fact that mass increases if speed increases
like that. Go back to school, man.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Plus it's too slow to go anywhere. By the time they
got back, civilization that sent them into space might
not even

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

here (the time problem with speed of light travel).

So?

You are talking out of two sides of your mouth here. So
this, so what that. So what millions of Africans drop dead
from nothing BUT problems. Not my problem. One HUGE So What.
That's for admitting it. When money is spent on frivolous
[censored] like this when people IN THIS NATION DOING this
frivolous stuff are diverting money to it - then I say
something.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Other traits we associate with

Quoted message said:

"looking black" have at least that many, and some of
them arise in non-blacks (a friend of mine, as Irish as
can be for many generations, has hair as kinky as it
comes. He wears an Irish Afro %^)

How do you know what his ancestry is? You asked him?

Yes. We were good friends in college and for a couple of
decades afterwards. I've lost touch with him the last 5
years, alas.

He probably doesn't even know his ancestry. But the point is
- curly hair does not make one look black. It's a "look" to
it. Not just one thing. Mick Jagger has big lips. He doesn't
look remotely black.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I might have one of them confused with Brittany.

Heavy backpedal there. Neither of the two in question
looks in the least like Britney Spears.

Bob, I'm not quite sure what ANY of them look like. I
heard the "talk"

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stern's show and the names sound familiar. I'm 100% NOT
INTO their

music -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

heh - but I have no idea WHAT their music is - rock or
something I guess.

backpedaling furiously from your claim of a few days ago?

On the Stern show - they mentioned Abdul and Carey. "Street
creds" is what they called it.

Quoted message said:

From your post of 4/25:

Quoted message said:

If she claims to be black and acts typically black then
blacks will

accept

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

her as black and so will everyone else. If she claims
she is not-black - then it will be left to others to
believe that and accept it. I've seen Paula Abdul. That
woman is white.

Lemme go look at her. paula-paula-Open ↗
abdul.net/html/forever_your_girl.html and paula-paula-Open ↗
abdul.net/publicity7_04.jpg and paula-paula-Open ↗
abdul.net/publicity1_97.jpg oops, well, I'd think that girl
was black from those pictures. That is NOT the girl I saw -
oh well. I saw a girl singing a song called "Slave For You"
on a cable channel. The song sucked sort of, tho I have to
admit the chords were weird for that kind of music. She was
a VERY VERY good dancer, tho! That girl was WHITE.
Definitely white.

Note that I said blacks would accept her IF she did that.
However, I also said that if she claims she's not black,
then it would be LEFT TO OTHER TO BELIEVE that - AND ACCEPT
it. The girl in those photos (I did a search for Paula
Abdul) I'd say is black. Simple as that. There isn't even
any one thing I can POINT TO - that I could say gives me
that impression - it's in the whole face.

Lemme go search the other girl.

celebritysearchengine.co.ukmariacareyOpen ↗
1.htm not a good image. celebritysearchengine.co-celebritysearchengine.co-Open ↗
.uk/fantasy/m/mariacarey2.htm not a good image. I am
noticing that the color tones in these photos are very odd,
so far. celebritysearchengine.co.ukmaOpen ↗
riacarey3.htm now the girl in THIS photo doesn't look
remotely like the girl in the second photo. It's supposed to
be the same girl. celebritysearchengine.co.ukfaOpen ↗
ntasy/m/mariacarey4.htm I'd say the girl in this photo is
white. celebritysearchengine.co.ukmarOpen ↗
iacarey5.htm white here too. celebritysearchengi-celebritysearchengi-Open ↗
ne.co.uk/fantasy/m/mariacarey6.htm white.

So goes it. I actually went to their websites and looked at
pictures of them both. OK - happy now? On the Stern show,
they were saying that these girls were white "trying to be
black" to get street creds. The show is on radio, you know.
I'm not backpeddling - I just opened my mouth and yammered
without taking a look at these girls and assumed the
speakers on Stern were right.

Quoted message said:

Hey, QUOTE FROM HERE TO.....

Quoted message said:

From Ivy Mike's post of 4/24:

Quoted message said:

Aren't allowed? Do explain. But I asked you about Harry
Belafonte, Paula Abdul and Mariah Carey...they are all
considered black, but the last two esp. are very non-
black in appearance.

From the picture on: paula-paula-Open ↗
abdul.net/html/biography.html

I cannot tell.

END QUOTE HERE

Hey, I didn't write THOSE lines, Bob.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Then you are a racist of another sort if you call a
>person a BUM for

"acting

Quoted message said:

>like a bum."

Judging people based on behavior is not racism. Judging
people based on presumed ancestry is racism.

Judging people that "act black" according to blacks
themselves - is

judging

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BEHAVIOR. It's what THEY call it. Shall I call it,
"acting like

asocial,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

overly emote-reactive, psychopaths lacking impulse
control?" Heh - is

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

better?

Yes, so long as you recognize that such behavior is not
universal to one race, nor restricted to one race,

Well, you go tell blacks to stop calling all those things
"acting black" Bob - do NOT tell me about it because it's
not my problem and definitely NOT my concern. They call it
"acting black." You know, everyone in the society that
speaks lingo-speak, casual, LET GO, relaxed speech in
comfort (COMFORT - got it?) knows what that expression means
- just like once upon a time everyone knew what groovy or
ornry meant. Got it? I don't care to "recognize" much about
what is or is not universal to blah blah on the freaking
moon (may as well be there) - people that I don't know,
don't hang with, never will know. I have no obligation to
"know" that information. I watch TV for entertainment. Black
produced movies are often very entertaiinng. Where the HELL
do you think I might pick up on what BLACKS SAY? From their
own damned movies, made by them FOR themselves. At the pt
job when and if they speak to me on a break? Sure thing,
Bob. Did they ACT BLACK? Oh, you bet they did. What did they
say about one black guy that did not act that way? "Man, he
act WHAAT (white), you know what I mean?" And OH, what did
that one guy act like? An anal rententive, sompulsive,
pretentious FOP. Meanwhile, there were tons of WHAAT people
there that didn't in ANY way act like that one black guy
that the other blacks ragged on. So please. Spare me your
preaching. Where do I get off calling that behavior "acting
blacks?" By giving blacks the benefit of KNOWING what they
act like and being up front about saying it. LMAO. One of
the ones that acted black got elevated to supervisor and
behaved like a god damned THUG on that job - never in my
LIFE did I ever see such behavior at a workplace. He pulled
it on me once and outside the workplace I told

enough, he got fired after years of thuggery at the job -
when a blonde

the job.

and that there are forms of

Quoted message said:

behavior that meet your description that blacks would NOT
call "acting black" and people who "act black" who don't
display behavior fitting your longer description.

Tell them to stop calling it "acting black." Of course,
their view of their behavior when they act that way is not
negative at all. But if and when any of them ever got in my
FACE with it, they called my behavior "man that [censored] like
Ted Bundy or sompin." Oh, like they didn't have a CLUE why
I'd threaten them when they got in MY FACE with that kind of
[censored]? HA HA. That's like anal compulsive FOPS not knowing
how anal they are. Same thing. That's like the white
supervisor preaching his Fundie [censored] didn't know he was
"preaching on the job" to people NOT INTERESTED in his idea
that the DEVIL is at the workplace. LMAO. Oh yeah. He
thought it was the most obvious truth in the world, the
PLAIN truth "the devil is here." LMAO. Same thing, Bob. Him
I simply complained to the management about. He got
reprimanded - and went off with his lower lip in a pout and
tears in his eyes - no [censored]. HE lived with mis mommy (he was
in his 40s , but looked way older than me) - and his mommy
also worked there. She was a HUGELY obese woman that never
got up off her chair - she'd ROLL it across the room, inch
by inch. LMAO. People thought he was a pedophile behind his
back. So much for his "holier than thou perfect Christian"
behavior. THAT is what people thought of him. Pedophile.
That's pretty freaking BAD bwhahahaha and I AM lmao at it
remembering it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do their kids act? They are both Italian AND Jewish
(by ancestry). And they probably act "American".

Nope, they act Italian - for a clue watch the Sopranos.
I'm serious.

So am I. I know someone quite well who has Italian and
Jewish ancestry who does not act in the least like the
Sopranos.

Do you know what FAMILIAL means? Kids pick up the behavior,
nuances, etc, from the parents and it keeps going - and in a
community from everyone - and it keeps going. I might think
he does act that way - or a version of it - if I met the
guy. I told y ou to STOP assuming what I can or can't do.
I'm pretty damned good at sussing out people's backgrounds.
Sandy at the beach, blonde blue - fair as hell, doesn't look
a bit Italian at all and none of the people she sits with
are Italian - she talked to me for 10 minutes. "Are you
Italian, Sandy?" Yup. She sure was. She's been away from
that for years, too. It was very subtle, but it was there.
So I might think this person you know DOES act Italian. Of
course no one can tell over the internet, DUH. It's seen,
intuited. Your name sounds French. But then, this IS the
internet/usenet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>It's not hard to tell this. And stop telling me what I
>can or can't tell. I'm sick of it. You remind

me

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

>people that insisted I was using MAGIC because I wrote
>down the god

damned

Quoted message said:

>notes and chords to a song that I heard on TV and
>"couldn't see the

person

Quoted message said:

>playing it." Oh, how could I do that. DUH.

That's ear training.

No, I could do that before anyone ever "taught" me what
an E or a C minor was - could do it as a tiny child even.

You could not write down notes and chords until you were
taught musical notation.

God, you are a twisting distorter if ever I saw one. I
never said write down. I never even said read. I could PLAY
notes and chords the first day a toy keyboard was brought
into the home - FACT. It had two octaves on it. I could
hear a song and PLAY IT - I had NO idea what the notes or
chords were called - and couldn't write or read anything.
GOT IT NOW? I remember the first song I "HAD" to play - I
HAD to HAVE it. I didn't even know the name of the song.
Turns out it was Autumn in New York. For one part of it, I
added a few "chords" of my own - kinda like old jazz. The
first classical song I had to HAVE was "The Swan" - and I
mean I PLAYED it, right notes, right chords - tho with the
Swan I didn't play the chords are chords - I played like
arpeggios. Small ones (smal keyboard). I could simply hear
this. I was 4 years old Bob. I could barely read ANYTHING
at that age. But I could HEAR. "Peter" plays at the club.
He can't read a single note, he has NO idea what a key is,
or a clef. He can't read or write anything. But if he hears
a song - he can PLAY IT. And if he forgets the middle of
the song, he's DAMNED good at just making up a middle for
it and it's damned good. He can even add nuances to it -
he's oh SO good. He plays professionally - he gets hired,
PAID to play. He can't read a single note - has NO idea
what "that key" means. NOTHING. Not even the NAMES of
chords. He asked me to teach him - I told him he didn't
need it - but I'd have tried to do that if I saw him again
and there was time. I can't see teaching him on his break
time. It's called playing by ear. Bob, heh, I played the
Moonlight Sonata from hearing it - however the turntable
was fast so I played the entire song in the key of D minor
- as I much much later learned that it was the wrong key -
LMAO. But note for note, it is what I heard - and I mean
every single note was right - but that was on a real piano,
not just a two octave toy. Sure, I can play it now in the
right key 🙂 LMAO. Some people can DO that, Bob. In fact,
just about every group that plays for the clubs I go to
does that, they play BY EAR - they can't read [censored]! The guy
in Alpine Express can read music - which makes it a lot
easier for me to GIVE THEM music and ask them to play it
next time. He's the exception to the rule - he's the ONLY
guy I ever met playing there that could read music. Just
what is it you don't understand? You definitely do not have
to know how to read a single note to PLAY MUSIC, Bob. Not
even the Moonlight Sonata. You need EARS.

Quoted message said:

My kid also has a natural ear. He could mimic someone's
playing on the saxophone perfectly, and yet didn't know E
or C minor. To write it down accurately using notation
takes training, which is called "ear training".

OH, ok, so you DO know what that is. Uh, no. Good ears are
good ears. It's like hearing talk and speaking back.
Reading music is like reading words. If you don't do it a
lot and not stop doing it, y ou can easily forget it.
Writing down what you hear is something I'm actually NOT so
good at - because I never buckled down and heh - practiced
doing it. For that matter, my HAND writing is not all that
good either - it's illegible a lot of the time. Writing
down music is tedious in itself, the circles, the coloring
in the circles, the lines, etc etc. Just the other day I
heard a BEAUTIFUL song on "Invitation to a Gunfighter" with
Yule Brenner. He plays the harpsichord and OH, I HAD to
have that song. I had to at least hear it a few times -
MEMORY is involved, too, you know. No chance to just record
it as he plays it (off the tape), because there is noise
and talking over it in the scene - So I played it. I have
not yet written it down (a chore). But when I do go to
write it down, I don't just take paper and write. I have to
PLAY it, piece by piece, slowly, I play a measure and write
down, like measure by measure. I have to LOOK at where my
hands is, what note I'm on - and then I write it down. When
I learned myself the Moonlight Sonata (in D minor, LOL) I
in no way wrote any of it down. NO way would I have
bothered to do that. Way too much work - and why bother
when I can play it? At the time, I knew what the G clef was
- but I had no idea what Bass clef was - so I couldn't have
written it down anyway. But why bother? I played
it. A whole other process is happening here that has
nothing to do with hearing. I also often forget HOW
to write complex tempo - but I sure the hell can PLAY
it or beat it out on a drum. That whole
reading/writing thing takes practice that has nothing
to do with hearing distinct tones. I can never forget
how to play a song (u nless I forget the song itself)
- and I can never forget how to beat a rhythm - I'm
quite good at these. But writing it? I usually write
fake sheets for myself! It's a lot less work. Fake
sheets are for people who can PLAY, usually by ear.
They are like a guide.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Sheesh. You want to knwo what acting Jewish is?

I know what "acting Jewish" is. I also know many non-
practicing Jews who don't act that way. And I know that
the kids of non-practicing Jews who marry non-Jews
really don't act that way. I'm married to an at-least-
3rd generation non-practicing Jew who knows less about
Jewish culture than I know.

You don't have to know a thing about Jewish culture. If
you are raised

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people that express, move, facially express, speak,
tonations, etc etc

etc -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that way, the kid WILL speak that way - people WILL pick
up on it - some more than others. In fact, same thning,
familial, let a newborn baby be adopted by Chicago Jews -
and that baby will speak Hebonics, LOL. The

grown

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up baby will act Jewish. That FAMILIAL - it's what it
means - and it's

how

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

intuitive people can "tell" that in THIS society. Not on
the moon.

So will the kid of Italian and Jewish ancestry act like
the Sopranos, are will he speak Hebonics?

Depends on how the parents act - how his peers in the
community act. FAMILIAL. Familial means that a behavior or
even a way of expressing, or how a person HOLDS their face,
how the muscles move when expressing - it seems genetic - it
seems to be passed down over and over - but it's in fact not
genetic at all. It's familial. Learned behavior -
unconscious or not. Black people have less musculuture in
their faces, less subtle expressions are made by them - and
THAT is VERY VERY noticeable to me. But it's not like I go
out to look for it, or study it. I have to kind of try to
PIN DOWN just what it is I'm seeing or intuiting. I pinned
that one down. In the picture of Abdul I just saw - there is
SOMETHING - it's in the combined photos - nose, mouth area.
Looks black to me in the combined effect. That's not the
same as seeing a living, moving person, you know. I never
saw those two women I just looked at in my life (on TV I
mean). I saw someone ELSE. Those are still photos. You ever
see the photos on the web of "XEV" (Xeenia Seeberg) from the
show Lex? Ever see her on the show in motion? Heh, that
woman is LIPS on feet. You can't tell that from any of the
photos of her. She's BEAUTIFUL on the TV in motion.

Quoted message said:

Your claim is nonsense because it presumes that "families"
are of a pure ethnicity. Most of my friends did not marry
within their ethnicity. Their kids will not be raised in
an "Italian" family or a "Jewish family" or anything other
than an "American family".

Yet people often guess at least PART of what someone is
pretty much on target based on subtle behaviors,
expressions, ways of expressing, etc. People from the
midwest (used to seeing only whitebreads?) tend to not be
able to tell [censored] about anyone. People exposed to so many of
these ethnics in America are pretty damned good at sussing
this out. I told you - it's intuitive. My claim is not
nonsense. I knew Sandy was Italian. I knew that Jake and
Alice were wasps. I knew Leo was Italian. I knew that
Heinrich was Jewish (despite the very German name). I knew
that one Rebecca I know was German and I knew her husband
Bob was Irish - and I knew the other Rebecca was NA. I knew
Stanley was some kind of Slavic and guessed Polish (I was
right) tho that man has a French accent and I've HEARD him
speaking FRENCH. And so forth. Keep in mind, I have no idea
what their last names are. I still don't know that.
Nonsense? LMAO. It's not nonsense when it's on target 90% of
the time, Bob. The ONLY Americans that knew I was Tatar were
TURKISH and a few RUSSIANS. Sure - but the way they said it
- to paraphrase - "If I were back home, I'd think you were a
Tatar, but in America? Nah, what are you? Part American
Indian?." LMAO. Keep in mind, these people saw a living
breathing me in person - not a photograph.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yet more than 90% of Israeli Jews are either European
or American Jews or the kids of at least one European
or American Jew. Yet you now admit that you can't look
at how they act and tell they are "Jewish".

People who can spot "he's Jewish" are spotting AMERICAN
Jews or European (from the European ghettos) Jews. What
do you NOT grasp about FAMILIAL? When moving to Israel,
they adopt a whole other kind of behavior - that simple.

Why do you presume that Jews in this country all adopt
your stereotypical behavior?

Why does Fran Drescher, the producer of THE NANNY presume
that and cater that show to that? Why did Royko write a
column calling it Hebonics (he was poking fun at the concept
of Ebonics). But it was SO JEWISH - and it was intended to
be that. Why do I presume what they themselves put forth?
Because it's so god damned obvious. Fran obviously has NO
ISSUES over this behavior. And the way they overdo it - that
show is hilarious at every minute. Sure, now that's
overdone. What I see in real life is a very very subtle
version of THAT SAME behavior! Enough to suss people out 90%
right - if I'm FAMILIAR with that behavior from the past,
from seeing a LOT of it. I can also spot gays pretty dammed
good too (it's called GAYDAR). Gee, now how the hell do I do
that? How do I know? I KNOW. I've asked people if they were
gay even 3 years before they REALIZED they were gay, Bob.
LOTS of people do that, in case you are totally in the blind
about it. There isn't any one thing or even group of things
I could actually pinpoint to explain WHAT I'm intuiting. It
is INTUITIVE.

If Jews moving to Israel can change their

Quoted message said:

behavior, then Jews who aren't practicing their religion
and culture certainly can.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I haven't asked any lately who didn't already know my
kids were Russian. Several years ago, they still
recognized Russian well enough that they would
instinctively react to certain Russian phrases as a
Russian would, which would be revealing of their
linguistic background, but I'm not sure that they still
would do so.

My kids don't look especially Russian in appearance.

Then they are adopted. I have a question - and it's
legit. It is known, very well known to parents that want
to adopt, but who want a white baby, that when
advertising "RUSSIAN BABIES," adoptive parents know
they'll get white kids.

They'd be wrong. About a quarter of the Russian adoptive
kids I know look more like you than they look like the
stereotypical Russian. My kids look more like me than they
do the stereotypical Russian, but their looks weren't that
important to us.

Ahem, stereotypical Russians are usually ENGLISH ACTORS - or
Czars actually related to the British Royalty. Um, lots of
white folks happen to LIKE the way I look: A WHOLE LOT, BOB.
Even NOW - at my age. White folks certainly do consider
people that look like me "white" these days. As I said, they
LIKE it - A LOT.

Quoted message said:

Click on the upper left picture on this page frankfoundationcai.orgcgiOpen ↗
bin/index

OMG, they are ADORABLE - tho the 3rd from the right is blah.
I'm talking about the kids shown at the top right of the
screen - put mouse over their images and they blow up. Yup,
when white folks want white babies, they'd LOVE those kids.

Quoted message said:

or look at the kids in this picture: frankfoundationcai.orgcgiOpen ↗
bin/index/22?id=50&type=1&lang= and you'll see the sorts
of kids that were typical for adoption.

The same kids are in the top right of the page there.
The ones on the far left are adorable - but harder to
clearly see.

Quoted message said:

There are white (Slavic) infants available from Russia,
but usually with higher health risks than the non-Slavics
(if the kids are available for adoption, there is
generally a reason - Russians prefer to adopt kids that
look like them, so mixed race kids and non-Slavics in Old
Russia don't get adopted. Kids who are Slavic often have
birth defects or high risk of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Well, that's known NOW - it came out - it was on Law and
Order, LOL.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course, with TONS of black babies up for adoption
right here at home in the USA

Not that many, actually. Women in this country who carry
their babies to term usually want to keep them. More
common are older kids removed from their parents due to
abuse or neglect, and they can be of any color, but they
are "at-risk" adoptions because the birthparents often
don't willingly sign the papers. Then there are crack
babies, which are a challenge to raise, to say the least.

Quoted message said:

- heaps of parents desperate for kids looked to Russia to
adopt.

Why did you not adopt an American baby - there are so
many orphans here?

Why

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not adopt a black American baby, especially with your
sense of having a

DUTY

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to them for the past

At the time, it was *much* faster adopting from Russia
than any kind of adoption in the US, and much easier to
qualify; many other programs did not accept parents in
their 40s. My best friend did adopt two mixed race
infants, but they took much longer than we were willing to
wait, and they found that there was some resistance to
placing black kids in white families with no ties to the
black community.

There sure is, these days.

Quoted message said:

In addition, we didn't want an infant due to our age, and
indeed wanted to adopt siblings (our kids were 6 and 5
when we adopted them). The Russian program started the
month that we started considering adoption, and articles
in the paper on the special needs kids that were typically
available fit our interests. It took less than 2 days for
the agency (the one on the web page above) to identify
kids for us once we completed the home-study, and I flew
to Russia 6 weeks later (my wife had surgery and could not
travel with me).

You got photos of your kids? OH PLEASE lemme see? Do you
have any kids of your own in addition to the adopted ones?

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"E Kurtz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

Quoted message said:

You see - WHY do you call Jensen a racist?

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Because he is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I doubt his own colleagues think of him in that light.

Quoted message said:

Yes.
sciencedaily.comarthur jensenOpen ↗

Gould is not a colleague of Jensen's; Gould is, or was, a
paleontologist; Jensen's field is, or was, psychometrics
(Gould is dead, Jensen retired.

Gould, in the opinion of REAL scientists that said this or
that and got quoted, shamed himself with that mismeasurement
book - and I did get to hear about it - FROM PHYSICISTS of
all things! You can't take his dinosaurs away from him, or
his punctuated equibrilium - but he makes a [censored] of himself
when he gets into the "that certain set of features or cast
of features or look" when he obsesseses on his blacks. The
most hilarious thing about all of this debate with race
deniers is that there is probably not one black alive that
would not break out in a laugh if he/she saw any of this "no
such thing as race" toro turds.

Quoted message said:

Check out Jensen's superb rebuttal of Gould's ridiculous
book: debunker.comjensen.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

"jensen racist" gets 12000 hits on Google, so I'm sure
there are plenty more cites if you need them.

Quoted message said:

Jensen was condemned as racist in the late 1960s by a
generation of
academics reacting to the racist atrocities of the
Second World War.

Excellent point. The lingering effect of the Holocaust is
often lost in this debate.

It's history. I have to wonder WHY there was no lingering
effect of the Native American "thing" since they are right
here - right under their noses. So there was a holocaust -
there have been MANY holocausts - one is not more special
than the other. A lot of this new reaction to what is called
"scientific racism" (when it's not racist at all) somes from
proponents of the Frankfurt School - oh yeah, big time
reaction to the holocaust - er, I mean The Holocaust. I
mean, what the hell do they call what the Nazis did to 20
million Slavs? NOT a holocaust? And I guess what the Turko-
Tatar Red Army boys did to the Germans is OK? - heh.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He's still a professor, respected.

He's still a professor because of academic freedom in
this country. He is not respected.

He IS respected - wait a minute, didn"t I answer this
already? Hmm - I'm reading some of my words and Bob's here -
Forgive me on this - I've been doing some HEAVY work in the
house, plumbing, electrical [censored], dry wall, painting,
shelves, etc... SIGH - a breather here... and I lost track
of the convo from days ago.

Quoted message said:

QUOTE During his academic career at UC Berkeley, including
the 30-plus years after he became "controversial," Jensen
received every promotion possible - even to "super -
grades" beyond the rank of full professor, which required
recommendation by a panel of distinguished international
experts not on the Berkeley faculty. Indeed, the closer
one gets to expert opinion in the relevant disciplines of
psychometrics and behavior genetics, the greater the
support for Jensen and his work; and each year, that
support increases. Of his more than 400 publications, none
has been in fringe journals, and the overwhelming majority
have been in the most prestigious peer - reviewed journals
in the relevant fields - journals such as Intelligence,
Behavior Genetics, Personality and Individual Differences,
The Psychological Bulletin, and Behavioral and Brain Sciences-
and in such authoritative works as The Encyclopedia of
Psychology and The Encyclopedia of Intelligence, where
articles are by the editor's invitation. In 1970 Jensen
was a founding member of the Behavior Genetics
Association. He has served as a consulting editor to both
Intelligence and Behavior Genetics, and published articles
in their first issues. Jensen is often asked to serve as a
peer reviewer by these and by many other academic journals
because their chief editors recognize the fairness and
thoroughness with which he treats every article sent to
him, regardless of whether or not it agrees with his own
position. END QUOTE "Intelligence, Race, and Genetics:
Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen" Frank Miele (Senior
Editor of "Skeptic" magazine), Arthur Robert Jensen

Note to P.Comm: if you have not read this book, I would
recommend that you do, since it is good introduction to
AJ, both as a thinker and as a man. I would recommend it
to BLC also, but his mind is obviously made up.

Hi to you too 🙂 - uh, when it comes to this topic, I'd say
his "mind" is made up. No - more like his HEART is made up.
Here is some info (If I have some time, I can read the rest
- I'm waiting for spackle to dry)...

OK - here goes the info: There are probably 1 or 2, possibly
3 genes involved in the "whole appearance" that we all,
(black eyesight or anyone else's) eye-ball tend to recognize
and CALL "That's BLACK" and/or "that's NOT black." This is
supposing that the "wild type" is an African type like the
ones we see today (ignore the similarities of a few
immunological markers, eg, that favorite Xhoisan/Swede
thingy). EG, no matter what - IF the jaw muscles change, the
cranium changes and then the brain changes which equals
BEHAVIORAL change, including the way people talk. Blacks
have heavier jaw muscles, they also have the least
musculature in the face, around the mouth, eyes, etc. - the
type that allows for very subtle expressions (Asians have
the most of those). Now, with ANY animals they can identify
CLADES, LINEAGES and compare them and look at the genes and
at the animals. They LOOK different, BEHAVE different - are
different clades and differnt lineages., They can tell "this
clade ALL has THIS gene." "This other clade all DOES NOT
have THIS gene." Very specific and precise. They can then
DELETE that gene in the clade that has it and the ENTIRE
LOOK changes and looks like the other clade lineage,
behavior changes, etc. the whole works. You can NOT do this
kind of thing with humans - it's expreiments. Genes drop out
or cross over. If they could inject a eg - hypothetical -
WHITE lineage embryo with a protein produced by one of the
genes, you MIGHT get a CASCADE EFFECT IN DEVELOPMENT
producing a black-looking baby in all ways, jaw, features,
bones, etc. This is HOW IT WORKS with animals. Might involve
ONE gene! We are not allowed to test this on humans. There
are only 30 thousand genes in human beings. If there were a
trillion genes, which they used to think, then you could say
there must be millions of genes different in the races and
you could never develop one race INTO the other. But there
are only 30,000 genes. It is HIGHLY possible that genes
dropped out - and the dropping out of even only ONE gene -
procudes an entire cascade effect - and you end up with a
person that NO LONGER looks black in ANY way - who has NONE
of the particular things blacks do have.

That came from a genetics professor back where I used to
work, though I asked what things meant and am paraphrasing
it making it very simple - and you got it - NO WAY do I have
permission to name him (god DAMMIT).

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

Quoted message said:

I don't care whether they are part of racist
organizations. They apparently talk like racists, just
like you do. You may not be as virulently subhuman as
the King, but you are still a racist.

According to you. According to me, I practice freedom of
choice and

freedom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of association - and those are my GOD given rights as a
human free-agent.

Yes, you have the God-given right to be a God-forsaken
racist. And I have the Constitutional right to call you
a racist.

You should recognize that a RACIST is a person that HATES
other people designated "another race" - usually ALL of the
group, for NO reason at all. A RACIST is a person that would
and does DISCRIMINATE in JOB situations. I have never done
any of these things - nor WOULD I. You should stop abusing
words and stop being a little Stalin. A RACIST is a person
that classes these agreed-upon races/types of people in
terms of HIERACHIES. I have never done that - nor do I
honestly tend to classificy a human as higher or lower on
some totem pole, than a WORM or RAT. GET that thru your
thick, neurotic skull.

You are abusing the word - and hence ARE abusive (begging to
GET abused?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Feelings are RIGHT - whether you LIKE them or not.
>Repressing

feelings is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>unhealthy.

Whereas expressing them may be impolite.

Not expressing them or worse, expressing what's not felt
is a LIE - and

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is repressive. This is a FREE SPEECH forum, you know.

You have every right to express racist ideas. But I have
every right to consider you rude, crude, and subhuman for
doing so.

OK. I have not once expressed a RACIST idea if you use the
proper definition of that word - which you have NOT DONE -
and which you could NOT do and find it to fit ME. I could,
by easily using CORRECT definitions, call you "genetically
dead" or call you "dysgenic." I do not think in those terms,
even IF they are accurate, because I think more in terms of
FREEDOM OF CHOICE. You have the CHOICE not to have your own
children. You have the CHOICE to eat as much as you wish to
eat - and NO ONE should discriminate against you for it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Recognizing similarity or difference in appearance is
natural. Classifying people into a limited number of
groups based on similarities or differences is racist.

LMAO - no it's not. It's the same thing that's done in
TAXONONY as Kurtz TRIED to explain to you - you being too
damned stupid to understand what

he

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

even said. I spelled it out for you with a quote from a
zoology book in another post. Go read it. GRASP it.
Taxonomy is in fact the classing

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

entire animals into LIMITED groups, based on similarities
or differences that they ARBITRARILY notice! LMAO. The
whole field of taxonomy is

that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They don't use genes at all (NOT YET).

Actually, in the last decade or so, they use genes a lot.

Not with everything - and since using the genes - well, HERE
is the information:

There are probably 1 or 2, possibly 3 genes involved in the
"whole appearance" that we all, (black eyesight or anyone
else's) eye-ball tend to recognize and CALL "That's BLACK"
and/or "that's NOT black." This is supposing that the "wild
type" is an African type like the ones we see today (ignore
the similarities of a few immunological markers, eg, that
favorite Xhoisan/Swede thingy). EG, no matter what - IF the
jaw muscles change, the cranium changes and then the brain
changes which equals BEHAVIORAL change, including the way
people talk. Blacks have heavier jaw muscles, they also have
the least musculature in the face, around the mouth, eyes,
etc. - the type that allows for very subtle expressions
(Asians have the most of those). Now, with ANY animals they
can identify CLADES, LINEAGES and compare them and look at
the genes and at the animals. They LOOK different, BEHAVE
different - are different clades and differnt lineages.,
They can tell "this clade ALL has THIS gene." "This other
clade all DOES NOT have THIS gene." Very specific and
precise. They can then DELETE that gene in the clade that
has it and the ENTIRE LOOK changes and looks like the other
clade lineage, behavior changes, etc. the whole works. You
can NOT do this kind of thing with humans - it's
expreiments. Genes drop out or cross over. If they could
inject a eg - hypothetical - WHITE lineage embryo with a
protein produced by one of the genes, you MIGHT get a
CASCADE EFFECT IN DEVELOPMENT producing a black-looking baby
in all ways, jaw, features, bones, etc. This is HOW IT WORKS
with animals. Might involve ONE gene! We are not allowed to
test this on humans. There are only 30 thousand genes in
human beings. If there were a trillion genes, which they
used to think, then you could say there must be millions of
genes different in the races and you could never develop one
race INTO the other. But there are only 30,000 genes. It is
HIGHLY possible that genes dropped out - and the dropping
out of even only ONE gene - procudes an entire cascade
effect - and you end up with a person that NO LONGER looks
black in ANY way - who has NONE of the particular things
blacks do have.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That I'll agree on. But groups of similar people are
FREE to

self-determine

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their own NORMS of behavior - AND THEY DO TEND TO DO THAT
HERE. That's their CHOICE, Bob. You can't get over on me
for NOTICING it, LOL.

I get on your case for assuming that a random person who
looks like a member of a particular race will abide by
what your perceive as the behavioral norms of that race.

Clear out your ears. I said BLACKS call it ACTING BLACK -
producers of movies make movies - black producers, black
actors for a black audience (like Barber Shop I and II) -
and that is how they all ACT in those movies. There must
surely be a REASON the producers and directors do this when
they make these movies. What is the reason they do this:
ANSWER THAT, BOG. I do NOT assume a thing - and that's what
YOU ARE NOT GRASPING. I simply told you direct anecdote
about what Thug Black and other blacks thought of Anal-Black
on a PT job. Is it racist of me to call that one guy an anal
retentive FOP? If ANYONE behaved that way, I and everyone
else would call him that. The one Super was a THUG on that
job - and everyone - knew it, said it - he LOST the job. So,
giving the anecdote is racist? If so, then YOU are Stalinist
tyrant (not a Hitlerist tyrant) - two sides of the SAME
COIN, Bob. GET THE HELL OFF THE COIN where I am! Try it. .
It was HE and the other blacks that got all over Anal Black
for not ACTING BLACK - and that was what THEY CALLED IT. OH,
POINDEXTER - that's what they called the one other black - a
girl. She had no friends! NONE. She was SMART - very polite,
worse glasses (so do I, I HATE contacts). No one ever called
me anything like that on any job. Bob - I got news for you -
I never met any kind of black in my life that thought I was
a racist - and they INTUITIVELY suss that [censored] out and
openly say so. Yet they said that Ralph was a racist and he
used to spew the same line of utter rubbish YOU spew - and
with a vengeance he spewed it. It's in the small stuff. Say,
like I'm in a SUPER good mood and all excited about a movie
- black employee happens to be standing there and my mode of
body language, face, I'm very tactile - that sort of thing -
they KNOW I do not hate them. That's THEIR bottom line, Bob.
I doubt you ever lived for years in a 90% black neighborhood
(yes it was VERY dangerous and bad there). Well, heh, I did
- been there, done that and would NEVER wish or choose to do
that again. I can't help but notice that they are the ONLY
PEOPLE - the ONLY ones - when they take over a neighborhood
- it just turns dangerous and turns to [censored] and they are
EXTREMELY HOSTILE. I've HAD convos with BLACKS about that -
as I said before - why not go ASK your black friend (I think
I told Berlinger to do that). I have. I'm very VERY blunt
and open, Bob. YOU? You are heh heh - a pretentious FOP a
lot of the time. And you are STALIN in the flesh without the
power. You remind me of the KGB - branding someone "enemy of
the people" and the person did NOTHING - oh, he may have
THOUGHT something.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If someone doesn't know but says that something is
true, they are lying. No one *knows* any truth about
race until that scientific definition emerges,

No one knows any truth about the whole of TAXONOMIC
CLASSIFICATION of

even

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

PHYLA or subphyla - UNTIL the science (genetics) comes
forth!!!!!

Realize

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that, please.

Science has no problem making changes when new information
invalidates old models.

OK - here goes the info: There are probably 1 or 2, possibly
3 genes involved in the "whole appearance" that we all,
(black eyesight or anyone else's) eye-ball tend to recognize
and CALL "That's BLACK" and/or "that's NOT black." This is
supposing that the "wild type" is an African type like the
ones we see today (ignore the similarities of a few
immunological markers, eg, that favorite Xhoisan/Swede
thingy). EG, no matter what - IF the jaw muscles change, the
cranium changes and then the brain changes which equals
BEHAVIORAL change, including the way people talk. Blacks
have heavier jaw muscles, they also have the least
musculature in the face, around the mouth, eyes, etc. - the
type that allows for very subtle expressions (Asians have
the most of those). Now, with ANY animals they can identify
CLADES, LINEAGES and compare them and look at the genes and
at the animals. They LOOK different, BEHAVE different - are
different clades and differnt lineages., They can tell "this
clade ALL has THIS gene." "This other clade all DOES NOT
have THIS gene." Very specific and precise. They can then
DELETE that gene in the clade that has it and the ENTIRE
LOOK changes and looks like the other clade lineage,
behavior changes, etc. the whole works. You can NOT do this
kind of thing with humans - it's expreiments. Genes drop out
or cross over. If they could inject a eg - hypothetical -
WHITE lineage embryo with a protein produced by one of the
genes, you MIGHT get a CASCADE EFFECT IN DEVELOPMENT
producing a black-looking baby in all ways, jaw, features,
bones, etc. This is HOW IT WORKS with animals. Might involve
ONE gene! We are not allowed to test this on humans. There
are only 30 thousand genes in human beings. If there were a
trillion genes, which they used to think, then you could say
there must be millions of genes different in the races and
you could never develop one race INTO the other. But there
are only 30,000 genes. It is HIGHLY possible that genes
dropped out - and the dropping out of even only ONE gene -
procudes an entire cascade effect - and you end up with a
person that NO LONGER looks black in ANY way - who has NONE
of the particular things blacks do have.

Science has DONE this - they have SEEN this entire cascade
when as many if not more features and behaviors change due
to ONE GENE - like a "whole package."

Quoted message said:

Racists do.

See the above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so all statements about race at this point are

Quoted message said:

false, except that there is none. When the scientific
definition emerges, if it happens, then there will be
race for those classified by that definition, and "I
don't know" for people not yet classified by that
definition. Without the definition, even "I don't know"
is a false answer - the answer is that there are no
defined races.

Scientifically, there are none. OK - socially there are
most definitely defined TYPES of people - LMAO - and the
society tends to mislabel that "race." LMAO. Better?

The defined types differ in different parts of the world.
In some other countries, African ancestry would not be a
particular important grouping.

It's not a particularly important grouping here either -
I believe I said that ages ago? It's simply a GROUPING.
It's a social problem in the USA for [censored]'s sakes (DUH to
the nth man).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> know that "seeing by race" is a social thing - DUH -
> people DO it - societies DO it - therefore it is
> social? LMAO. But

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it

Quoted message said:

>MORE than just that? I don't know - YOU DO NOT KNOW
>either.

Until scientists prove that there is, I know that there
isn't.

Science has to prove that SOCIETIES have a concept
of races?

The question, as you put it was "is it MORE than
just that"?

And you brand me abusively for having an open mind about it!
You are the other side of the coin - Hitlerist, Stalinist -
two distinct sides of a coin. Get the hell OFF that coin.
Racists are in favor of FORCED SEGREGATION (I am NOT). YOU
are in favor of FORCED INTEGRATION (I am not). GET IT YET?
DO YOU GET IT, YET? Will you ever get it? As for having an
open mind: See the above about clades and lineages. It MIGHT
BE more than just that. Apparently, even as far back as 90
thousand years ago, there was a Euro-Asian type of
homosapien and an African type of homosapien. That far back.
WHY are you so afraid of that information? That is what I'm
trying to learn on here by heh - oh... messing with you.
LMAO. Obviously, the Euro-Asian type split also (later on)
so that you end up with what one might call the extremes of
Asian and the extremes of European.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you daft? Or unable to read what I just said? Facial
feature recognition (a combo

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

these features, not one or two things - it's a definitive
TYPE that's

SEEN)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is used by SOCIETY to type people into various types.

Not all societies divide types the same way, and not all
members of any society abide by the typecasting.

It's not type casting. People don't normally ASSUME anyone
that looks this or that way is gonne BE this or that way in
action. Normal people also don't ASSUME that a person they
see on a job that's a ROYAL [censored] - is a royal [censored] OFF
the job (guess what, thug-supervisor was a friend back then
- OFF THE JOB - LMAO - now you see, you JUDGED by part of an
anecdote). Do you hate anyone in your own family? Well? No
one has to typecaste the neighborhood thing when they got to
see it 10 times in a row - 10 times and 10 times bad news,
hostility thru the ROOF - over the top hostility. This has
NO bearing on the individual there. Not all individuals in a
bad neighborhood are bad. Not all are thieves, not all are
asocial and unendurable, not all get in your face... BUT
they do tend to TOLERATE the behavior a lot more than ANYONE
ELSE would tolerate it. I happen to think it's BAD BEHAVIOR.
THEY think it's NORMAL behavior. The

asking a question on the job - while he yells that literally
ONE INCH from person's face. He thinks that's NORMAL. Most
people think that's unacceptable. He also used to always
sort of "hit" a person on the back or move his hand around
on the back when saying "good job, ok ok." Well -

everyone else that saw it thought that. So then, what others
thought was

work done, kicked ass on the job - he'd do that to me too -
and I thought it was OK. Apparently, me threatning to burn
his house down wasn't "OVER THE TOP" to him - not even
enough for him to not be kinda friendly later on, OFF the
job. What if I threatened to do that to YOU? Unacceptable?
Would you chummy up to me after I said something like that
to you? Oh, well it was acceptable to him and the other
blacks that heard me say it. He "understood what I was
SAYing," which was "back off and do not ever get in my FACE
again like that." But is that how I have to talk to such a
person? On a job?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then why bother to even do taxonomy - or PRETEND to do it
since they use even SHABBIER criteria?

As a crude model to be used as a basis for more
sophisticated science.

The same can be said of Carleton S. Coon's forensic
anthropological groupings - until the genetic information
comes forth - keeping in mind as I said above, you can NOT
experiment like that on humans - so we may never know. That
you DO NOT KNOW is hard for you to say. You do not have an
open mind on THIS subject! You're like a watchdog - like a
KGB person without the power - standing like The Sage on the
Stage - pronouncing JUDGEMENTS on people - and abusing the
word "racist" and hurling it at me when NOT ONE of the
criteria for being a "racist" FITS.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hey, if there is no such thing as race - then we do not
need affirmative action or anything like that. Can't
have it both ways - but you always manage to want it
both ways.

If the racists would agree that there is no race, then
indeed we would not need affirmative action.

No comment? LMAO. The great majority of non-blacks are not
racist at all - unless they are 100% what Kurtz said, they
do those things - and these days - SO DO I. It's the blacks
that have become racist with a vengeance. I have witnessed,
heh, screaming lefty liberals turn for the KKK. I've seen
it. All it took was for something to happen to them oh, 3
or more times. Repeatedly, consistently. That is how
you MODIFY BEHAVIOR, - FYI - you do something
repeatedly and consistently. Humans are 100% subject to
behavior modification - it's very easy!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I'm amazed that you can NOT just say "YOU DO NOT
>KNOW."

I know that gravity makes apples fall.

Uh, heh heh - if the MASS of the apple was greater than
the MASS of the earth (no matter how large or small these
objects are to see) then the

apple

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would not fall to the earth. The earth would be pulled
off its orbit by

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

apple. Fyi.

Actually, relative mass doesn't matter. Even the tiny
apple has an effect on the earth's orbit.

Yeah yeah, they both are moving toward each other, I know
Bob - no degree needed. Basic physics. But you said apples
***always*** fall to earth unless...... Well, if it had the
mass of a black hole it would NOT fall to the earth. OK? No
need to get HUFFY because you said something DUMB.

Quoted message said:

My degree is in astrophysics; I rather doubt that you will
surprise me with a "fyi" in that field.

Heh, you have no idea what my degree is in. Ahem. FYI.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>What if feelings of racial kinship are RIGHT? What
>then, Bob?

Then they can go live in a country where racial kinship
means something. In this country, we are Americans.

And in this country, Americans can NOW practice freedom
of choice and freedom of association - on their PERSONAL
TIME. Got that? Only a

tyrant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would deprive them of this right.

I don't know any tyrants.

YOU are. You have the heart of a tyrant. You'd brand a
person a racist who never would/did discriminate against
ANYONE on a job (and yes, I was an office manager and could
have done it easily enough). I have never DONE or FELT the
things that would qualify me for the brand of racist. I do
not hate GROUPS of people - in fact, I have HATED very few
people in my lifetime - most of them were WHITE - and I mean
I HATED them to the point of er.. (usenet) wanting to kill
them. I do not assume this or that about any INDIVIDUAL I
meet. I'm a Void Mind when I meet a person - and I LET that
person "write his soul" openly. In person, that has the
uncanny effect of people "feeling" very very open with me -
and they tend to tell me things they never told their best
friends of 20 years (in person). When he/she speaks - I hear
it - in other words, I HEAR what they are SAYing. I KNOW
what they MEAN when they say something. You ABUSE the
language. I 100% stand by the FACT that FORCED segregation
is as bad as FORCED integration. This is something you have
NOT seen or been capable of seeing YET. FORCED - that's what
makes it EVIL. It's TYRANNY. I 100% stand by the SPIRITUAL
fact that "a person that stands between two hearts that long
to meet in love - is EVIL" - and I mean Evil.

Quoted message said:

But a person exercising his rights in a thoroughly
reprehensible way is subject to everyone else exercising
their freedom to condemn reprehensible behavior, and only
a tyrant would deprive them of this right.

Please refer to Kurtz's post on what most people DO when
people exercising their rights in such a lousy way make life
unendurable - they MOVE AWAY and get very hypocritical about
WHY they are moving (as if it's the RIGHT of anyone to ask
why and expect an answer!). I have never BEHAVED
reprehensibly toward anyone - except a person threatening
me. I don't go out of my way to BUY TROUBLE, either. On jobs
and in person I'm VERY easy to get along with. Nothing wrong
with the way I exercise my rights at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If so, that would be evidence contrary to the theory of
evolution. If there is any trait where I am more like a
dog or a worm than like a chimpanzee because of genetic
ancestry, that would not accord with evolutionary
theory, because I am NOT in fact descended from dogs or
worms.

You share a common ancestor with dogs and worms. There
might just be somethning in the genome that is MORE LIKE
worm or dog than chimp.

No, because the chimp would almost certainly have the same
thing in its genome, having split off from [censored] so
recently that some scientists now want to reclassify
chimps as part of genus [censored].

They also want to classify gorillas a [censored]. You SNIPPED the
information on restriction enzyme studies - which makes man
closer to gorilla.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Two chemical factors have been discovered after a hundred-
year search: enzymatic proteins in a month old human
foetus. They have been called netrin-1 and netrin-2.
Netrin is Sanskrit for "One Who Guides." The

netrins

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are closely related to growth factors found in nematodes
(roundworms),

which

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

likewise influence and guide growth and migration of the
worm's sensory axons. After 600,000,000 years of
evolution between man and worm, the genetic code for worm
and human guidance enzymes is STILL over 50% IDENTICAL: a
startling and remarkable similarity in biology.

Netrin will also be found in chimps (and gorillas) and it
will be much closer to human netrin than either is to
nematode netrin.

Quoted message said:

If anything is supposed to distinguish humans from worms,
it is supposed to be the

nervous

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

system.

Really?

That was quoted from the article I got that information
from. Yes, really.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But that the formation of the human spinal cord in the
human foetus remains identical to the worm's came as a
surprise to many researchers who projected or imagined
some sort of great biological gulf between the 3 pound
(1.36 kilogram) human brain and the

pencil-eraser-size

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

worm's central nervous system.

That is why researchers are wise to avoid prejudice.

That's why I ignore most studies of humans - even medical
data. I see AGENDAS.

YOU have an agenda - and the pathetic thing is, you don't
KNOW you have one.

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"P.Comm" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> We're talking SCIENCE. Science defines NO types of
>> humans.
>
>Not as far as YOU KNOW - and as far as I know - NOT
>YET. Key words,

babe.

Quoted message said:

I can't say what science might determine in the future.
I live now, and a I know what I know now. "Not yet"
means "no".

As I said, I note that researchers seem to be working
TOWARD knowing such things. WHY?

Why not?

Thanks for asking that. Heh - god, man you are too easy.
Hold on, coffee. Please refer to my info on clades and
lineages, genes and MAYBEs. The "maybe" you are SO
resistent to! LOL.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Look at the subject line. The racists KNOW that there
is genetics for all this, and they therefore KNOW what
science does NOT know, and are WRONG.

I don't quite REact to things as you do. LMAO - I just
noticed the

subject

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

line. Okee dokey.

In other words, you jumped into a discussion without
knowing what the issue is, because you like to defend
racists.

Nice ASSumption, Bob. I jump into any convo I want to jump
into - witness the time I jumped into a convo with the
subject line line VAGINA, a thread started by a poster who
uses a star-trek character as his nick - and I was talking
about anything BUT that subject line. You are a sick puppy -
man, you see RASSSISTS everywhere you turn - why did YOU
jump into the convo? You felt it your DUTY to flip the coin
from Hitlerist to Stalinist maybe? Yup.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If that were purely the case, then recessives would be
bred out of our genes by now. They aren't.

ER, you mean dominants would be bred out. They can be -
very easily too. Recessive is almost impossible to breed
out. Or very very hard to. Heh, they aren't bred out
because no one consciously sought to do that - er - well,
no one DID it.

Dominants aren't any easier to breed out, because human
beings don't breed according to racist theories.

There ya go again. It has nothing to do with racism.
Dominant genes producing characteristics can VERY easily be
bred out. Ask any geneticist. You know, here you are doing a
thing you do a lot (you are fitting a pattern). You are
saying that something can not be done because people don't
tend to do it. By that token, it is as absurd to say that
hard core sci fi fans CAN NOT watch westerns on TV. I'm
stating a simple FACT - that two type O bloods CAN NOT
produce any other type but O. O is the universal doner. A or
B or AB is NOT. And what would HAPPEN if a whole nation had
nothing BUT type O people in it? It COULD be done. Two blue
eyed people produce blue eyed kids. I'm not saying even if
this is good of bad in terms of strict biology (actually -
homozygocity is not so healthy). I said it COULD BE done in
ONE generation - that is a FACT. You can NOT breed out
recessive genes. That is, there is NO WAY you can breed out
the blue eyes. Not possible. It would ALWAYS pop up. Now,
either you are way too eager beaver to jump on my FACT and
call me a racist - or you are just to STUPID to know the
difference with genes - and got CAUGHT being DUMB.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>They marry white, their kids are white. The "black"
>doesn't show up anymore. Apparently, it's BRED OUT.

But it isn't, in fact, as may be seen if one of the
kids marries a black.

You aren't LISTENING. IF a group of blue eyed people, say
under some kind

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gov tyranny, were the only ones allowed to breed - that
country would

become

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

100% blue eyed - IN ONE GENERATION.

If the moon were made of green cheese, then all kinds of
weirdness might happen. But in point of fact, there is no
such tyranny, and humans don't behave or breed like that.

How do you know that they didn't do this once before? You
don't know it.

Quoted message said:

I live in the real world. In the real world we are
evolving towards all of us being mongrels.

This is not what DEMOGRAPHICS shows at all. Even 12 years
ago or so, maybe more, they noticed the demographics - and
it was the opposite of what you say.

I say FORCED segregation is as bad as FORCED integration.
Learn that. At least try to grasp the idea. A people will be
free - and if they are not allowed to SPEAK freely, they
will learn to LIE - but they DO with their feet and their
groins. True integration is MIXING/MATING. Not sharing a
school room or a neighborhood.

You know - as soon as women COULD get divorces - WOAH they
surely DID get divorces - and it's been on the rise since.
So what does that TELL YOU about those marriages where
people never got divorced? For one, the women didn't make
out so well - they had no rights, and etc. As soon as they
could - THEY DID. Only a FOOL would think "well, in the old
days, husbands and wives got along som much bettter than
they do today." Only a MORON would assume that. As soon as
the women COULD - they DID.

As such - FORCED marriages/staying together - is AS BAD as
FORCED non-marriage. Get it yet?

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

Bob LeChevalier said:

P.Comm said:

I do not hate GROUPS of people

You prejudge individuals based on the race you perceive
them to be. That is racism.

It is difficult to NOT be a racist in this society, with
people yammering about race-based statistical differences.
But if you judge a person based on those statistics, that
is racist.

But I usually don't call a person racist because they do
that, because it cheapens the word. Rather, I use it only
for people who do that and think it isn't a bad thing.

Automobile insurance companies attribute the bad driving
statistics, of the under-age-25 group, to the ENTIRE group,
regardless of how well some of them actually drive. Ins co's
don't have the resources to check them all out individually.
These companies are NOT stupid. It's simply common sense
good business practice.

Bob will find this out when his teenage kids start driving.
Go ahead, Bob. Try giving your agent hell about his
"discrimination." Tell him he is equivalent to a
GDFkg_Racist_Idiot...

To not discriminate when interacting with IQ-75 OOWB DAFNz
is similarly stupid. Pre-judge them based on their group
statz. You don't have the resources to check them all out...

Bob LeChevalier said:

I'm reading a novel about Stalin right now. That you think
[censored] and Stalin were opposites is part of your
communication problem. As Gray says, they were both
"collectivists".

...humans aren't breed like livestock, mated with
artificial selection to produce or weed out traits. And
even if humans were penned up like breeding livestock,
they COULDN'T be bred like that because it takes too long.
Breeding takes many generations and no one can stay alive
long enough to supervise enough generations to make a
difference. I know what is possible if you can control
breeding. Human breeding cannot be controlled.

If you read something of value, instead of Stalin novels,
Bob, you might learn something useful. The Bell Curve has a
nice discussion about assortive mating and cognitive
stratification which is the free-society human equivalent
of selective breeding in lower animals. Ivy League students
mate with each other: Bill & Hillary, etc. Similarly, IQ-75
GhettoDAFNz OOWBreed LOOZerz. Not quite as clean cut as a
horse-breeder would do it, but the results are nevertheless
dramatic. As any visitor to say, Compton vs Long Island,
can attest...

The result is Cognitive Stratification. The smart get
smarter, the dumb get dumber via the genetic intelligence
inheritance process.

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Weaponry is technology, not science. The science
underlying most defense weaponry is public. The
engineering is classified.

Germ weapons, biological weapons, are biological science
- they are top secret. It kinda leaks out what the govs
HAVE after years of them having

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and no one knowing they had it.

Only because they don't want to know. People who pay
attention know.

I see, so then, Trinity and the A Bomb - all people had to
do was pay attention. Uh huh. Even Stalin wasn't paying
attention - if he was he'd have had it the next day. You are
incredibly naive if you don't know what more covert gov
agencies do - or if you don't realize how SECRET their
doings actually are. Or if you don't understand the power of
DISinformation leaked out - usually to focus people on the
wrong "hand" magician style, but often enough to discredit
REAL information that leaks out. Bob, just WHO wasn't paying
attention during the Black Panther days - when Hoover
launched a cointelpro and had his own Panthers (fake ones)?
WHO? The panthers themselves as they got slaughtered in
ILLEGAL actions done by the FBI? Who wasn't paying attention
when crack FIRST hit a neighborhood - and spread from there?
WHO? The people taking it? Dealing it? You do NOT call that
biological warfare? LMAO oh man. "Crack appeared one fine
day." Heh.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Heh. If such a marker - genetic - was ever found, I
>KNOW that the first people to take over the entire
>study would be the DOD - or

DIA.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>CIA? Guaranteed. NO ONE would know about it.

False. How would DoD or DIA or CIA know about it?

Lmao - I need to redefine "naive" just for you.

I spent 13 years working as a government contractor on the
edge of the intelligence field, in some cases with people
who were working IN the field.

Oh, and Lupo is a physicist working on some classified stuff
that's not so classified at all. So what? Explain this - and
I WILL name names. DON WARD, "retired" from the DIA, in 1997
told me that "the terrorists will launch a major attack that
will get much attention." Attack of what? "Oh, something
that will make eyes roll, people take notice. Then we'll go
to war with counties that have oil that we want." He said a
LOT MORE that has not happened YET, Bob. Why did he tell me
this? Because for some very very strange reason - he really
thought I was a former Soviet spy. No [censored]. He contracted an
odd virus in his brain in 1999 and went to a hospital that
people that worked for agencies like that go to. So goes it.

I have a reasonable handle on what is done, what isn't
done,

Quoted message said:

and what could and couldn't be done.

No, you don't. Had you been around during ww2, you'd NOT be
one of the guys on the team with Oppenheimer. You'd be in
the public, as ignorant of it as everyone else was. You have
no idea what engineered germs they have in stock. That's
biological warfare. You have no idea what chemicals are in
stock (chemical warfare). The TOP people are recruited,
sworn to secrecy. You are not the top anything. You are
quite naive about human NATURE itself - and naive and
resistent as hell about what people DO when things are
FORCED on them that they have no honest way to get out of.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They would

Quoted message said:

probably read about it on the Internet, where such
things typically appear first these days. They could
take over all the studies they want, but the
information on the Internet would still have been made
public.

Information on the internate is a double edged sword. We
have medical doctors - real ones, INSISTING that the gov
made AIDS and gave it to

people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And we have more of them saying the same thing and making
it so damned absurd that NO ONE but conspiracy kooks
believe it. There is

information -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and DISinformation. Government agencies like the ones I
mentioned use

BOTH.

Quoted message said:

Intelligent people know how to filter, and how to check
sources, and are profoundly skeptical of things that
aren't consistent with their experience.

The majority of blacks, including intelligent ones, believe
that AIDS was engineered or in some other way inflicted upon
their people. Are they naive and stupid? Or are they hyper
intuitive? Heh. Yes, they sure are! Experience - tuskagee?
Crack dumped by cia and the investigation that was supposed
to happen silenced? That's experience. Wanna talk about
naive and skepticalness to the point of being retarded? NA
make treaty with whites. Treaty broken. NA make ANOTHER
tready with whites. Treaty broken. Do they make another one?
Yup. Expeience apparently did NOT inform them. USA makes
treaty with Soviets. Soviets break it. US is skeptical about
treaties - but they continue to make them? LMAO. Please. Go
home. These WERE intelligent people at the helm.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And why would they take it over?

>What OTHER freaking USE would such information have?

Science does much research without particular concern
for whether it has any "use".

Bob - almost all, if not all, of our technology came from
weapons

research.

Quoted message said:

Nope. A huge chunk came from NASA for example. Biotech
is largely privately developed. Computer tech is some
of each.

Designed for purposes that have nothing to do with
peace, per se.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Knowing I have the genes to make brown, green, hazel,
>gray or blue eyed kids - what the

hell

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>does that tell me other than NOTHING? Useless
>information.

Useless to you perhaps. But quite useful to scientists
trying to understand human biology and evolution.

Understand it for what purpose? Just to know it for the
sake of knowing?

Yep.

Quoted message said:

Funds spent on that kind of HOBBY?

Not a hobby. It is called "basic research", and we have an
army of a million or more college professors and their
graduate student slaves performing it.

Yes, and the TOP TOP people that might find some THING that
could be targeted specific to say, blue eyed people - would
be recruited and sworn to secrecy. Definitely not to work on
something for peace.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>What criteria to separete invertebrates from
>vertebrates in the first

place?

Quoted message said:

Having a backbone?

Not good enough - so say experts. That's not genes.

Whether you have a backbone or not is determined by genes.
Whether the difference is important enough to separate
animals into two groups is determined by sociology. In
face, the separation between vertebrates and invertebrates
is NOT very significant in science - it serves as an
artificial division of zoological science to
compartmentalize information.

Grouping people into racial types serves as an artificial
division of ZOOLOGICAL science too, to compartmentalize
information. That is what Kurtz tried to explain to you. So
far, there are medical reasons that seem to work fine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>ONE THING? The medical zoological book I have on
>invetebrate zoology says the same thing - it's 100%

CRITERIALESS!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>"Division of the animal kingdom into vertebrates and
>invetebrates is artificial and reflects human bias in
>favor of man's own relatives.

Yes. That is why biologists don't put a lot of emphasis
on that particular division.

As I said above. There are courses in vertebrate zoology
and invertebrate zoology because there is too much to
cover in one course, and they have to divide things
somewhere.

Rubbish. The divisions are not made due to the courses in a
class room.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>One characteristics of a single subphylum of animals
>is used as the basis

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>separation of the entire animal kingdom into two
>groups. One could

just

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as

Quoted message said:

>logically divide animals into molllusks and non
>mollusks or arthropods

and

Quoted message said:

>non arthropods. The latter classification could be
>supported at least

from

Quoted message said:

>the standpoint of numbers, since approximately 85
>percent of all

animals

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are

Quoted message said:

>arthropods!" TOUCHE

I see nothing controversial.

YOU snipped. Nothing contro... they still use those
divisions.

For deciding what content to put in a textbook or
college course.

That is NOT what this doctor said or was saying at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Genetics have not yet been done on these animals.

Here you go lecturing me on how the intelligence community
keeps secrets, and you can claim such ignorance. They have
done complete genetic sequences on LOTS of "lower animals"
while the human genome was being worked on.

That's recently, Bob. I AM aware of it - and just posted the
thing on clades and lineages. They have done a lot MORE than
just freaking sequences. They did those experiments. But
taxonomy served just fine - and Coon at least used the same
METHODS for defining races of man.

They have partial genomes on hundreds of species

Quoted message said:

if not thousands.

And they did those experiments, as I posted.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Right now, they want to make a haplotype map. At least
>they SHOULD

wait

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>until they have all the data - and not publish [censored]
>that's old and invalidated one month later. And then
>what are they going to DO with

this

Quoted message said:

>information? You know, it's like the Bushist Mars
>pipedream - what

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>USE is it when we don't even have proper health care
>in the USA?

Waste

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

>money. What are they going to DO with this haplotype
>info?

Science.

Hobbyism.

Science that puts this country in front of the rest of
the world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Science is done for the purpose of doing science, to
understand the universe. Whether someone can use this
information to make money is irrelevant to science
(except that it is sometimes easier to get funded if
someone is convinced that they will make money if the
research is successful).

Imo - if it's done and it doesn't better the PEOPLE -
then it's hobbyism.

That's your utterly worthless opinion.

I find your opinions worthless, and dishonest to the
bone. At least when and if I am asked for advice, I give
GOLDEN advice - and people all my life have come back and
told me this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>For that matter, what are they going to DO on Mars?
>Look around?

Science.

Ruibbish. How much money so far on FAILED missions there?
There is only

so

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

much money to go around. You can't have a "better
world" with

governments

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wasting money on this kind of - [censored]. From what I see of
you - you are

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

favor of a better world.

Knowledge is part of a better world.

NOT when it doesn't help MAKE a better world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Speed of light travel is nowhere near having - and
>it's UNFEASABLE - first of all, how would they get
>moving since mass would

make

Quoted message said:

>them TOO HEAVY to go anywhere?

Without more science, this will be forever true.

LMAO - are you an idiot or what? More science is not
going to change the fact that mass increases if speed
increases like that. Go back to

school,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

man.

Science, indeed that basic research that you call
"hobbyism" is what discovered that mass increase. Basic
research can probably also discover ways to get around the
problems that causes. Maybe not. But we cannot know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Plus it's too slow to go anywhere. By the time they
>got back, civilization that sent them into space
>might not

even

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be

Quoted message said:

>here (the time problem with speed of light travel).

So?

You are talking out of two sides of your mouth here. So
this, so what

that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what millions of Africans drop dead from nothing BUT
problems.

They'll all drop dead of something.

I agree - so let's stop wasting money over there with
worthless "help" for aids sufferers - and spend it HERE on
oh - improved ROADS instead.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not my problem. One HUGE So What. That's for
admitting it.

Yep. I/We can't solve all the problems of the world,
especially since solving some will cause others.

And some of the solutions that we do find come from basic
research that you would call "hobbyism" that took place 20
or 50 years ago, but later proved relevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>How do you know what his ancestry is? You asked him?

Yes. We were good friends in college and for a couple
of decades afterwards. I've lost touch with him the
last 5 years, alas.

He probably doesn't even know his ancestry.

Probably at least as well as you know yours.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Judging people that "act black" according to blacks
>themselves - is

judging

Quoted message said:

>BEHAVIOR. It's what THEY call it. Shall I call it,
>"acting like

asocial,

Quoted message said:

>overly emote-reactive, psychopaths lacking impulse
>control?" Heh -

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that

Quoted message said:

>better?

Yes, so long as you recognize that such behavior is not
universal to one race, nor restricted to one race,

Well, you go tell blacks to stop calling all those things
"acting black" Bob - do NOT tell me about it because it's
not my problem and definitely

NOT

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

my concern. They call it "acting black."

If I am ever in a conversation with a black who uses that
expression incorrectly, I will correct them. As it is, I
am in conversations with racists, not with blacks.

As a matter of fact, if you don't personally know the person
behind the nick, you have no idea if you are speaking to a
black on here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You know, everyone in the society that speaks lingo-
speak, casual, LET GO, relaxed speech in comfort
(COMFORT - got it?) knows what that expression means -
just like once

upon

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a time everyone knew what groovy or ornry meant. Got it?

If people use language offensively, I will call them on
it.

Right now it is you that I am conversing with, and you are
the one who offends.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> How do their kids act? They are both Italian AND
>> Jewish (by ancestry). And they probably act
>> "American".
>
>Nope, they act Italian - for a clue watch the
>Sopranos. I'm serious.

So am I. I know someone quite well who has Italian and
Jewish ancestry who does not act in the least like the
Sopranos.

Do you know what FAMILIAL means? Kids pick up the
behavior, nuances,

etc,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from the parents and it keeps going - and in a community
from everyone -

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it keeps going. I might think he does act that way - or a
version of

it -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if I met the guy. I told y ou to STOP assuming what I can
or can't do.

I'm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pretty damned good at sussing out people's backgrounds.
Sandy at the

beach,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

blonde blue - fair as hell, doesn't look a bit Italian
at all and none of the people she sits with are Italian
- she talked to me for 10 minutes. "Are you Italian,
Sandy?" Yup. She sure was. She's been away from that
for years, too. It was very subtle, but it was there.
So I might

think

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this person you know DOES act Italian. Of course no one
can tell over

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

internet, DUH. It's seen, intuited. Your name sounds
French. But then, this IS the internet/usenet.

My name IS French. My ancestry is mongrel, like the
ancestry of everyone I know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >It's not hard to tell this. And stop telling me
>> >what I can or can't tell. I'm sick of it. You

remind

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

me

Quoted message said:

>of
>> >people that insisted I was using MAGIC because I
>> >wrote down the god
>damned
>> >notes and chords to a song that I heard on TV and
>> >"couldn't see the
>person
>> >playing it." Oh, how could I do that. DUH.
>>
>> That's ear training.
>
>No, I could do that before anyone ever "taught" me
>what an E or a C

minor

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>was - could do it as a tiny child even.

You could not write down notes and chords until you
were taught musical notation.

God, you are a twisting distorter if ever I saw one. I
never said write down.

Your words above. Read them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >people that insisted I was using MAGIC because I
>> >wrote down the god

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>damned

^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >notes and chords to a song that I heard on TV and
>> >"couldn't see the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>person
>> >playing it." Oh, how could I do that.

That was later on when PEOPLE (adults) saw me writing it.
Point is, without writing it, I could play it already.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I never even said read. I could PLAY notes and chords the
first day a toy keyboard was brought into the home -
FACT. It had two octaves on

DIB.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I could hear a song and PLAY IT - I had NO idea what the
notes or chords were called - and couldn't write or read
anything. GOT IT NOW?

OK. So you lied earlier, when you used the words
highlighted above.

I'm in a chit chat. PEOPLE SAID - do you think I meant
little kids? You have to be able to play by ear first. I
have also "written" quite a few songs, Bob - but NONE of
them are literally WRITTEN DOWN anywhere. Reminds me of what
more I have to go and do - one of these days. I played it,
recorded it. Did not write it down on note paper. Sorry for
not speaking Bob-precisely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just what is it you don't understand?

I understand the words you actually stated earlier, as
underlined above. And I understand what my son can do,
which is what you are describing now.

Yes. When I type a post, more or less in a chat mode - I
type as if I'm talking - and I type fast enough to do that.
No one else ever bugged me to break it down THAT
specifically. When I say to friends I used to play with
"Hey, I wrote a new song" they never assumed I literally
wrote it down somewhere on paper. I just played it.

Quoted message said:

I thus understand that you are so busy arguing that you
cannot bother to take the trouble to make sure that your
words actually say what you intend, and not something
entirely different.

Well - some folks kinda know what I'm SAYing. They know what
I MEAN. Heh.

Quoted message said:

And I DON'T understand why anyone of reasonable
intelligence would not place a priority on being
understood when they say something.

You're the only one with a problem.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So will the kid of Italian and Jewish ancestry act like
the Sopranos, are will he speak Hebonics?

Depends on how the parents act - how his peers in the
community act.

In other words, you can't tell, contrary to your earlier
claims. You said that someone with Italian ancestry would
act like the Sopranos. You did NOT say that they would act
like the Sopranos ONLY if their parents acted like the
Sopranos.

No, it's hard to explain intuitive stuff. Sandy doesn't act
like the Sopranos - but she acts ITALIAN. It's very subtle.
Heinrich doesn't act like the Nanny - but he acts JEWISH -
again, it's very subtle. I used Sopranos and Nanny - anyone
with savvy would grasp that these are obviously EXAGERRATED
behaviors being shown - at least on the Nanny they are. I
also used BARBAR SHOP for you to go see - shows produced and
directed by blacks, starring almost all blacks, and made FOR
a black audience. Perhaps that is what they MEAN when they
quibble about "black identity?" Who knows. But that's the
standard - what they show on their own produced movies. Then
again, I've heard it from MANY Jews that "when you adopt a
baby and the baby is not Jewish - it always ends up wrong."
I asked if they got these babies when they were just born or
what? They said yes. Many many people share these views,
Bob. Many intelligent people share them.

Quoted message said:

Since I don't know any REAL people that act like the
Sopranos, I guess I don't know any people with Italian
ancestry.

I've known plenty of Italians that acted REALLY like the
people on that show act - and consider that they do NOT all
act the same identical way. But they act in a kind of TYPE.
NJ NY Italians - LOTS of them are that way. Italians I meet
down here - lots of them are that way, or a more subtle
version of it.

Quoted message said:

Except that I have Italian ancestry, among my
mongrel past.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>People who can spot "he's Jewish" are spotting
>AMERICAN Jews or

European

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>(from the European ghettos) Jews. What do you NOT
>grasp about

FAMILIAL?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>When moving to Israel, they adopt a whole other kind
>of behavior -

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>simple.

Why do you presume that Jews in this country all adopt
your stereotypical behavior?

Why does Fran Drescher, the producer of THE NANNY presume
that and cater that show to that?

Because it is entertaining?

Yes - it sure is. But if Fran had the actors all acting
like stereotypical Germans - but doing/saying the same
things - Jews would NOT relate to it. Heh. To say the
least. What the hell do you think stereotypes are? Pipe
dreams? They arise from the areas of the brain evolved
naturally to TYPE things.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They'd be wrong. About a quarter of the Russian
adoptive kids I know look more like you than they look
like the stereotypical Russian. My kids look more like
me than they do the stereotypical Russian, but their
looks weren't that important to us.

Ahem, stereotypical Russians are usually ENGLISH ACTORS -
or Czars

actually

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

related to the British Royalty.

Maybe that is where you get YOUR stereotypes.

Far from it, luv.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Click on the upper left picture on this page frankfoundationcai.orgcgiOpen ↗
bin/index

OMG, they are ADORABLE - tho the 3rd from the right is
blah. I'm talking about the kids shown at the top right
of the screen - put mouse over

their

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

images and they blow up. Yup, when white folks want white
babies, they'd LOVE those kids.

Yet the second from the right would not be "white" to
most people.

There was a time in the USA when NONE of them would be white
to most people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or look at the kids in this picture: frankfoundationcai.orgcgiOpen ↗
bin/index/22?id=50&type=1&lang= and you'll see the
sorts of kids that were typical for adoption.

The same kids are in the top right of the page there. The
ones on the

far

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

left are adorable - but harder to clearly see.

The picture on the left shows a multi-racial adoptive
family Only one of the three kids, the left one, is
stereotypical "white".

None of them are black. Those kids will have NO problem
fitting into this society and/or knowing who to "identify"
with culturally speaking. .

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are white (Slavic) infants available from Russia,
but usually with higher health risks than the non-
Slavics (if the kids are available for adoption, there
is generally a reason - Russians prefer to adopt kids
that look like them, so mixed race kids and non-Slavics
in Old Russia don't get adopted. Kids who are Slavic
often have birth defects or high risk of Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome.

Well, that's known NOW - it came out - it was on Law and
Order, LOL.

It was known in 1992 when I was one of the first few dozen
who adopted.

Well, heh, "now" to me includes 1992. LOL. Time does fly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In addition, we didn't want an infant due to our age,
and indeed wanted to adopt siblings (our kids were 6
and 5 when we adopted them). The Russian program
started the month that we started considering
adoption, and articles in the paper on the special
needs kids that were typically available fit our
interests. It took less than 2 days for the agency
(the one on the web page above) to identify kids for
us once we completed the home-study, and I flew to
Russia 6 weeks later (my wife had surgery and could
not travel with me).

You got photos of your kids? OH PLEASE lemme see?

Not on the web.

Quoted message said:

Do you have any kids of your own in addition to the
adopted ones?

Nope.
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"P.Comm" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> I don't care whether they are part of racist
>> organizations. They apparently talk like racists,
>> just like you do. You may not be as virulently
>> subhuman as the King, but you are still a racist.
>
>According to you. According to me, I practice freedom
>of choice and

freedom

Quoted message said:

>of association - and those are my GOD given rights as
>a human

free-agent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, you have the God-given right to be a God-forsaken
racist. And I have the Constitutional right to call you
a racist.

You should recognize that a RACIST is a person that HATES
other people designated "another race" - usually ALL of
the group, for NO reason at

all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Main Entry: rac·ism Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of
human traits

WHICH traits? Physical ones? Or behavioral ones?
Physical traits are OBVIOUSLY genetic, DUH. Behavioral
traits are obviously NOT genetic. DUH. So your
daffynition does not apply.

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

capacities and that racial differences produce an
inherent superiority of a particular race

I do not believe or feel that a human is superior to a WORM.
So I'm not a phylumist either. Daffynition does not apply.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Never did it. Daffynition does not apply.

GOT IT?

Quoted message said:

By meaning 2, if you have prejudice against someone
because of their race, you are a racist. You have
indicated prejudice against blacks BECAUSE they are black
in how you exercise your "freedom of choice".

No I have not. I have not "indicated" anything except the
FACT that I never see blacks in any of the places I tend to
go to. I have "indicated" that I don't know or care where
they do go - or even IF they do go (I assume people like to
party, drink, eat, dance, etc. - perhaps I'm wrong). Let me
further inform you that I never see people hip club aged,
like 18-20s in any of the clubs I go to (heh), no matter if
they are country western music lovers or anything else. They
are NEVER there. I never or very very rarely see black
people on the very public beach I go to. Keep in mind that
in one club I go to, social members can simply WALK IN and
pay to get in - they pay more for food and drinks, is all.
That did not used to be the case - it used to be paid
members ONLY due to liquor laws - not due to any OTHER laws.
Used to be that they could NOT charge what they charge if it
was open to the public - OR have a smoking area! Now they
CAN. But that might change - certainly NOT due to some
rubbish about what ethnic group a person is. They might have
to restrict it again to ONLY members and guests would have
to come with members - members would have to get up and get
drinks or food for them. BY LAW. I have "INDICATED" that I
do NOT venture into well-known dangerous areas of any kind -
down here these areas are in fact BLACK - not Mexican or
Hispanic or anythning else. I have "indicated" that blacks
that live in same town as I live ALSO do not venture there.
I'm tricky, Bob. I know that. I'm trying to suss YOU out -
and figure out exactly what it is that MAKES the "HEART" of
an abusive tyrant. You are one - and you have no idea you
are one. You really fancy that you are way above all that,
you think you are NOT rude, crude (hiding behind polite,
restrictive etiquette) and downright abusive - more abusive
than makemyday ever was, who at least is obviously
attempting to be FUNNY with those "z" letters.

I have also indicated that a great many people (including
blacks, usually older from what I see) exercise their
FREEDOM OF CHOICE and they DO the same things I do about
avoiding certain areas. They also go to clubs (I'm assuming,
I have no idea if they do - I do not know or care what they
do - why SHOULD I? I'm not INTRUSIVE) - or go to churches or
whatever (I do not go to any church). I indicated to you
that 3 Buddhist temples built by my community back in NJ
never kept anyone out - and that I never once saw a black
person in there. These are true statements. NONE of these
statements are cause for YOU abusing the word racist and
branding me with it. This is what YOU need to clearly see.
Unclench your heart, Bob. LET GO. Stop LOOKING for little
nuances here and there which give you an "opening" to assume
the worst. Toto did that, imagining I "steal music" and got
her head handed to her. This IS what you are DOing, Bob. And
I'm playing you like a violin with it to try to understand
the mind of people that "did everything they could" to FORCE
races together - "if they had gone further, there'd have
really been a revolution here." I.e., if they had relocated
people against their will for purposes of forced
integration. I heard it with my own ears from people that
were deeply involved with doing such things. WHAT KIND of
people are these that would DO that? . Do they NOT realize
that they'd have to strap the women down and force breed
them with different races to REALLY achieve this lunacy?
Then, to make it work, they'd have to murder the parents so
that NONE of the past would be known. They'd have to BREED
PEOPLE to really achieve it. Do they realize it? Do they
even KNOW that this IS what they are secretly festering in
their hearts? They sometimes get to know it and crack up if
the reality of their own hearts SLAMS them in their faces.
Then they STOP.

Quoted message said:

You may not be as virulent a racist as the people who
start these threads, who clearly fit number 1. You
appear to believe MOST of number 1, including the
inferiority of blacks.

I have never once said a WORD about superior inferior. DO
NOT put that [censored] on me - that's hierarchy [censored]. No way -
that's NOT me. That's YOU, Bob. You want a "strict
definition" of "superior specimen" in terms of physical
fitness? Snoop Dog has you beat - in fact, you aint' even in
the freaking lineup. Superior runner, superior piano player,
etc.. Superior ears (harmonic pitch, superior to tone
deafness) - that's one thing. But "cats are superior to
dogs?" You'd be hard pressed to find ANY such idea in my
head or in my heart. Humans are superior to wolves? NO they
are NOT. I'm not a DUALIST.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>That I'll agree on. But groups of similar people are
>FREE to

self-determine

Quoted message said:

>their own NORMS of behavior - AND THEY DO TEND TO DO
>THAT HERE.

That's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>their CHOICE, Bob. You can't get over on me for
>NOTICING it, LOL.

I get on your case for assuming that a random person
who looks like a member of a particular race will abide
by what your perceive as the behavioral norms of that
race.

Clear out your ears. I said BLACKS call it ACTING BLACK -
producers of movies make movies - black producers, black
actors for a black audience (like Barber Shop I and II) -
and that is how they all ACT in those

movies.

Quoted message said:

I don't care what THEY say. I go by what YOU say about how
YOU feel.

How I feel? Heh, I don't feel one way or the other about it
- and would never know what "acting black" was, or that it
was an expression used by anyone - had I not heard it from
BLACKS - not from ANYONE ELSE. How do I feel about it? Grasp
the concept - I do not feel anything at all about it. How do
I feel about having to put shelving up when there is no
"level" long enough to reach - and having to PAINT it? Oh,
now I DO feel - that is FEEL - something about that - as I
wait for the primer to dry here. You said feel. Do you grasp
the concept that I FEEL nothing at all about a great many
things in the world? I'm sitting next to people at a PT job
- not supers, just workers. I feel nothing one way or the
other about them or care about their

friendly - in the opinions of everyone else. But who I am,
what I am (my soul, so to speak) they do not know. They tend
to like me. I have NO IDEA WHY! I don't know them. I won't
remember their names right now if I see ANY of them on the
street. In the 4 and half years I worked there, I got TONS
of invites from all kinds of people for all kinds of things.
I declined due to Phil's working hours and what I personally
PREFERRED to be doing instead. One gave me the name of an
excellent handyman - I called the handyman and he asked who
referred me and I couldn't even remember the

phenomenalistic in that way. If it's here - it's here. And
if it's not here - then it's not here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Scientifically, there are none. OK - socially there
>are most

definitely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>defined TYPES of people - LMAO - and the society tends
>to mislabel

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>"race." LMAO. Better?

The defined types differ in different parts of the
world. In some other countries, African ancestry would
not be a particular important grouping.

It's not a particularly important grouping here either -
I believe I said that ages ago? It's simply a GROUPING.
It's a social problem in the USA for [censored]'s sakes (DUH to
the nth man).

Since it is a social problem, obviously it IS a
particularly important grouping here.

OH, you do that so much. Then it becomes a "REAL" grouping,
as Kurtz tried to explain. Or is he branded with the misuse
of word "racist" too, now? I feel that if said social
problem is simply IGNORED - it would simply go away. Like so
much styles of clothing or music that come and go.

If it were not, we could solve the social problem by

Quoted message said:

simply agreeing not to use that particular grouping
any more.

Well, this IS usenet. In real life - the people I tend to
run into all the time don't use groupings, don't think about
groupings for the most part - BUT awhile back the worst
conflict of groups was over those that wanted at least half
the time country music (they could go to the club down the
street for that kind of music....) - versus those that said
this is an ETHNIC club and wanted the ethnic music (which I
personally prefer), which you can NOT just go down the
street to hear at all! That's about the worst GROUPING
thingy I ran into lately. Oh, yeah, there are the beach
regulars - that's a grouping. And there are the seasonal
regulars - another grouping. Those are groupings I deal with
FOR REAL - in my real life. So you see, this social problem
or whatever else we are discussing on USENET (which I regard
as a GROUP of free for all anything goes types) - is
something that DOES NOT affect me at all in my real life.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not all societies divide types the same way, and not
all members of any society abide by the typecasting.

It's not type casting. People don't normally ASSUME
anyone that looks

this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or that way is gonne BE this or that way in action.

Yes they do.

NO they don't. Gimme a break! Two people from NY come on the
beach - they meet each other and they do NOT assume anything
about each other - that's easy enough to see from their
convo. Two people from Germany are at the club - they speak
German and English both. They are strangers seated at the
table with us on New Years Eve party. We get to meet each
other (and everytime, it's a PARTY, man). They don't assume
ANYTHING about each other at all. People see old people -
they see some are disabled, some are not, some are so active
that they get up and dance for hours and they are in their
80s (I see that biweekly). NO one assumes that pepole in
their 80s can't walk - when they have seen some of them
DANCING - and I mean jitter bug too, swing, fast dancing.
And GOOD at it! People don't even assume that a guy rolling
down the way in a wheelchair needs help.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're like a watchdog - like a KGB person without the
power - standing like The Sage on the Stage - pronouncing
JUDGEMENTS

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people - and abusing the word "racist" and hurling it at
me when NOT ONE

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the criteria for being a "racist" FITS.

I disagree.

You disagree that you are like that? Oh, you most definitely
are. You disagree that you make unwarrented judgements? I
just proved it by negating your daffynition on another post.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

YOU are. You have the heart of a tyrant. You'd brand a
person a racist

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

never would/did discriminate against ANYONE on a job (and
yes, I was an office manager and could have done it
easily enough). I have never DONE

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

FELT the things that would qualify me for the brand of
racist.

You apparently don't read the [censored] you write sometimes.

I know what I write. I write stuff that hints at the
POSSIBILITY that the stuff's genetic. I say I don't know if
it is. You get all over people who post things that they
think says the stuff's genetic - you get ON them like ugly
on an ape.(Festus Hagen - TM).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I do not hate GROUPS of people

You prejudge individuals based on the race you perceive
them to be. That is racism.

No I do not. I never said I did either. You are ASSuming.
Why? Lemme guess - due to a Mason that brings up what I
consider "the [censored]" and that's that - we walk away from
him? I do the same to the person that brings up negative
[censored] on stem cell research, going on about the 1/2 inch
embryo being a baby. I don't even argue it - I do exactly
the same and walk away. NI. NI means NOT INTERESTED. If
there is one thing I do NOT EVER do - that is PREJUDGE
anyone or ANYTHING. I simply let the person "write himself"
on my blackboard - then I feel "I like" or "I do not like."
Then I choose.

Quoted message said:

It is difficult to NOT be a racist in this society, with
people yammering about race-based statistical differences.
But if you judge a person based on those statistics, that
is racist.

I never said I did. YOU did.

Quoted message said:

But I usually don't call a person racist because they do
that, because it cheapens the word. Rather, I use it only
for people who do that and think it isn't a bad thing. I
know that I've made judgements about people because of
their race - not often, but I have. I don't usually call
myself racist because I know that it is WRONG.

You have me beat. I have NEVER made a judgement about a
person due to

interaction with that person, Bob. Never. I repeat - when I
have had NO interaction with them. Judgements I make for my
choice of acquaintances/friends/handymen come only AFTER I
have had interaction with a person. I can't even fathom
doing that. I'm often told that I SHOULD make judgements
when I see a snake in the yard and NOT just go up to it. I
SHOULD assume it's dangerous. I don't even do THAT. The
handyman I have right now - I just found out he's Puerto
Rican from Brooklyn due to a joke he just made about "your
husband is ok with you being along with a crazy Rican from
NY?" I didn't know that - his accent sure the hell is NOT
New York Brooklyn in any way. I had no idea what he was -
but I knew he was a MAN (LMAO hard not to notice) - I know
he is very strong and only a bit taller than me - and I know
he's here right now so this convo is going to be short. I
know that the lawn person that did handy work and lawn work
for me was some kind of ethnic or possibly black with some
kind of accent (I never really look at him with my glasses
on - so I can't say). No matter - he and anyone I use, is
inexpensive, reliable, and does GOOD WORK. That is ALL I
need to know. How do I know they are doing good work?
Because I know exactly HOW to do all of this stuff I'm
having done - and am even helping with what my arms can
manage. I am physically unable to do it these days. But I
know good work when I see it. Do I ask them a THING about
their background when I hire them to do work? Yes I do - I
ask "and how did you think the job was and was he over the
top expensive?" That's all the background information I
NEED. Chew on that.

Quoted message said:

You don't think it is wrong.

You say I do not think it's wrong referring to this
statement "Rather, I use it only for people who do that

Quoted message said:

and think it isn't a bad thing."

That makes you a racist in my eyes.

Wrong again. I don't think free speech of any kind is wrong
if it's not used AT A PERSON to cause real trouble. I hear
"wrong speech" every day - when the fat child runs home in
tears over what was said to her. I can say "ignore" but the
BRUISES the [censored] BRATS gave her are another matter. I
don't talk when I see that kind of [censored] - I DO something -
and at times I've done some physical [censored] BACK AT the people
that did [censored] like this. Or to the teachers - like where the
hell were THEY when this happened?

I don't think anything I've seen on usenet regarding this
topic is wrong at all - it's usenet and I've seen a hell of
a lot worse on here - had it directed at me too - like libel
- provable libel - making trouble or trying to with
neighbors, taking decent photos of me and twisting them into
[censored] and then putting them up on websites (which I got torn
down). What do I do? I get EVEN in a big way - and when the
[censored] hits THEIR collective fannies, they have no clues where
it even came from. I've no morality about such things. EG, I
hear about Americans torturing poor Iraqi prisoners - yeah -
it's a freaking WAR - whadda you expect?

So, you best RETHINK your little pet peeve, boy.

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

Bob LeChevalier said:

Quoted message said:

Automobile insurance companies attribute the bad driving
statistics, of the under-age-25 group, to the ENTIRE
group, regardless of how well some of them actually
drive. Ins co's don't have the resources to check them
all out individually. These companies are NOT stupid.
It's simply common sense good business practice.

Bob will find this out when his teenage kids start
driving.

My daughter got her license last week. But I knew it 30
years ago.

ANYONE with no driving history gets treated as high risk
when they first get a policy.

So what'z wrong with treating all DAFNz as high risk, until
proven otherwise? That'z my whole point. It makes sense to
minimize your risk when dealing with a group having poor
statisticz. Don't hire them, don't rent to them, don't live
near them.

Safest approach? Think like an insurance company....

Quoted message said:

So what'z wrong with treating all DAFNz as high risk, until
proven otherwise?

It's racist and therefore immoral.

End of story.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob LeChevalier said:

P.Comm said:

Jensen was condemned as racist in the late 1960s by a
generation of
academics reacting to the racist atrocities of the
Second World War.

Quoted message said:

He's still a professor, respected.

He's still a professor because of academic freedom in
this country. He is not respected.

If the complete truth were known, Jensen is no doubt
*highly* respected for having the courage to speak the
truth, however unpleasant from the standpoint of
Political_Correctness. He is respected by those who know
the truth and are not in a position to safely speak out.
For example, the majority of those who engage in
White_Flight - that well-known REAL and MASSIVE phenomena
that results in parts of large cities being almost totally
DAFN.....

I agree - y ou are speaking the truth - whether anyone likes
that or not.

Btw - y ou hear of the problem in that u niversity - MLK
University in California somewhere? It was given to them,
staffed wholly by blacks, after Watts. Now Hispanics are
taking it over and it's improving. Under the blacke, blacks
had to fire heaps of staff - and more and more utter
incompetence, even insane booboos with patients, are coming
out into the open. One patient was on cancer medicine for 3
days before discovered --- the man had meningitis. The
first trouble started due to too many deaths in the
hospital there.

Truth to tell, I can't FATHOM that. Blacks I've run into in
the health care, for instance, are WAY better than anyone
else at giving shots, doing IV, etc - they seem to have a
"feel" for getting it right the first time.

"Bull Connor" <master.of.slave.apes> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"toto" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Why did you not adopt an American baby - there are so
> many orphans

here? Why

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> not adopt a black American baby, especially with your
> sense of having

a

Quoted message said:

DUTY

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> to them for the past

This ought to be good...

Racial consciousness led to restrictions and even bans
on white parents adopting black babies, even when the
alternative was a succession of foster homes. The stated
belief was that white families would be unable to
provide black or bi-racial children with a healthy black
identity.

What is a "black identity"? There's no such thing as race,
remember?

You just posted that for me, LMAO. I was gonna ask the same
thing. Definitely, in many places anyone that wants to adopt
ANY baby is welcome to adopt one. The fact is, you can find
people spending thousands of bucks adopting dogs or cats -
rather than adopt a baby classed as "unwanted" - such as the
defective, handicapped, etc. and black babies! I swear. I
heard it with own ears from adoption places.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be
heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"toto" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 3 May 2004 22:06:03 -0400, "Bull Connor"

master.of.slave.apes said:

"toto" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 03 May 2004 12:57:41 GMT,
[email hidden] wrote:

>> Why did you not adopt an American baby - there are
>> so many orphans

here? Why

Quoted message said:

>> not adopt a black American baby, especially with
>> your sense of

having a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

DUTY

Quoted message said:

>> to them for the past
>
>This ought to be good...

Racial consciousness led to restrictions and even bans
on white parents adopting black babies, even when the
alternative was a succession of foster homes. The
stated belief was that white families would be unable
to provide black or bi-racial children with a healthy
black identity.

What is a "black identity"? There's no such thing as
race, remember?

Race is socially constructed, thus there are those who
believe that a child who would be identified as black by
the color of his skin and the shape of his features needs
to have contact with others for whom this is also an
identity.

That, in itself, is racist, Toto, Bob. Your identity is YOU
- YOU are Toto - a unique, indivual, one-of-a-kind
occurrence in the universe. You are not your mother or
father, you are not your brother or sister. You are TOTO.
That IS your identify. That identity comes first BEFORE
"Toto is a woman" or "Toto is in her 50s" and etc. Get what
I mean? The "I" is the "I". That's the SELF - the CORE of
your being. And it doesn't matter what others SEE YOU as,
eg, "Toto is a person who dresses conservatively" or etc.
All of that is superficial. "Black identity" has no meaning
at all. None. Shall the black identify with Captain Sisko on
Star Trek DS9? Or with Jordy? Or with Snoop Dog? Shall that
black person "identify" with classical music? Country and
western? Rap? What? What's black identity?

Quoted message said:

Teaching children who are discriminated against how to
deal with such matters is best done by those who have
personally experienced it.

Nope - that perpetuates victimhood - makes them think there
is "rasssssism" afoot when some innocent thing is said "like
I can't tell who is who in the dark" or whatever - making it
a CHORE to even bother getting into a convo with one of them
- why bother. Too much bother. The self-consciousness can
even make your skin crawl.

Quoted message said:

I don't agree that bi-racial adoption is a bad thing, but
this was the theory and still is. Most agencies will not
allow *white couples* to adopt healthy *black* babies even
today. This was even more true in the time period when Bob
adopted his children. In the 1960s, the racial barriers
were being broken and white families were adopting black
children.

In 1972, the National Association of Black Social Workers
took a vehement stand against the placement of black
children in white homes. I don't believe that these people
are correct in their position, but it is their position
which has become part of the adoption culture.

Well, do you know what they said about why they took that
stand? I remember hearing some of it. It's more of what the
blacks said on that show - more of what everyone seems to
notice: - that is, as kids, kids play. As soon a puberty
comes, they naturally separate.

In 1999, btw, there

Quoted message said:

was a lawsuit which contended that the social agencies
delayed and denied transracial adoptions due to this
position taken by the social workers involved in these
cases. The law does not support this, but the agencies
procrastinate and delay placement.

Well, then there is THIS: OK - here goes the info: There are
probably 1 or 2, possibly 3 genes involved in the "whole
appearance" that we all, (black eyesight or anyone else's)
eye-ball tend to recognize and CALL "That's BLACK" and/or
"that's NOT black." This is supposing that the "wild type"
is an African type like the ones we see today (ignore the
similarities of a few immunological markers, eg, that
favorite Xhoisan/Swede thingy). EG, no matter what - IF the
jaw muscles change, the cranium changes and then the brain
changes which equals BEHAVIORAL change, including the way
people talk. Blacks have heavier jaw muscles, they also have
the least musculature in the face, around the mouth, eyes,
etc. - the type that allows for very subtle expressions
(Asians have the most of those). Now, with ANY animals they
can identify CLADES, LINEAGES and compare them and look at
the genes and at the animals. They LOOK different, BEHAVE
different - are different clades and differnt lineages.,
They can tell "this clade ALL has THIS gene." "This other
clade all DOES NOT have THIS gene." Very specific and
precise. They can then DELETE that gene in the clade that
has it and the ENTIRE LOOK changes and looks like the other
clade lineage, behavior changes, etc. the whole works. You
can NOT do this kind of thing with humans - it's
expreiments. Genes drop out or cross over. If they could
inject a eg - hypothetical - WHITE lineage embryo with a
protein produced by one of the genes, you MIGHT get a
CASCADE EFFECT IN DEVELOPMENT producing a black-looking baby
in all ways, jaw, features, bones, etc. This is HOW IT WORKS
with animals. Might involve ONE gene! We are not allowed to
test this on humans. There are only 30 thousand genes in
human beings. If there were a trillion genes, which they
used to think, then you could say there must be millions of
genes different in the races and you could never develop one
race INTO the other. But there are only 30,000 genes. It is
HIGHLY possible that genes dropped out - and the dropping
out of even only ONE gene - procudes an entire cascade
effect - and you end up with a person that NO LONGER looks
black in ANY way - who has NONE of the particular things
blacks do have.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob LeChevalier said:

P.Comm said:

I do not hate GROUPS of people

You prejudge individuals based on the race you perceive
them to be. That is racism.

It is difficult to NOT be a racist in this society, with
people yammering about race-based statistical
differences. But if you judge a person based on those
statistics, that is racist.

But I usually don't call a person racist because they do
that, because it cheapens the word. Rather, I use it
only for people who do that and think it isn't a bad
thing.

Automobile insurance companies attribute the bad driving
statistics, of the under-age-25 group, to the ENTIRE
group, regardless of how well some of them actually drive.
Ins co's don't have the resources to check them all out
individually. These companies are NOT stupid. It's simply
common sense good business practice.

Oh hell yes they sure do - and it's age discrimination.
They do NOT up the rates on the Very Old who can hardly see
- they do not up the rates on middle aged housewives who
MIGHT be on valium or something - and so forth. They do NOT
up the rates on people who wear glasses (lemme shut while
I'm ahead.....) Where is the public hue and cry? There
isn't any.

Quoted message said:

Bob will find this out when his teenage kids start
driving. Go ahead, Bob. Try giving your agent hell about
his "discrimination." Tell him he is equivalent to a
GDFkg_Racist_Idiot...

It's actually the same identical thing - it really is. I
noticed this all my life, too.

Quoted message said:

To not discriminate when interacting with IQ-75 OOWB
DAFNz is similarly stupid. Pre-judge them based on their
group statz. You don't have the resources to check them
all out...

P.Comm said:

... in many places anyone that wants to adopt ANY baby is
welcome to adopt one. The fact is, you can find people
spending thousands of bucks adopting dogs or cats - rather
than adopt a baby classed as "unwanted" - such as the
defective, handicapped, etc. and black babies! I swear. I
heard it with own ears from adoption places.

You don't have to worry about your IQ-75 Black Dog
doing poorly in school and not being able to support
itself as an adult.

Your black dog won't play rap music all day on a boom box
and speak ebonicz.

Your dog won't burgle the neighbors, steal cars, buy/sell
drugz and rob 7-11s when it'z a teenager.

Your Black Dog won't steal your valuables and call you a
M'Fkr.

If your black dog engages in TDB, you can swat it with a
newspaper and not have to worry about Dog Protective
Services coming to take away your dog and have you
arrested...

When you get tired of a dog/cat, you can just dump it off at
the shelter to be euthanized. Ditto for the IQ-75 Dogletz if
your Black Dog breedz OOW...

You won't have to visit your black dog every month in
prizon...

P.Comm said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob LeChevalier said:

"P.Comm" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>I do not hate GROUPS of people

You prejudge individuals based on the race you
perceive them to be. That is racism.

It is difficult to NOT be a racist in this society,
with people yammering about race-based statistical
differences. But if you judge a person based on those
statistics, that is racist.

But I usually don't call a person racist because they
do that, because it cheapens the word. Rather, I use
it only for people who do that and think it isn't a
bad thing.

Automobile insurance companies attribute the bad driving
statistics, of the under-age-25 group, to the ENTIRE
group, regardless of how well some of them actually
drive. Ins co's don't have the resources to check them
all out individually. These companies are NOT stupid.
It's simply common sense good business practice.

Oh hell yes they sure do - and it's age discrimination.
They do NOT up the rates on the Very Old who can hardly
see - they do not up the rates on middle aged housewives
who MIGHT be on valium or something - and so forth. They
do NOT up the rates on people who wear glasses (lemme shut
while I'm ahead.....) Where is the public hue and cry?
There isn't any.

The insurance companies are just going by the stats.
Housewives on valium apparently aren't affecting stats for
that age group enuff to raise the rates. Ditto for geezers.
Enuff old folks realize their vision, reactions and
concentration are not as good as when they were younger, and
adjust their driving accordingly: e.g., less aggressive,
more following distance, speed reduction, don't drive at
night, etc...