DAFNz are Genetically Defined *Mutantz*

P.Comm said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

On the other hand, I am a professional who works in the
sorts of fields that the intelligence agencies use, and I
know the state of the art of the field.

Likewise - in the past. But you aren't in any position to
get a PEEK at certain things because such things aren't
even laying around to be peeked at where you are, Bob.
Right? Right.

They are a lot more likely to be laying around in suburban
DC than in Lehigh Acres FL.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WERE intelligent people at the helm.

But somehow our intelligence community is a cut above
everyone else in their level of perfection, and also
manages to keep secrets perfectly.

Uh huh. They do, do they? LOL.

Your claim that we have all these secret capabilities and no
one could or would find out about them unless they had ultra
clearances would require such perfection.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why would anyone want to find something targeted
"specific to say blue eyed people"?

Ask the Soviets that developed a certain thing. I'd give
you the guy's name - but no - that would be WRONG to do
that. Well, actually the blues end up dead - everyone else
just gets kinda sick but lives. The blues in the home
population get sent east - the Tatars get put up front
where they might get sick, but not die. Simple?

Quoted message said:

If someone came up with such a weapon, and it were found
out that it existed, the country that developed it would
find themselves compared with Nazi Germany. And such a
weapon could not be used without it being found out that
it existed.

It was accidentally used. No one found out about it except
the people that developed it and their superiors that
ordered it, and me because one of those people happens to
be a kinda friend of mine - long distance. No one knew what
happened after the accident, either.

You seem to be trying to imply that the Soviets had such a
weapon, and frankly I don't believe you. But the Soviets had
a far more closed and repressive system than the US has,
including the power to "send people east" where they
couldn't spread the word easily, and the power to make
people disappear permanently without others asking
questions.

But my point is different. Even if we KNEW how to make such
a weapon, we wouldn't develop it because we couldn't use it.
If we used it, then people would know that we had and used
the capability, and we would be eternally condemned as
[censored] was. After all, many nations had the capability to
set up concentration camps and gas chambers, but only [censored]
actually used them and [censored] is universally reviled for
it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We'll all get where we are going someday. No more reason
to spend the money on roads than AIDS,

Wrong. I use roads. We all use roads. We all use roads way
more than we end up at risk for AIDS here. Let's do roads.
Let's spend it on at-home health care for people - and nice
things like that, that make LIFE better.

People at home get AIDS too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and we get far more bang for the buck for AIDS research.
It costs a couple of $billion to replace a single bridge
in the DC area, which is probably more than is being spent
on AIDS research.

Aids research is putting gas in a car with no engine.

???

The only thing I can presume you mean is that, since they
are going to die anyway, why bother trying to extend/prolong
their lives. But that reason applies to all levels of health
care for everyone.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But government spending money on AIDS has a direct
benefit to the taxpayer, because all those in this
country who suffer from AIDS end up costing society much
more than the research costs.

Solution - quaranteen.

We could not afford to quarantine that many citizens, and it
would likely be unconstitutional if we could. Do you really
think that quarantine - supporting millions for years in
isolation (because if you isolate them, you have to totally
support them), is less expensive than the trivial amounts we
spend on AIDS research?

Quoted message said:

Vaccinate them against what COULD infect them to help their
immune systems.

Do you think we have vaccines against all sorts of obscure
opportunistic diseases that only strike those with deficient
immune systems? Developing those vaccines would cost more
than AIDS research.

Quoted message said:

That's cheap enough.

No it isn't. You apparently are clueless about medical
research and treatment costs, too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even a 10% drop in the costs for AIDS treatment would
more than pay for all the research. But we don't know
what particular research will lead to that 10% drop, so
we do it all.

Do with AIDS victims as they do with the homeless -
abandon them.

We don't. The homeless aren't really abandoned - they just
don't generally get free housing. They do get other
government benefits, because otherwise they would be dead
and not homeless.

Quoted message said:

Problem solved. I mean, with "virus chasers" and "gift
givers" around - and husbands that take more and more fresh
uninfected wives - what the hey.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and probably you
don't either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because you talk like a racist and defend racists.

This is extremely odd - because you see, onLINE - I have
convos in egroup with various groups of people and
individuals - and never once have ANY of them thought I was
racist, Bob.

They don't read your Usenet posts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I respond to your words, which is the only clue I have to
your nonsense.

I do not write nonsense.

That is your norm.

Quoted message said:

You are becoming abusive

You only get what you deserve.

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 ↗

P.Comm said:

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

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?

Human ones.

Unfortunately for you idealists that would probably rewire
brains if you could

BECAUSE I am an idealist (not really, I'm a pragmatist, but
...) I would NOT rewire brains just because I could.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Physical ones? Or behavioral ones? Physical traits are

Quoted message said:

OBVIOUSLY genetic, DUH. Behavioral traits are obviously
NOT genetic.

The racists that you defend think so. You apparently
don't read MMD and the King's [censored] before agreeing
with it.

I read MMD - and I think he's funny

I think he is sick.

Quoted message said:

always did even when he was Big Don. I don't defend them.
I merely see their POINT.

You think they have a point. That makes you a racist,
because only a racist would give them any points at all.
They are subhuman scum.

Quoted message said:

I'd have to disagree - the lawn/handymen were excellent
workers, honest, reliable, hard working and reasonable.
They weren't white. How about that, oh tish tish. I never
heard MMD say that ALL of them are this or that or thiz or
thatz. I heard him bring up STATISTICS. I have no idea who
The King is. Not sure I ever read a post by the King.

I'm sure you have. "The King of SCAA", is how he signs
his posts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're not worth the time.

You say that because you have been refuted. I do not
discriminate. I do not prejudge anything - let alone
anyone. I also do not assume things about anyone - or
anything (not even snakes).

One more thing, in case you weren't being vigilent
that day.

I stand by this idea - I think Europeans and Africans are
UTTERLY INSANE.

That is a racist statement. It is a statement of prejudging
two entire groups of people, a billion and a half of them,
of whom you know a tiny fraction. So don't give us [censored]
about not prejudging people. You just did. Your statement of
3 paragraph up stands proven to be a lie.

Non-racists don't think such things.

Quoted message said:

I make that statement based on what they did and what they
do. There is no morality at all in my opinion.

That is for sure.

Quoted message said:

Here is one reason that should be obvious. With the world
history at their finger tips, Europeans in the USA (mostly
English folks) drag a bunch of people they think are
subhuman to the USA.

They do?

Quoted message said:

They look SO different that these Europeans really believe
they are maybe another species. They are taken here as
slaves - despite hindsight and history to inform them
about how bad an idea taking slaves is. Next they forcibly
mate with them. Next, they let the descendents of these
people and even former slaves run loose in the society and
- with all their hubbub about their posterity and their
children's futures!

I vaguely see what you are trying to say. You are using the
present tense to refer to 300+ years of history wherein lots
of different people made lots of different decisions.

In the 1600s, world history was at no one's fingertips;
almost no one knew even as much as schoolkids today know
about it. There was no hindsight and history to inform
people about how bad an idea taking slaves was because very
little hindsight was practiced, and slavery was still
economically quite feasible, as it continued to be until the
1860s. Only some forcibly mated with them, and most of the
rest had no knowledge of, and no approval of those actions.

There was considerable debate about what to do with the
freed slaves, but "let them run loose" is what our society
does. It must be noted that in most other societies in
history, the slaves generally had a path to freedom and
eventual incorporation as full citizens. That is what
happened in Rome for hundreds of years. It was only the
particularly virulent form of racist slavery practiced in
the South that was practiced in this manner, and those in
the South were not too happy about "letting former slaves
run loose in the society", which is why the KKK was founded.

Quoted message said:

That's insane.

You are insane.

Quoted message said:

I need only look at normal tribal customs in Africa to
conclude that they are insane, or read more on afrocentric
studies to conclude it.

I look at someone who judges people insane because of
customs and studies, and I see insanity.

Quoted message said:

You see, Bob, I don't JUDGE any of what these people did as
RIGHT or WRONG.

You judge it "insane", which is another way of saying
"WRONG".

Quoted message said:

I don't consider a stat reader a racist, either (YOU DO).

A stat reader is not a racist. A stat REASONER is a racist.

Quoted message said:

There is no morality to it. It's not right or wrong, Bob.
It's part of heh, HUMAN NATURE to do such things.

Acting according to human nature, without judgement, can
be immoral.

Quoted message said:

I think it's insane because it LACKS those important last
stages of logic - it lacks foresight completely.

So you think that human nature can be insane, and not
be immoral?

Quoted message said:

As Ambrose Bierce said it - The American Political Problem.
Well - I don't think it's a problem anymore. You do. I
don't. Maybe MMD thinks it's a problem. Nah - not anymore.
That's past.

*He* is the problem. And YOU (and your attitude towards him)
are not the solution, so you are part of the problem.
Anything less than universal revilement and disgust for his
subhuman rantings is part of the problem, and shared his
immorality.

Quoted message said:

BTW, speaking of stats and making money - do you know about
the stats on who watches which shows on TV? I do.

Do I care? No.

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 ↗

P.Comm said:

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

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

why did YOU jump into the convo?

Because it is fun to jump all over racists.

Interesting - I have fun getting into the heads of
judgemental dogmatists - especially since they NEVER EVER
know how cosmically judgemental they really are! Mirror
time - got one?

I know I am judgmental. INTJ, I think. I am more judgmental
on Usenet than I am in real life because I am answering
people who are going out of their way to be extreme and
offensive, and they deserve
it. In polite society, people don't stand on soapboxes and
rant and rave about [racist epithets deleted], so such
people deserve to get treated as rudely as they act.

Quoted message said:

In Stalin's time, Vragi naroda was a term that sent shivers
down spines and ruined people's jobs, reputations and even
lives - some perished due to it.

I'm aware. I said I'm reading a novel - a translation of
Rybukov's -Children of the Arbat, set in 1934 Stalinist
Russia, with Stalin himself as a major character, and teens
and college-age kids as most of the rest, one of who gets
Article 58 more or less for saying the wrong thing in the
wrong place at the wrong time.

Quoted message said:

if you successfully BRAND a person a RACIST - you have done
the USAs equivalent of what the brand Vragi naroda did in
that other society.

And what [censored] did with the brand "Jew".

Quoted message said:

And even more - not ONE non-white is ever accused of a HATE
CRIME - a crime having directly to do with race.

Repeatedly addressed and false.

Quoted message said:

This kind of insanity does NOT apply to age discrimination,
as you had pointed out to you, nor does it apply to the
handicapped. I can call a handicapped person a "crippled
geek" and it's not a hate crime.

It isn't a hate crime until you commit a crime. You can't
convicted of a hate crime until you commit a crime, and
then it is shown that you exhibited racial hatred as part
of the crime.

Thus if you called the handicapped person a "crippled geek"
and then beat them to a bloody pulp, then you can indeed be
convicted of a hate crime

acjnet.orgother.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

The law has special criteria for crimes motivated by hate.
These are crimes committed against a person or group
because of hate or prejudice on account of their:

race, colour, or national or ethnic origin language
colour religion

Quoted message said:

age mental or physical disability

Notice that prejudice because of age and handicaps are among
the things that can make something a hate crime.

acjnet.orgdefine.htmlOpen ↗ gives more,

Quoted message said:

HC5. What are the special hate crimes? There are actually
three kinds of hate crimes. They are called:

advocating genocide publicly inciting hatred and wilfully
promoting hatred. Unless the crime involves one of those
three actions, technically it's not a hate crime. It
wouldn't matter how much hate the person committing the
crime had. (05.21.98)

showing that what MMD is doing would be considered a hate
crime if he did so on the street. He does it on Usenet from
behind an alias because he's too chicken to do otherwise.

I'd dig up the actual statute, but I doubt that you'd read
it.

Quoted message said:

You can advocate eugenics or euthanasia against deformed,
sick, handicapped, etc, in the sense the Nazis practiced it
- and it's not a hate crime.

Better read up on it. Per the above, if you don't word
things carefully, it could be just as much a "special hate
crime" as if you do it because of race.

But people don't practice virulent ageism, so they aren't
prosecuted for age-based hate crimes.

Quoted message said:

It is ONLY a hate crime when it involves a white person
saying a "word" to certain specific non-whites.

False.

Quoted message said:

So DO NOT try to hedge and dodge with me, boy. I know all
about collectivism. Stalin's collectives were about LABOR -
not about breeds of people.

They were also about CLASS, and class sometimes included
"breeds of people". A lot of Jews went to Siberia.

Quoted message said:

Collectives, as a matter of fact, are VERY powerful and
tend to get a hell of a lot more DONE - than the individual
types. Think of it in terms of small individual stores and
homemade goods - compared to MASS marketing and modern
capitalism. Capitalism is ALSO highly collectivist in that
sence - think FACTORY, Bob.

Of course. Remember that I was citing GRAY, who calls
libertarians "collectivists" %^)

Quoted message said:

Nothing written by professors or "scholars" about Stalin is
objective.

Did I claim otherwise?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There ya go again. It has nothing to do with racism.
Dominant genes producing characteristics can VERY easily
be bred out.

Not in humans, because humans aren't breed like
livestock, mated with artificial selection to produce or
weed out traits.

Are you insane? Are you incredibly stupid? DOMINANT traits
can be bred out of ANYTHING ALIVE - human or not.

Only by preventing those carrying dominant genes from
breeding. And humans cannot practically be controlled in
that way. (Perhaps in the future with the possibility of
sterilization of an entire people, it could become possible.
But it isn't practical.)

Quoted message said:

Recessive will remain and pop up. FACT. It does not matter
whether you breed flowers by cross fertilizing, making wide
crossings, or breeding pure lines of them - the statement I
made is that DOMINANT traits are the traits that can be
bred out. Recessive traits CAN NOT.

Yes they can. Takes more knowledge and work, and probably
more generations, but it can be done. Unless of course the
recessive trait is one that comes into being by
spontaneous mutation.

Quoted message said:

So - that means that if flat hair shafts (blacks have
these) are RECESSIVE - then there is NO possible way to get
rid of that trait. It can always pop up. We have no idea if
it is dominant or recessive. Blue eyes, it is known, are
recessive - ergo I used that as a prime example.

Most traits are neither dominant nor recessive. It's a
useful concept for teaching genetics, but biochemically it
is the making or not making of a protein that causes or
enables some biochemical process. Blue eyes are "recessive"
because they occur only in the total absence of a particular
process, so any mechanism that supports that process makes
eyes non-blue.

Quoted message said:

And even if

Quoted message said:

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.

True. Not the POINT.

Very much the point. That is what it would take to breed out
any trait, either dominant or recessive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ask any geneticist.

I know what is possible if you can control breeding.
Human breeding cannot be controlled.

Humans themselves MAY have done such a thing in the
remote past

They can't do it now, when we have the knowledge of what
would have to be done. In the remote past they did not have
the knowledge.

Quoted message said:

- which might - MIGHT - account for a clustering of types
of people - so much so that in ancient times, written
reports described the entire population of people as
having a specific appearance - an appearance that we
TODAY KNOW is RECESSIVE TRAITS.

Such descriptions were almost certainly false.

Quoted message said:

For an eg - if "everyone in Ireland" is blue eyed - then
the people MUST have bred for that by themselves - even if
they knew nothing about breeding!

People think that all Swedes are blonde. They aren't. ISTR
that not even a majority are blonde.

Quoted message said:

For instance, you don't have to know a thing about breeding

Quoted message said:

in favor of lighter or darker people - or rounder or
slantier eyes - or colors of eyes - or sizes of noses - or
breast sizes. Or breast shapes even. And so forth. We have
NO idea what's dominant or recessive on most of this stuff

Of course we do. If it is recessive or dominant then very
specific patterns result. Most genes are neither, or
rather, the recessive form of the gene is fatal, so all
are dominant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

There is no particular reason to believe that people will
*ever* accept breeding human beings like livestock and
then set up a controlled multigenerational program that
will implement such breeding, and then manage to maintain
that program over the many generations needed to get the
results.

There was a group of people that bred people exactly like
that - and over quite a FEW generations, Bob. Slave
masters did it.

Cite, please.

Quoted message said:

That's the example I KNOW happened. How many other examples
of such a thing happened that I DO NOT know about -
especially in the East of Asia or China? In India? Or in
ancient times? In pre-historic times before written
history? It is biologically POSSIBLE to breed out dominant
traits. Fact. Stop focusing on human beings.

I'm only interested in human beings on this matter. It isn't
racism to breed out black sheep.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ou can NOT breed out recessive genes. That is, there is
NO WAY you can breed out the blue

eyes.

Quoted message said:

It is genetically possible. You could, IF you could
control breeding per the above worldwide. Just sterilize
anyone who has the blue eye recessive. If it could be
done there might be massive depopulation for a generation
or two, but you'd eliminate all blue-eyed genes.

I'd guess that every human being on the PLANET has genes
that enable them to make blue eyes.

Nope. At least 3 genes are involved in eye color, which
means that
1/8 of the population will have all 3 genes required for
blue eyes, and 1/8 of the population has no genes involved
in blue eyes.
seps.orgeyecolor.htmlOpen ↗ 4th
question down.

But note that there appears to be at least one other gene
involved that is not yet identified.

Quoted message said:

I know I do - tho I do not have blue eyes myself at all. So
it can't be done. Dominant traits could be bred out in ONE
generation. How would that be done without having to
sterilize anyone? Simple - breed the ones with known
recessive traits (known by simply looking at them) and wipe
out the rest. Bingo - that fast. LMAO.

That could only be done with total genocide. And the lesson
of the Holocaust is "never again" (and the Holocaust did NOT
in fact entirely wipe out the Jews).

That is why we can NEVER permit racists to even claim the
slightest shred of human decency.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

I know that human nature doesn't allow it.

Human nature, Bob, allowed for wholesale genocide not just
due to "different race" or "different ethnicity," but due
to "different RELIGION."

That was *attempted* genocide. Bad enough, but human nature
prevented them from succeeding, showing that there is hope
for our species.

Quoted message said:

Human nature ALLOWS for a great deal of things, Bob.

Of course. But not that one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more, they noticed the demographics - and it was the
opposite of what you say.

The world is becoming more like Brazil.

The "WORLD" is not becoming like Brazil at all.
Demographics just in the USA show that statement to
be false.

Cite, please.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True integration is MIXING/MATING. Not sharing a school
room or a

neighborhood.

Quoted message said:

One comes before the other.

That seriously doesn't seem to be happening at all in most
European countries, or in all of China. It is not happening
in onclaves of suburban areas and so forth.

Yes it is. I am in a wealthy suburban area. It is happening
here, indeed probably more than it is happening where you
are. The wealthy don't care about race so much as the
working poor.

Quoted message said:

If you put people in long term contact in a school
room or a

Quoted message said:

neighborhood some of them will mate. The black
slaveowners found that out, which is why most American
blacks have some white ancestry.

I have news for you - as a matter of fact, more mixing
happened DUE TO slave ownership and rape than ever happened
by putting blacks and whites in the same schools or forcing
them together by legal means. You are mixing two completely
opposing things together - 1. strict master/slave relation
where masters bred humans and 2. social settings where such
things are illegal. That mixing and mating happened by
FORCE, Bob - when the blacks didn't have a SAY in the
matter - where blacks could not say NO.

Of course. But it was still mixing, and it occurred in
a society where racial mixing was considered the
epitome of BAD.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do it for a few generations, and you won't be able to
tell what race anyone is.

It's already been done for a few generations - the slave
generations in the USA who couldn't refuse or say no.

It'll take a few more. It takes a lot of generations to
spread "dominant genes" to almost everyone when there
remains prejudice.

If we have only 5% miscegenation rates, it might take 20
generations, which is 400 years. The rate was probably lower
than that in the past which is why we still have a sharp
racial divide, and will become higher as race continues to
become more irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Why do you think this is controversial or relevant. I
don't want to force anything. I just ridicule bad
attitudes.

You don't just do that. You assume and judge without
warrant.

And then I ridicule those that I judge to be displaying
subhuman behavior. I don't "force" them to do anything, and
I won't. Of course if MMD or the King were to commit their
"special hate crimes" in a non-anonymous manner, I might be
one who would ask the government to prosecute them.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you don't know a few facts. That, for a fact,
ALL social integration that happened as a result of
Civil Rights has been FORCED to one degree or another -
FOR THE MOST PART - even, as absurd as it might be, on
PRIVATE CLUBS.

So what? They weren't forced. They can leave. We don't need
any racists in this country.

Quoted message said:

Where was there literally a lot of mixing going on? IN the
old south when slave masters raped and even literally BRED
people - even shades of them for types of jobs. Where the
women could not say NO to rape. Where the men were
powerless to lift a finger. THAT is where integration
happened in the biological sense. And where are these
people now? Still in the black community. Despite being 3/4
Irish or English, they are NOT Irish or English and no one,
including themselves, thinks of them as Irish or English.

The ones that are 3/4 Irish or English are not generally in
the black community, and we've recently discussed Abdul and
Carey where even being 1/2 black makes it uncertain what
category they fit in.

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 ↗

P.Comm said:

But the Soviets had a far more closed

Quoted message said:

and repressive system than the US has, including the
power to "send people east" where they couldn't spread
the word easily, and the power to make people disappear
permanently without others asking questions.

They sure did. I know this person NOW - he's presently in
England. He left after the USSR fell. But, do you think
that our gov does NOT have the power to make people vanish?

Yes, they do. But they do not have the power to make people
vanish without people noticing asking questions. And if the
person is in a sensitive position, say in a government job,
often the press gets interested, and they can be quite
dogged in their pursuit of answers.

People who do illegals stuff that is in this country under
the guise of classified operations on the assumption that it
will never be found out, often wind up in deep trouble.
Whoever came up with the wise idea of abusing Iraqis will
probably regret it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But my point is different. Even if we KNEW how to make
such a weapon, we wouldn't develop it because we couldn't
use it. If we used it, then people would know that we had
and used the capability, and we would be eternally
condemned as [censored] was.

We have the weapons - or at least the Soviets have/had it.
Things that look like a random outbreak of a disease or
natural disaster are not so easily condemned. The two
countries have weapons that, if used, Bob, there'd be
nobody "worth listening to" left to condemn it.

I know. That isn't even classified.

Quoted message said:

After all, many nations

Quoted message said:

had the capability to set up concentration camps and gas
chambers, but only [censored] actually used them and [censored]
is universally reviled for
it.

That is because [censored] got caught and he lost the war, Bob.

Anyone who uses such a weapon has automatically been
"caught".

Quoted message said:

The US government conducted a round of ethnic cleansing via
outright genocide, war and deceitful tactics, including
germ warfare (smallpox blankets) on millions of men, women
and children.

Americans did so (actually the British did so, since we were
still British). There was no US government at the time.

Quoted message said:

No one condemns the US government or the past presidents
under which this was done, for doing these things - except
a few people in alternature religions and a few lefties.

Wrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People at home get AIDS too.

More people use roads than get AIDS.

Doesn't matter. We pay for AIDS whether we get it or not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Aids research is putting gas in a car with no engine.

???

You can prevent AIDS from killing a person by vaccinating
them against illnesses they WOULD GET because their immune
systems are compromised.

We don't have vaccines for most obscure diseases, and
developing vaccines is not cheap.

Quoted message said:

That's cheap and very doable.

Nope.

Quoted message said:

People do not die from AIDS, Bob. They die from infections
they get due to immune system compromise. They die of TB or
pneumonia or etc.

Usually more obscure things than that.

Quoted message said:

The flu can kill a person with AIDS (heh, or even without
AIDS) - and so probably can a cold.

There is no vaccine against a cold, and flu vaccines are
very expensive to develop. They pay for themselves because
tens of millions get the vaccine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> But government spending money on AIDS has a direct
> benefit to the taxpayer, because all those in this
> country who suffer from AIDS end up costing society
> much more than the research costs.

Solution - quaranteen.

We could not afford to quarantine that many citizens, and
it would likely be unconstitutional if we could.

No, it would have been logical to do it before it got to be
SO MANY. It has nothing to do with the constitution.

It is unconstitutional to hold people indefinitely.

Quoted message said:

They used to quarneteen people with chicken pox.

Not in my memory, and I had chicken pox in the 50s. But even
if they did, it was for a week. You are talking a life
sentence for a million people that have committed no crime.

Quoted message said:

They'd quarnteen people if a small pox outbreak occurred.

Not indefinitely.

Quoted message said:

Nothing unconstitutional about it.

Where does the constitution give government the power to
imprison people indefinitely without trial?

Quoted message said:

Do you really think that

Quoted message said:

quarantine - supporting millions for years in isolation
(because if you isolate them, you have to totally support
them), is less expensive than the trivial amounts we
spend on AIDS research?

It would have not been millions if they did it right up.

It was millions by the time they knew what they were dealing
with. And they could not have done it "right up". It would
cost billions to build the concentration camps to quarantine
even 100,000 for life. And they would have to be
concentration camps, with lots of guards, because surely you
don't think Americans are going to sit still in a camp and
do what they are told without it. At the $30,000 per year we
pay for institutionalizing prisoners, it would be another $3
billion a year to support them, probably more because they
would have expensive medical costs.

Quoted message said:

It is now millions because they DID NOT quarnteen - and
imo, their neglect to do the sane medical thing has caused
the DEATH of millions of people that would have never
gotten it if the sane thing was done.

There are 10s of millions with AIDS internationally.
Unless we quarantine the country, there will be new AIDS
carriers entering the country forever. And our borders
leak like a sieve.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you think we have vaccines against all sorts of
obscure opportunistic diseases that only strike those
with deficient immune systems? Developing those vaccines
would cost more than AIDS research.

It's known what they get - we have the vaccines.

Nope.

And BTW, if your immune system is compromised, a vaccine
might kill you, and probably won't benefit you. The point
of a vaccine is to prompt the immune system to be
prepared, but an AIDS victim can't fight diseases with
their immune system.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Even a 10% drop in the costs for AIDS treatment would
>more than pay for all the research. But we don't know
>what particular research will lead to that 10% drop, so
>we do it all.

Do with AIDS victims as they do with the homeless -
abandon them.

We don't. The homeless aren't really abandoned - they
just don't generally get free housing. They do get other
government benefits, because otherwise they would be dead
and not homeless.

Go to NYC and check with the homeless in subways. What
benefits?

Welfare. Medicaid. Foodstamps. They have to eat something or
they're dead.

[mutual exchange of insults deleted]

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:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on the team with Oppenheimer. You'd be in the public, as
ignorant of it

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

everyone else was.

And you know this because ...?

I've seen "things" happen when I worked in epi - odd things.
I peeked at "things" too - things I was not supposed to peek
at or touch. (OH my FREAKING GOD things) I've seen people
GET contacted - then they are gone. I know they do things
that way. You are not one of these people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You have no idea what engineered germs they have in
stock. That's biological warfare. You have no idea what
chemicals are

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

stock (chemical warfare). The TOP people are recruited,
sworn to

secrecy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are not the top anything.

And you know this because ...?

You are not one of these people.

Quoted message said:

I am not claiming that I do, but for all you know I could
be someone with a high clearance who has precisely the
sort of access that you think I don't have.

You aren't. I know. How I know is for you to figure out.

Quoted message said:

I do live in the DC area, less than 5 miles from CIA and
DIA and a couple of other classified agency worksites, and
only 10 miles from CIA headquarters. I'm qualified to do
certain work for those agencies, and in fact its probably
a 50/50 shot that if I go back to work when the kids are
grown, I WILL be working with them. But of course then I
wouldn't be talking about it.

And a friend of mine just went thru stringent FBI clearance
for a job. What's the job? Nothing much. Why the clearance?
Because that's what they
DO. I had to go thru same stringent clearance by the FBI
for that PT job. And what did I get to see and do?
Nothing much. Think about what one Don Ward thought
about me - and try to fathom WHY he'd think that then.
Go ahead. I did post about it. What's gonna happen to
me? Someone kill me? LMAO. Someone might kill HIM - or
er.... that odd brain virus he got - waddaya know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

On the other hand, I am a professional who works in the
sorts of fields that the intelligence agencies use, and I
know the state of the art of the field.

Likewise - in the past. But you aren't in any position to
get a PEEK at certain things because such things aren't
even laying around to be peeked at where you are, Bob.
Right? Right.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and stupid? Or are they hyper intuitive? Heh. Yes, they
sure are! Experience - tuskagee? Crack dumped by cia and
the investigation that

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

supposed to happen silenced? That's experience. Wanna
talk about naive

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

skepticalness to the point of being retarded? NA make
treaty with

whites.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Treaty broken. NA make ANOTHER tready with whites. Treaty
broken. Do

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WERE intelligent people at the helm.

But somehow our intelligence community is a cut above
everyone else in their level of perfection, and also
manages to keep secrets perfectly.

Uh huh. They do, do they? LOL. Lately, our "intelligence
community" has been either behaving like the keystone cops -
or they are um - doing what Don Ward said they'd do - fancy
that. Hey, you know I didn't tell anyone when he opened his
mouth - but I DID write a kinda of vague "spread it
everywhere" letter about what NOT to do.... and made sure
certain folks got
DP. Looks to me like they got it. And listened, for a
change.

Quoted message said:

Better wear your tin hat. The CIA may be watching you.

No, they aren't. I'd certainly say that one person in the
DIA was watching me - over dinner that one time. LOL.

Quoted message said:

Snip more foolishness about making money.

Quoted message said:

Why would anyone want to find something targeted "specific
to say blue eyed people"?

Ask the Soviets that developed a certain thing. I'd give you
the guy's name - but no - that would be WRONG to do that.
Well, actually the blues end up dead - everyone else just
gets kinda sick but lives. The blues in the home population
get sent east - the Tatars get put up front where they might
get sick, but not die. Simple?

Quoted message said:

If someone came up with such a weapon, and it were found
out that it existed, the country that developed it would
find themselves compared with Nazi Germany. And such a
weapon could not be used without it being found out that
it existed.

It was accidentally used. No one found out about it except
the people that developed it and their superiors that
ordered it, and me because one of those people happens to be
a kinda friend of mine - long distance. No one knew what
happened after the accident, either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They'll all drop dead of something.

I agree - so let's stop wasting money over there with
worthless "help"

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

aids sufferers - and spend it HERE on oh - improved ROADS
instead.

We'll all get where we are going someday. No more reason
to spend the money on roads than AIDS,

Wrong. I use roads. We all use roads. We all use roads way
more than we end up at risk for AIDS here. Let's do roads.
Let's spend it on at-home health care for people - and nice
things like that, that make LIFE better.

and we get far more bang for the buck for

Quoted message said:

AIDS research. It costs a couple of $billion to replace a
single bridge in the DC area, which is probably more than
is being spent on AIDS research.

Aids research is putting gas in a car with no engine.

Quoted message said:

But government spending money on AIDS has a direct benefit
to the taxpayer, because all those in this country who
suffer from AIDS end up costing society much more than the
research costs.

Solution - quaranteen. Vaccinate them against what COULD
infect them to help their immune systems. That's cheap
enough. See now, this is "Bob the money wise expert."
Get off it.

Even a 10% drop

Quoted message said:

in the costs for AIDS treatment would more than pay for
all the research. But we don't know what particular
research will lead to that 10% drop, so we do it all.

Do with AIDS victims as they do with the homeless - abandon
them. Problem solved. I mean, with "virus chasers" and "gift
givers" around - and husbands that take more and more fresh
uninfected wives - what the hey.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

If they start talking about people "acting white", then I
can call them racists, and not worry about what color they
are, since it doesn't much matter to me what color they
are. It is a racist statement when spoken by anyone.

The point I tried to explain is that there really is NO way
of "acting white" since ethnic groups kinda define that when
they do their own satire or set their own norms and they are
WAY too different from each other. Blacks define acting
black - not all of them do it (DUH) - but they define
DQ. Acting Jewish, acting Italian - these people themselves
set the norms. Within the ethnic groups then, there are
some that see "acting their group" in various ways -
some might call one group pretentious - while those
called pretentious might call the others gavones. LOL.

Quoted message said:

Because you talk like a racist and defend racists.

This is extremely odd - because you see, onLINE - I have
convos in egroup with various groups of people and
individuals - and never once have ANY of them thought I was
racist, Bob. Not once. I say the same things on there as I
do on here. The convos are a lot more OPEN to speculations
if this kind of thing comes up - which it SOMETIMES does. I
wrote the article "Does Race Exist" FOR that group of people
after a convo happened where no one really knew the answer -
and there are people from almost every country int he world
in that org - including Ghana and Nigeria and Indonesia and
Maylasia and so forth. There is no flaming on there, either.
Well, once - a person who thought he was a Vampire flamed
two people. Then he left.

Quoted message said:

I don't pretend to know what you are talking about most of
the time.

That's probably why you abuse a label and try to brand
me with it.

Quoted message said:

I respond to your words, which is the only clue I have to
your nonsense.

I do not write nonsense. You are becoming abusive - what,
something bothering you? Heh.

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:

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 the first get a policy.

Zzzzzz. The rates for people even in their 20s that are NOT
new drivers - are about triple my rates when they have the
minimum of liability and etc - no collision either. I wear
glasses and can't see 20/20 with them on - can't be
corrected more. My rates are quite low. I have the highest
limits of liability too. 300 thou.

Quoted message said:

There is no racial discrimination involved. Kids grow out
of being new drivers.

And they still pay triple what I pay.

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:

>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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all.

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?

Human ones.

Unfortunately for you idealists that would probably rewire
brains if you could - humans TEND to have a brain TRAIT that
enables them and CAUSES them to TYPE people by use of
MARKERS - and the markers get agreed upon very quickly BY
HUMANS - that's a TRAIT humans tend to share. EG, as Mib, an
Oglala NA notes that Navahos used to call Japanese "slant
eyes" and as I note that most NA I meet ARE slant eyes -
often similar to mine, and that Aztecs and Mayans are VERY
slant eyes. Now - the human brain tends to notice round eyes
versus slant eyes. How about that - tish tish. Now, that's a
trait I tend to notice because I happen to think it's
BEAUTIFUL.

Quoted message said:

Physical ones? Or behavioral ones? Physical traits are

Quoted message said:

OBVIOUSLY genetic, DUH. Behavioral traits are obviously
NOT genetic.

The racists that you defend think so. You apparently don't
read MMD and the King's [censored] before agreeing with it.

I read MMD - and I think he's funny - always did even when
he was Big Don. I don't defend them. I merely see their
POINT. I'd have to disagree - the lawn/handymen were
excellent workers, honest, reliable, hard working and
reasonable. They weren't white. How about that, oh tish
tish. I never heard MMD say that ALL of them are this or
that or thiz or thatz. I heard him bring up STATISTICS. I
have no idea who The King is. Not sure I ever read a post
by the King.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

see blacks in any of the places I tend to go to.

Do I have to prove you a liar again? Or per your excuses,
a chit-chatter who can't say what she really means?

I don't go to where they tend to go. I said that. I said
what I said here - with a few emphases on things I KNEW
would push those sensitive buttons so dear to your heart.

Quoted message said:

You're not worth the time.

You say that because you have been refuted. I do not
discriminate. I do not prejudge anything - let alone anyone.
I also do not assume things about anyone - or anything (not
even snakes).

One more thing, in case you weren't being vigilent that day.

I stand by this idea - I think Europeans and Africans are
UTTERLY INSANE. I make that statement based on what they did
and what they do. There is no morality at all in my opinion.

Here is one reason that should be obvious. With the world
history at their finger tips, Europeans in the USA (mostly
English folks) drag a bunch of people they think are
subhuman to the USA. They look SO different that these
Europeans really believe they are maybe another species.
They are taken here as slaves - despite hindsight and
history to inform them about how bad an idea taking slaves
is. Next they forcibly mate with them. Next, they let the
descendents of these people and even former slaves run
loose in the society and - with all their hubbub about
their posterity and their children's futures! That's
insane. I need only look at normal tribal customs in Africa
to conclude that they are insane, or read more on
afrocentric studies to conclude it. Or do as MMD does -
THOSE STATS, ya know?

You see, Bob, I don't JUDGE any of what these people did as
RIGHT or WRONG. I don't consider a stat reader a racist,
either (YOU DO). There is no morality to it. It's not right
or wrong, Bob. It's part of heh, HUMAN NATURE to do such
things. I think it's insane because it LACKS those important
last stages of logic - it lacks foresight completely. As
Ambrose Bierce said it - The American Political Problem.
Well - I don't think it's a problem anymore. You do. I
don't. Maybe MMD thinks it's a problem. Nah - not anymore.
That's past.

BTW, speaking of stats and making money - do you know about
the stats on who watches which shows on TV? I do. What kind
of TV is shared in common? SPORTS. That's it.

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:

It was accidentally used. No one found out about it
except the people that developed it and their superiors
that ordered it, and me because one of those people
happens to be a kinda friend of mine - long distance. No
one knew what happened after the accident, either.

You seem to be trying to imply that the Soviets had such a
weapon, and frankly I don't believe you. But the Soviets
had a far more closed and repressive system than the US
has, including the power to "send people east" where they
couldn't spread the word easily, and the power to make
people disappear permanently without others asking
questions.

Good book: "Biohazard" by Ken Alibek, a Russian doctor
involved in their bioweapons program, defected to the west
in early 90's and told the whole story. They had a ton of
Bad_Sh#t, and a few accidents where the stuff got loose and
wasted a lot of their own people. It's all in the book.
Terrific read, but then of course, Bob prefers fiction to
truth, right?

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

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

Quoted message said:

> You are quite naive about human NATURE itself - and
> naive and resistent as hell about what people DO when

things

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>are FORCED on them that they have no honest way to get
>out of.

On the other hand, I am a professional who works in the
sorts of fields that the intelligence agencies use, and
I know the state of the art of the field.

Likewise - in the past. But you aren't in any position to
get a PEEK at certain things because such things aren't
even laying around to be peeked

at

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

where you are, Bob. Right? Right.

They are a lot more likely to be laying around in suburban
DC than in Lehigh Acres FL.

I was not working in that job in Lehigh Acres FL, you
blithering foole (not misspelled). I'm RETIRED in Lehigh
Acres, FL. Or sometimes semi-retired.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>make another one? Yup. Expeience apparently did NOT
>inform them.

USA

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>makes treaty with Soviets. Soviets break it. US is
>skeptical about treaties - but they continue to make
>them? LMAO. Please. Go home.

These

Quoted message said:

>WERE intelligent people at the helm.

But somehow our intelligence community is a cut above
everyone else in their level of perfection, and also
manages to keep secrets perfectly.

Uh huh. They do, do they? LOL.

Your claim that we have all these secret capabilities and
no one could or would find out about them unless they had
ultra clearances would require such perfection.

You make no sense. People do find out about them - way after
the fact - either by someone in the field feeling he can
talk freely - (as happened with me) - or by spies sussing it
out. Then the secrets get out - and even then, most people
in the world barely know about the details. The details then
"show up" and other things show up - like wildly kook
particulars of "what happened." Fits the pattern every time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why would anyone want to find something targeted
"specific to say blue eyed people"?

Ask the Soviets that developed a certain thing. I'd give
you the guy's name - but no - that would be WRONG to do
that. Well, actually the blues end up dead - everyone
else just gets kinda sick but lives. The blues in the
home population get sent east - the Tatars get put up
front where

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

might get sick, but not die. Simple?

Quoted message said:

If someone came up with such a weapon, and it were
found out that it existed, the country that developed
it would find themselves compared with Nazi Germany.
And such a weapon could not be used without it being
found out that it existed.

It was accidentally used. No one found out about it
except the people

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

developed it and their superiors that ordered it, and me
because one of those people happens to be a kinda friend
of mine - long distance. No

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

knew what happened after the accident, either.

You seem to be trying to imply that the Soviets had such a
weapon, and frankly I don't believe you.

I don't care if you don't believe me. I told you what I told
you - that's that. I told you the truth. They have weapons
(and I assume we do to) that are fearsomely dangerous and
even insane, imo. 0

But the Soviets had a far more closed

Quoted message said:

and repressive system than the US has, including the power
to "send people east" where they couldn't spread the word
easily, and the power to make people disappear permanently
without others asking questions.

They sure did. I know this person NOW - he's presently in
England. He left after the USSR fell. But, do you think that
our gov does NOT have the power to make people vanish?

Quoted message said:

But my point is different. Even if we KNEW how to make
such a weapon, we wouldn't develop it because we couldn't
use it. If we used it, then people would know that we had
and used the capability, and we would be eternally
condemned as [censored] was.

We have the weapons - or at least the Soviets have/had it.
Things that look like a random outbreak of a disease or
natural disaster are not so easily condemned. The two
countries have weapons that, if used, Bob, there'd be nobody
"worth listening to" left to condemn it.

After all, many nations

Quoted message said:

had the capability to set up concentration camps and gas
chambers, but only [censored] actually used them and [censored] is
universally reviled for
it.

That is because [censored] got caught and he lost the war, Bob.
Or does that idea never occur to you? And yet here we are
today, with highlights such as David Irving not believing
that most of that happened! Wow - that fast? The US
government conducted a round of ethnic cleansing via
outright genocide, war and deceitful tactics, including germ
warfare (smallpox blankets) on millions of men, women and
children. No one condemns the US government or the past
presidents under which this was done, for doing these things
- except a few people in alternature religions and a few
lefties. But they themselves live in in houses and drive
down roads that used to once be the homelands of these
people who were removed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We'll all get where we are going someday. No more
reason to spend the money on roads than AIDS,

Wrong. I use roads. We all use roads. We all use roads
way more than

we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

end up at risk for AIDS here. Let's do roads. Let's spend
it on at-home health care for people - and nice things
like that, that make LIFE

better.

Quoted message said:

People at home get AIDS too.

More people use roads than get AIDS.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and we get far more bang for the buck for AIDS research.
It costs a couple of $billion to replace a single bridge
in the DC area, which is probably more than is being
spent on AIDS research.

Aids research is putting gas in a car with no engine.

???

You can prevent AIDS from killing a person by vaccinating
them against illnesses they WOULD GET because their immune
systems are compromised. That's cheap and very doable.
People do not die from AIDS, Bob. They die from infections
they get due to immune system compromise. They die of TB or
pneumonia or etc. The flu can kill a person with AIDS (heh,
or even without AIDS) - and so probably can a cold. So
they'd have to be careful - much like people taking drugs
that kill immunity when they get transplants. Don't go near
sick people. In hospital when friend of mine had kidneys
removed - there was a girl in the lounge room with AIDS -
she got it from transfusion. She was surprised that I'd sit
there and talk to her. I told her that I was in no danger of
catching what she had - but adviced her to keep away from my
friend because my friend had a strep infection. Sure enough,
two days later the AIDS patient was down bad with strep.
People with AIDS need to keep clear of people lest THEY get
sick. I can get over a strep infection with not much
problem. They can't.

Quoted message said:

The only thing I can presume you mean is that, since they
are going to die anyway, why bother trying to
extend/prolong their lives. But that reason applies to all
levels of health care for everyone.

No, I did not say that. I said - see above. Got any idea how
SICK they get from the meds they take? I mean, sheesh. I
also brought up "bug chasers." Or don't you know about that?
It's all the rage. People WANTING to get it. People that get
tattoos of "biohazard" and advertise that they GIVE IT (the
gift, they call it). The only solution to PREVENTION is
quaanteen - that's a no-brainer, Bob. There is no cure. No
cure for common cold, either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But government spending money on AIDS has a direct
benefit to the taxpayer, because all those in this
country who suffer from AIDS end up costing society
much more than the research costs.

Solution - quaranteen.

We could not afford to quarantine that many citizens, and
it would likely be unconstitutional if we could.

No, it would have been logical to do it before it got to be
SO MANY. It has nothing to do with the constitution. They
used to quarneteen people with chicken pox. They'd quarnteen
people if a small pox outbreak occurred. Nothing
unconstitutional about it. It's sane medicine.

Do you really think that

Quoted message said:

quarantine - supporting millions for years in isolation
(because if you isolate them, you have to totally support
them), is less expensive than the trivial amounts we spend
on AIDS research?

It would have not been millions if they did it right up. It
is now millions because they DID NOT quarnteen - and imo,
their neglect to do the sane medical thing has caused the
DEATH of millions of people that would have never gotten it
if the sane thing was done.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Vaccinate them against what COULD infect them to help
their immune

systems.

Quoted message said:

Do you think we have vaccines against all sorts of obscure
opportunistic diseases that only strike those with
deficient immune systems? Developing those vaccines would
cost more than AIDS research.

It's known what they get - we have the vaccines.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's cheap enough.

No it isn't. You apparently are clueless about medical
research and treatment costs, too.

Heh, I know all about grants for such research.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even a 10% drop in the costs for AIDS treatment would
more than pay for all the research. But we don't know
what particular research will lead to that 10% drop, so
we do it all.

Do with AIDS victims as they do with the homeless -
abandon them.

We don't. The homeless aren't really abandoned - they just
don't generally get free housing. They do get other
government benefits, because otherwise they would be dead
and not homeless.

Go to NYC and check with the homeless in subways. What
benefits?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Problem solved. I mean, with "virus chasers" and "gift
givers" around - and husbands that take more and more
fresh uninfected wives - what the hey.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and probably
you don't either.

More naivete on your part? People with AIDS now advertise,
even in chat rooms, that they have it - and are willing to
GIVE someone it. Others answer that - they WANT TO GET IT.
Watch documentary "The Gift" - to get a clue. I knew about
it before it was finally documented. They are called Bug
Chasers and Gift Givers. They even have tattoos they get to
signal others that they have AIDS - the tattoos are the
biohazard sign.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because you talk like a racist and defend racists.

This is extremely odd - because you see, onLINE - I have
convos in egroup with various groups of people and
individuals - and never once have ANY

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them thought I was racist, Bob.

They don't read your Usenet posts.

Wanna bet? ON USENET I've also posted what I tend to think
and feel (both together) about the black afrocentric or
other in-general claim that whites are REALLY trying to do
genocide on them - and that whites gave them aids in
Africa. I 90% regard that as a very strong possibility. For
one, they, like I am, are VERY intuitive. They, like I,
rely on that uppermost. I've gone on about that, and a few
other things I've noticed that I note that YOU don't even
seem to know happened to them - right here under everyone's
noses. For that, the people you brand "racists" thought I
was black -

person, Bob. I entertain a great many types of thoughts -
and MANY of them might or might not contradict each other. I
have no problem with that. It's never one way - never. The
whites did this and this and this. ON THE OTHER HAND, the
blacks were doing this and this and this. The Nazis even did
this and this and this - and on the other hand the Jews were
doing this and this and that. The Nazis did this and this
and that to my relatives, my people. On the other hand, what
were the people there doing? This and this and that. It's
never one way with me. I can say what the herd thinks (you
too, Bob) are VERY VERY BAD things about a group or person.
The herd assumes I hate that person or group. Not so. I can
turn around and say VERY BAD THINGS (according to the herd)
about the group or person they THOUGHT I was in favor of.
Wrong again. It's not so simple with me. And always keep in
mind, and never forget that for me, ALL of it, every
thought, idea or word of it - is a paradigm game that I
enjoy playing. You make me THINK - about things other than
the fact that the freaking god damned plumbing supply houses
no longer make "tape in" devices - the [censored]. I enjoy
conversing with you, MMD, Nim, Alberto, Mib (he may as well
be family by now) and so many others on here and so forth,
even with Endora (🙂 a lot more than I enjoyed having to
find a work around for the god damned plumbing. And getting
under there and DOING it with my arm condition? In that
small space? Well, I'm goofing off right now. So you can
tell I don't like doing it. ALL of it is "paradigm game." I
understand MMD. Nim - I kinda understand him too. You see? I
understand Alberto, too. Toto - well, she's dizzy - PERIOD.
But you are a person that I think has an unconscious that
has a strong agenda - and I think your conscious mind has no
clue you have it. I think you have ISSUES.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I respond to your words, which is the only clue I have
to your nonsense.

I do not write nonsense.

That is your norm.

Quoted message said:

You are becoming abusive

You only get what you deserve.

You are a close minded, judgemental FOP.

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 ↗

Quoted message said:

Terrific read, but then of course, Bob prefers fiction to
truth, right?

Truth is for preachers and ideologists. I am a scientist,
and therefore a tester of "truth".

For recreation, I often read literature, which is primarily
fiction. Sometimes I read history, and other topics that
interest me, which is generally nonfiction. Still other
times I read Usenet, and read opinions; but then sometimes I
see posts like yours, which is merely racist nonsense, not
even being worthy of the label "opinion".

I prefer fiction. It at least makes sense.

--
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:

>> >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?

Human ones.

Unfortunately for you idealists that would probably
rewire brains if you could

BECAUSE I am an idealist (not really, I'm a pragmatist,
but ...) I would NOT rewire brains just because I could.

You don't know if you would because you have no power to do
so.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Physical ones? Or behavioral ones? Physical traits
are
>OBVIOUSLY genetic, DUH. Behavioral traits are
>obviously NOT genetic.

The racists that you defend think so. You apparently
don't read MMD and the King's [censored] before agreeing
with it.

I read MMD - and I think he's funny

I think he is sick.

Yet, you don't know him.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

always did even when he was Big Don. I don't defend
them. I merely see their POINT.

You think they have a point. That makes you a racist,
because only a racist would give them any points at all.
They are subhuman scum.

I think that subhuman scum (the Islamis terrorists under
Osamma) have a POINT and I can clearly see it. You are FAR
too close minded to even ponder such things. I do not think
MMS is subhuman scum for merely voicing his own honest, up
front, opinions. You are FAR too quick to FEEL such things
agianst MMD - and too stuffy to even see the humor in
things. TOO HUNG UP.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd have to disagree - the lawn/handymen were excellent
workers, honest, reliable, hard working and reasonable.
They weren't white. How about that, oh tish tish. I never
heard MMD say that ALL of them are this or that or thiz
or thatz. I

heard

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

him bring up STATISTICS. I have no idea who The King is.
Not sure I

ever

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

read a post by the King.

I'm sure you have. "The King of SCAA", is how he signs
his posts.

I've seen that only on anon posters - most of wh om often
flame me with laughable libel. Most of them are killfiled.
Nomen Nesio, Tarapio Tapioca or some nicks like that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're not worth the time.

You say that because you have been refuted. I do not
discriminate. I do not prejudge anything - let alone
anyone. I also do not assume things

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anyone - or anything (not even snakes).

One more thing, in case you weren't being vigilent
that day.

I stand by this idea - I think Europeans and Africans are
UTTERLY INSANE.

That is a racist statement. It is a statement of
prejudging two entire groups of people, a billion and a
half of them, of whom you know a tiny fraction.

Oh, it's not a racist statement at all.

So don't give us [censored] about not prejudging

Quoted message said:

people. You just did. Your statement of 3 paragraph up
stands proven to be a lie.

I refer to their INSANE actions - and they are INSANE.

Quoted message said:

Non-racists don't think such things.

It has nothing to do with RACE, you bleeding idiot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I make that statement based on what they did and what
they do. There is no morality at all in my opinion.

That is for sure.

Yes, for sure. Morals are for fools that put self-made
straight jackets on themselves. Morons. Take off the god
damned straight jacket.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here is one reason that should be obvious. With the world
history at

their

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

finger tips, Europeans in the USA (mostly English
folks) drag a bunch of people they think are subhuman
to the USA.

They do?

Quoted message said:

They look SO different that these Europeans really
believe they are maybe another species. They are taken
here as slaves - despite hindsight and history to inform
them about how bad an idea taking slaves is. Next they
forcibly mate with them.

Next,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they let the descendents of these people and even former
slaves run loose

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the society and - with all their hubbub about their
posterity and their children's futures!

I vaguely see what you are trying to say.

TRYING to say? Get off the bowl, Bob.

You are using the present

Quoted message said:

tense to refer to 300+ years of history wherein lots of
different people made lots of different decisions.

In the 1600s, world history was at no one's fingertips;
almost no one knew even as much as schoolkids today know
about it. There was no hindsight and history to inform
people about how bad an idea taking slaves was because
very little hindsight was practiced, and slavery was still
economically quite feasible, as it continued to be until
the 1860s.

WRONG. The founding fathers and those before them were VERY
informed people - the educated class at the time. They all
knew about ROME.

Only some forcibly mated with them, and most of the rest had

Quoted message said:

no knowledge of, and no approval of those actions.

There was considerable debate about what to do with the
freed slaves, but "let them run loose" is what our society
does. It must be noted that in most other societies in
history, the slaves generally had a path to freedom and
eventual incorporation as full citizens. That is what
happened in Rome for hundreds of years. It was only the
particularly virulent form of racist slavery practiced in
the South that was practiced in this manner, and those in
the South were not too happy about "letting former slaves
run loose in the society", which is why the KKK was
founded.

Suggest you read Abe Lincoln on the matter or ISSUE.

need only look at normal tribal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

customs in Africa to conclude that they are insane, or
read more on afrocentric studies to conclude it.

I look at someone who judges people insane because of
customs and studies, and I see insanity.

Wrong you are. Customs - refer to Zimbabwe and tribal
practices - even making the vagina "DRY" by inserting dirt
with baboon urine on it - all for the pleasure of aids
infected man. Insane.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You see, Bob, I don't JUDGE any of what these people did
as RIGHT or

WRONG.

Quoted message said:

You judge it "insane", which is another way of saying
"WRONG".

No - in your book the two words equate. In my book (which is
ONLY book that matters to me) they do NOT equate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't consider a stat reader a racist, either (YOU DO).

A stat reader is not a racist. A stat REASONER is a
racist.

If stats show the things that MMD (and the FBI) say they
show - then it would be FOOLISH to take a chance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no morality to it. It's not right or wrong, Bob.
It's part of

heh, HUMAN

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

NATURE to do such things.

Acting according to human nature, without judgement, can
be immoral.

No, - it's Amoral. You can take your "morality" and shove it
up your fat, flabby, lazy ass (now, THAT was a flame).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think it's insane because it LACKS those important last
stages of logic - it lacks foresight completely.

So you think that human nature can be insane, and not be
immoral?

Yup. Lots of "immoral people" (according to WHO?) are sane.
Lots of insane people are hyper moral in your terms - i.e.,
they are PSYCHOTIC at worse, NEUROTIC at best. I did not say
that human nature was inane. I said those people lacking
foresight were. Don't confuse yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As Ambrose Bierce said it - The American Political
Problem. Well - I don't think

it's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a problem anymore. You do. I don't. Maybe MMD thinks it's
a problem. Nah - not anymore. That's past.

*He* is the problem. And YOU (and your attitude towards
him) are not the solution, so you are part of the problem.
Anything less than universal revilement and disgust for
his subhuman rantings is part of the problem, and shared
his immorality.

Translation time: Bob means to say that if I say "Bob you
are so so right" and also say "MMD, you are a terribly evil
peron" then ALL will be right with the universe according to
Bob - and her can GET OFF on that 10 times over. There are
many - if not more than you might like to imagine - that
think that YOU are the problem!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW, speaking of stats and making money - do you know
about the stats on

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

watches which shows on TV? I do.

Do I care? No.

You should care and know of it. It 100% REFUTES your
Brazilian WET DREAM. (Yeah, that was a flame, too).

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 ↗

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

Quoted message said:

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....

Um, don't know if you know this, but parking car due to
living in E. Orange, parking it in E. Orange NJ - rates I
had ther were thru the roof. I parked my car in Bloomfield
NJ and the rates almost halved. Had I lived in Summit NJ -
the rates would have been 1/3 of the rates I paid in EO. EO
was a predominantly black area - 2nd highest crime rate in
the nation a few times. Summit was 99% non black (white,
Indian, etc.).

The Star Ledger paper used to have "black out" areas
(probably still do - some papers down here have them) where
it was too dangerous to deliver. There was no delivery
there. All of them were black neighborhoods.

The handyman - who I just found out was Puerto Rican born in
Brooklyn because he said it - had the nice experience of
going to a club located about 3 blocks in from MLK Blvd. .
He got out at 3 AM and was mugged by 5 blacks. He has since
gone to clubs in many other areas and come out as late.
Never a problem. Now, does anyone sane think he'd go BACK to
that club off MLK Blvd and avoid the clubs he was never
harassed at?

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

Quoted message said:

Bob LeChevalier said:

P.Comm said:

It was accidentally used. No one found out about it
except the people

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

developed it and their superiors that ordered it, and
me because one of those people happens to be a kinda
friend of mine - long distance. No

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

knew what happened after the accident, either.

You seem to be trying to imply that the Soviets had such
a weapon, and frankly I don't believe you. But the
Soviets had a far more closed and repressive system than
the US has, including the power to "send people east"
where they couldn't spread the word easily, and the
power to make people disappear permanently without
others asking questions.

Good book: "Biohazard" by Ken Alibek, a Russian doctor
involved in their bioweapons program, defected to the west
in early 90's and told the whole story. They had a ton of
Bad_Sh#t, and a few accidents where the stuff got loose
and wasted a lot of their own people. It's all in the
book. Terrific read, but then of course, Bob prefers
fiction to truth, right?

Bob is a pretentious FOP. What bothers me is that the guy I
know works in a lab right now - he has the equipment and the
knowledge to do some INSANELY dangerous [censored] - and the last
I talked to him he was freaking mad at the "human race."
JESUS H. KRIPES man. I threatened to turn him into every
agency I could think of. And he spelled out in a "PM chat"
exactly HOW he could accomplish what he wanted to do. Jesus
H KRIPES man. On a pm chat, no less. For one, he could get
deported back to Russia - he's not a citizen of England at
all. No one has heard from him since, or about him - so I
have NO idea what happened.

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

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

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

Quoted message said:

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
> "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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> a person based on those statistics, that is racist.
>
> But I usually don't call a person racist because
> they do that,

because

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They do NOT up the rates on people who wear glasses
(lemme shut while

I'm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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...

Well then, if it's about statistics - then statistics should
be used across the board. You see, I see your point. Bob can
not see your point. It's against his religion to even try to
see your point.

Ftr tho - heh, I was driven OFF the road 3 times down
here by the very old - driving the wrong way in the wrong
lane LOL. Another very oldster hit the gas instead of the
brakes and drove thru a store front. The worst [censored]
are the cell phone users - GOD they are a freaking
menace! And people in those SUVs that think that at 70
mph on an interstate, they can ride half a car length
behind me safely.