An American's guide to the EU
John Perth
Hello, fellow Americans.
Here is something I wrote almost four years ago. It was never more true.
Keep it in your hearts, noble Americans, for it is a good guide to
the idiots and scumbags that live across the pond!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nem...@acf4.nyu.edu (Da Nemecizer)
Newsgroups: alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.nuke.europe
Subject: Yank Guide to the Euro-scum
Date: 11 Jul 1994 21:51:35 GMT
Organization: New York University
My fellow Americans, as I have had the misfortune of having traveled in
Euro-hell, I feel that it is my duty to write a brief synopsis of the
barbarians that infest that wasteland so that no other children of this
glorious land must bear the burden of seeing or smelling a european. To
this end, I ask that every American on the newsgroup read this. Study it
well, bretheren, for to be forewarned is to be forearmed!
_BELGIANS_
I begin with Belgians because even the though of those waffleirons
raises
the bile. Plus, as there are only a handful of the little blue smurf
bastards, I don't have to write alot. Belgium is known for only two
things: the invention of the french fry (for which they did not get
credit), and the open door policy that they showed to Hitler during his
vacation in France fifty-odd years ago. Belgium has two official
languages: french and flemish. Both grate on your ears, much as their
women grate on you eyes. Belgians want only to be someone else. Those
that speak frog wish they were french. Those that speak flemish wish
they
were dutch. I wish they would all just go away. When in Europe, do in
Belgium what the Wehrmacht did: cross it in under two hours.
_FRENCH_
The french are a nasty bunch. If it weren't for the fact that they hate
the english, they would have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. There
are
only a few things that an American need know about the french: they
learned their washing habits from baboons, and haven't won a war by
themselves in over two hundred years. The French like to be constantly
reminded of the fact that they owe us everything, so please do so. Also,
it is fun to sneak up behind them and yell in German, and then watch
them
surrender to you faster than an Iraqi to a CNN camerman.
_GERMANS_
The nastiest bunch in Europe. These are the only euro-peons with any
rudimentary motor skills, which the consantly use to build chemical
weapons factories in lands run by half-crazed mullahs with dish towels
on
their heads. We bombed the whole country flat about fifty years ago, and
in this author's humble opinion, we should've salted the earth as well.
As we did not, they grew strong again, mostly by building lots of
Mercedes that they sold to suckers who like to pay thorugh the nose for
second rate cars with no head room. The only good thing about Germany is
cheap beer and the Autobahn, which has no speed limits, and the two
should always be used together. And should you cause a wreck and kill a
few krauts, don't worry, it's a rental car. But a word of advice. If a
German asks you if you'd like to go to camping, don't go. The camp he
has
in mind isn't near Lake Wobegone.
_DUTCH_
The dutch are the people half the Belgians want to be. Wanting to be
dutch means wanting to be a second rate kraut wannabe drug addict who
speaks a language that sounds like he has something caught in his
throat.
If you must visit Holland, tell them you're a canuck, as this is the
only
place in the world that actually likes Canadians. You see, the Americans
let the moosefuckers liberate the clogwearers from the jerrys (all six
that were left in the country at the time) at the end of WWII, and they
are still grateful. While there, be sure to visit the red light district
that is in every town. There you an see how the average dutch wife earns
her living so that her husband can afford to buy his daily two kilos of
hash at the local coffee shop. While in Holland, it is considered polite
to yell at strangers at the top of your lungs the following Dutch
phrase:
"Ich bin Deutscher, und wir haben den Krieg gewonnen."
_SWEDEN_
Sweden is a country that is largely populated by albinos with names like
Sven or Olaf. In its entire history, Sweden has only produced two things
of note: the porno film and the sex change operation. The former was
used
to lure unsuspecting American males so the Swedes could perform the
latter, thus reducing their dependence on sheep for sexual release. On
the positive side, the women are quite beautiful (and lonely, for the
reasons stated above), so sex is easy to come by. Simply say "Jag ar
Amerikaner. Knulla mej", and get out the video camera so you'll have
something to show your friends back home.
_NORWAY_
Norway is exactly like Sweden, except the people are bigger, friendlier,
and smarter. Norway (unlike the Herring-eaters discussed above) did not
knuckle under to the hun during the big war. Unfortunately, they were no
match for their bloodthirsty bretheren to the south, and have the
indignity of following in that great french tradition of being occupied
by a foreign power.
_FINLAND_
Often called East Sweden (or, lately, West Russia), finns are just like
swedes, except they are darker, dumber and drunker. Never, ever, drink
with a finn. They are born with neither a liver nor a brain, and you
will
wake up in Estonia with no clothes and a six-year hangover if you even
think of going head to head with these human breweries. If you are
unconvinced, just keep in mind that even Russians are afraid to drink
with finns. Most finns occupy their time with taking the ferry to Sweden
back and forth, so that they don't have to pay duty on their liquid
addiction.
_RUSSIANS_
Russia is the country that lost the cold war. This is not a surpries, as
they are the drunkest people in Europe (with one exception. See above)
Russians are second rate at everything. The French have uglier women,
the
Brits have lousier food, and the Belgians have worse teeth. Don't go to
Russia, unless you are a criminal. Then feel free, as you'll be among
the
majority, and won't stand out. (Kinda like Australia, but with worse
liquor)
_ITALIANS_
There are very few of these left, as the ones in the North have all gone
to America, and the ones in the south have all been killed by the Mafia.
This is the place where the Spanish take driving lessons.
_SPANISH_
The party people of Europe. This is the place to go for cheap booze,
cheap women and cheap thrills. Come to think of it, almost everything in
this third world country is cheap. A popular sport here is to kill a
feeble old bull that has been pumped up with sedatives while wearing an
outfit that would make the average english male pitch a tent in his
pants. A word of warning, however. It is very difficult to tell the
difference between a bull and a Spanish woman over 40, so be careful
what
you kill.
_PORTUGAL_
Like Spain, only cheaper.
_GREECE_
The country with the lowest standard of living in europe, the greeks are
so lazy that even after two-thousand odd years, they still have
renovated
any of those old buildings that are falling down.
_IRELAND_
If you're man enough, you'll call them West English. If you're dumb
enough, you'll take the challenge. If you really want to meet Irish
people, however, save some money, and go to New York, as half the
population is here already. Simply find a bar that called something like
population is here already. Simply find a bar that called something like
"Paddy O'Brian's", "Paddy MacDougal's" or even "Paddy O'Furniture's",
and
upon entering, yell "Immigration" at the top of your lungs. This is
Gaelic for "welcome to America"
_LUXEMBOURG_
Drive slow, or you'll miss it.
_AUSTRIA_
South Germany. Austrians are just like Germans, only dumber and meaner.
It's always fun, however, to remind them that Hitler was and Austrian.
They like that. When ordering food in an Austrian restaurant, be sure to
try the "Anschluss". It's the national dish.
_ENGLAND_
Always save the worst for last, I always say, so that is what I have
done. One should never, ever go to England. First of all, there is the
distinct possibility that they will eat you, as all their beef is
infected with mad cow disease. And if the english don't get you, the
english food will. This is a land where they boil everything. Some of
the
great contributions to world history that the english have provided us
with are homosexuality, nazi skinheads and warm beer. If you must go to
England, remember that they drive on the wrong side of the road.
Actually, as the whole country is drunk from dawn to dusk, they usually
drive on both sides of the road. Both sides, that is, except for where
half the road is closed down by traffic cones, which is pretty much
everywhere. (They are still trying to figure out how the Romans did it,
you see). When in England, always make sure to stand downwind from them,
as the lady with the recipe for hot water died, and, as such, they do
not
bathe. Also, the sight of their women has been known to cause
irreversible mental damage.
Well, my fellow Americans, I hope that this guide has been useful.
Please
keep it for future reference. And a word of advice: if you are thinking
of going over the drink, sit back down in your easy-chair, open another
bottle of Sam Adams, and watch one of the more than 100 good ole
American
TV channels until the though passes. Belive me, you'll be glad you
stayed
home. I wish I had.
takmir...@usa.net
In article <34F24D...@mit.edu>,
John Perth <jce...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello, fellow Americans.
>
> Here is something I wrote almost four years ago. It was never more true.
> Keep it in your hearts, noble Americans, for it is a good guide to
> the idiots and scumbags that live across the pond!
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: nem...@acf4.nyu.edu (Da Nemecizer)
> Newsgroups: alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.nuke.europe
> Subject: Yank Guide to the Euro-scum
>
I wonder if the MIT authorities are aware of this racist, Joseph E. Nemec,
putting this sort of hate posting onto the internet? Maybe they should be
told.
I don't find this sort of racial abuse very funny. I don't think that the
MIT should be associated with it.
Sandy Takmir
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Sue Spence
> >
> > Here is something I wrote almost four years ago. It was never more true.
> > Keep it in your hearts, noble Americans, for it is a good guide to
> > the idiots and scumbags that live across the pond!
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: nem...@acf4.nyu.edu (Da Nemecizer)
> > Newsgroups: alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.nuke.europe
> > Subject: Yank Guide to the Euro-scum
> >
> I wonder if the MIT authorities are aware of this racist, Joseph E. Nemec,
> putting this sort of hate posting onto the internet? Maybe they should be
> told.
>
> I don't find this sort of racial abuse very funny. I don't think that the
> MIT should be associated with it.
>
>
To each his own. I thought it was moderately amusing, myself. It
certainly wasn't particularly racist (do you know what that word
means?).
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <34F24D...@mit.edu>,
> John Perth <jce...@mit.edu> wrote:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: nem...@acf4.nyu.edu (Da Nemecizer)
> > Newsgroups: alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.nuke.europe
> > Subject: Yank Guide to the Euro-scum
> > ( extreme racialist article deleted )
> >
> I wonder if the MIT authorities are aware of this racist, Joseph E. Nemec,
> putting this sort of hate posting onto the internet? Maybe they should be
> told.
>
That is interesting, I hadn't noticed that it was Joe ranting on. He lost
a debate with me where I proved that he was wrong in claiming that the Yanks
didn't know that they were murdering thousands of Iraqi citizens with
sanctions - despite this murder being over six years and the Yanks admitting
it by approving 'humanitarian aid'.
He seems to be a very, very bad looser. Not only did he start criticising
me for my art (as if the author of this diatribe about his visit to
Europe can claim any aesthetic taste!!) once he started loosing, but he
has been unable to find a reply. I see that his way of venting his poor,
hurt, little ego is to post this racist crap.
What a feeble disgrace to MIT you are, Joe Nemec. You should simply have
had the balls to admit you were wrong when I proved it to you, this sort
of childish nonsense is really pathetic.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Olivier
John Perth wrote:
> Well, my fellow Americans, I hope that this guide has been useful.
> Please
> keep it for future reference. And a word of advice: if you are thinking
> of going over the drink, sit back down in your easy-chair, open another
> bottle of Sam Adams, and watch one of the more than 100 good ole
> American
> TV channels until the though passes. Belive me, you'll be glad you
> stayed
> home. I wish I had.
It's a very good guide. And I fully agree with Jothn : stay in USA. We
are barbarian who like eating small yankies. GRRRRR!
Garock the european barbarian.
PS : GRRRR!
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > putting this sort of hate posting onto the internet? Maybe they should be
> > told.
> >
> > I don't find this sort of racial abuse very funny. I don't think that the
> > MIT should be associated with it.
> >
> >
>
> To each his own. I thought it was moderately amusing, myself. It
> certainly wasn't particularly racist (do you know what that word
> means?).
>
I would agree that he was a bit over the top - however, since it was
produced under a pseudonym by Joseph E. Nemec who has been smarting
rather visibly from loosing a debate, I suspect that Joe did actually
mean it. He is really xenophobic and anti-european. I didn't think
that the bits about various European women being disgusting particularly
fitting - poor Joey probably didn't manage to get his leg over all
that much, but four years on he ought to have grown up a little bit
and got over it. I think, anyway.
I was very interested to see Joe showing his racist atitudes when he
got so cross about Israel being kept to UN resolutions, when he was
quite happy to have Arabs attacked. This, to me, looks like a lot
more of the same - from anybody else I would have ignored it, as I
actually did, until it was pointed out that it was Joe.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
John Perth
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> That is interesting, I hadn't noticed that it was Joe ranting on.
You are quite thick, aren't you?
> He lost
> a debate with me where I proved that he was wrong in claiming that the Yanks
> didn't know that they were murdering thousands of Iraqi citizens with
> sanctions - despite this murder being over six years and the Yanks admitting
> it by approving 'humanitarian aid'.
What nonsense. You never answered my questions, not once.
> He seems to be a very, very bad looser. Not only did he start criticising
> me for my art
Your art is truly awful. I mentioned it as an aside.
> (as if the author of this diatribe about his visit to
> Europe can claim any aesthetic taste!!)
I see.
> once he started loosing, but he
> has been unable to find a reply.
What nonsense. My reply has always been the same: you make a claim that
US murdered Iraqi children. You base this claim on the supposition that
we *knew* Saddam would starve his own people to death to build fifty
new palaces. I asked you to provide evidence that we knew. You never got
back to me.
> I see that his way of venting his poor,
> hurt, little ego is to post this racist crap.
>
> What a feeble disgrace to MIT you are, Joe Nemec.
Coming from you, Peter, means nothing.
> You should simply have
> had the balls to admit you were wrong when I proved it to you, this sort
> of childish nonsense is really pathetic.
This sort of childish nonsense is called "humor". Try it.
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <34f9da8f...@news.alt.net>
nospam...@newsguy.com "R A I D E R" writes:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 98 17:40:31 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
> Brooks") wrote:
>
> >>In article <6cuuut$qpn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> takmir...@usa.net writes:
> >>
> >> I wonder if the MIT authorities are aware of this racist, Joseph E. Nemec,
> >> putting this sort of hate posting onto the internet? Maybe they should be
> >> told.
> >>
> >That is interesting, I hadn't noticed that it was Joe ranting on. He lost
> >a debate with me where I proved that he was wrong in claiming that the Yanks
> >didn't know that they were murdering thousands of Iraqi citizens with
> >sanctions - despite this murder being over six years and the Yanks admitting
> >it by approving 'humanitarian aid'.
>
> Uh, Pedro, Joe couldn't possibly have lost a debate with you. Sanctions
> are NOT causing hunger and death among the Iraqis. That's totally under
> the control of Saddam, himself. He has no need for dozens of palaces, or
> statues and larger than life photos of himself on every streetcorner, or
> the world's largest mosque, or any of the other wastes of money better
> used to feed his people. He doesn't care how many of his people suffer.
>
I am afraid that he did, and lost it badly. You points about Mr Saddam
are all correct, apart from saying that Mr Saddam caused the deaths.
The sanctions were imposed by the UN under US pressure, they have caused
the deaths of 120,000 Iraqi civilians. The UN and the US knew that these
sanctions would not change Mr Saddam, as I proved to Joey, if they claimed that
didn't know in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth years,
their action in providing the scant 'humanitarian relief' proved that
they lied in this claim.
So, you see, the US is directly responsible for the murder of the Iraqi
civilians.
To make it easier for you, if you give an axe to a man known to be a mad
axe murderer, and this man then uses it to kill a dozen people, you, not
he are guilty of the murders. He is not guilty by reason of insanity, you
have used the mad murderer as your proxy weapon. So in the case of the
sanctions, the US has caused the murder of the civilians.
>
> >I see that his way of venting his poor, hurt, little ego is to post this
> >racist crap.
>
> I see that you and Sandy both need to learn what racism is.
>
Joe believes that Arabs should die, but not that Israelis should, for
the same crimes. In my book, this is racism.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <34F390...@mit.edu> jce...@mit.edu "John Perth" writes:
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> > That is interesting, I hadn't noticed that it was Joe ranting on.
>
> You are quite thick, aren't you?
>
Hello, Joe. Not really, you forged yourself a different name. There is
quite a lot of drivel coming through here, to spot that it is your drivel
isn't a task that I would wish to be good at.
>
> > He lost
> > a debate with me where I proved that he was wrong in claiming that the Yanks
> > didn't know that they were murdering thousands of Iraqi citizens with
> > sanctions - despite this murder being over six years and the Yanks admitting
> > it by approving 'humanitarian aid'.
>
> What nonsense. You never answered my questions, not once.
>
I have indeed. I notice that you have been quite unable to produce any
defence. Indeed this posting shows that you are still incapable of
producing any defence.
>
> > He seems to be a very, very bad looser. Not only did he start criticising
> > me for my art
>
> Your art is truly awful. I mentioned it as an aside.
>
This is a bit disingenous, even for you. You went to all the trouble
of finding my web page to comment on it, just as you had taken a beating.
You have shown no evidence of any interest or knowledge of art in any
posting or web page to date, but, after retreating from a debate you
had lost completely, you suddenly declared yourself an art critic.
Just as poor old Sam whatshisname did a little while back - it is a very
transparent nerd response to loosing.
>
> > (as if the author of this diatribe about his visit to
> > Europe can claim any aesthetic taste!!)
>
> I see.
>
I am not sure. You post an article about your visit to Europe, then, four
years later, having been beaten in an argument and shown to be a racist,
you suddenly decide to post it under an assumed name.
Your visit to Europe that clearly involved you in not getting any leg over -
hence your nasty comments about European women - involved absolutely no
apprieciation of the art or architecture of Europe. You reveal yourself
as the Yank philistine that you are.
>
> > once he started loosing, but he
> > has been unable to find a reply.
>
> What nonsense. My reply has always been the same: you make a claim that
> US murdered Iraqi children. You base this claim on the supposition that
> we *knew* Saddam would starve his own people to death to build fifty
> new palaces. I asked you to provide evidence that we knew. You never got
> back to me.
>
I notice that you have changed your 'point', you now implicitly accept
what I showed you and try to claim that it was palace building that
caused the deaths of the people murdered by the Yanks. This dishonesty
shows me that you understood my point perfectly well.
You really are a sad looser, aren't you?
>
> > You should simply have
> > had the balls to admit you were wrong when I proved it to you, this sort
> > of childish nonsense is really pathetic.
>
> This sort of childish nonsense is called "humor". Try it.
>
I have no truck with 'humor', it is a tedious Yankism. There was very little
humour evident in your posting either - I noticed the well known and ancient
joke that you could miss Luxembourg if you blinked, but that was about it.
Actually, though the 'childish nonsense' to which I refer, wasn't your
adolsecent 'humor', but your inability to accept that you have lost
the point, your attempt to smear your opponent rather than grapple
with the point, and your attempt to evade responsibility for your
nasty little piece by calling yourself 'John Perth'.
Now then Joe. If you have an honest bone in your body, why not explain
to us why, for the first time in a number of years posting, you suddenly
decide to call yourself 'John Perth'?
Maybe you can explain the coincidence with your taking a beating from
me. Maybe you can do it better than your inability to explain why the
Yanks agreed to 'humanitarian aid' when you claim that they knew nothing
of the deaths that they were causing in Iraq.
On the other hand, maybe you can't.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Chris
In article <34F390...@mit.edu>, John Perth <jce...@mit.edu> wrote:
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> > He lost
> > a debate with me where I proved that he was wrong in claiming that the Yanks
> > didn't know that they were murdering thousands of Iraqi citizens with
> > sanctions - despite this murder being over six years and the Yanks admitting
> > it by approving 'humanitarian aid'.
>
> What nonsense. You never answered my questions, not once.
> What nonsense. My reply has always been the same: you make a claim that
> US murdered Iraqi children. You base this claim on the supposition that
> we *knew* Saddam would starve his own people to death to build fifty
> new palaces. I asked you to provide evidence that we knew. You never got
> back to me.
You clearly haven't read any papers in the last few years have you. Only
last week there was an article in my local paper about how the UN imposed
sanctions have been responsible for the loss of Iraqi life. Do you not
believe these reports or have you not read them?
takmir...@usa.net
I am surprised to see this controversy over my e-mail! You all might like to know that Ron Hoffmann of MIT (hoff...@mit.edu) says that there is no valid address jce...@mit.edu at mit.edu so it must be forgery.
Sandy Takmir
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Bryce Lin
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> In article <34f9da8f...@news.alt.net>
> nospam...@newsguy.com "R A I D E R" writes:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 98 17:40:31 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
> > Brooks") wrote:
> >
> > >>In article <6cuuut$qpn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> takmir...@usa.net writes:
> > >>
> > >> I wonder if the MIT authorities are aware of this racist, Joseph E. Nemec,
> > >> putting this sort of hate posting onto the internet? Maybe they should be
> > >> told.
> > >>
> > >a debate with me where I proved that he was wrong in claiming that the Yanks
> > >didn't know that they were murdering thousands of Iraqi citizens with
> > >sanctions - despite this murder being over six years and the Yanks admitting
> > >it by approving 'humanitarian aid'.
> >
> > are NOT causing hunger and death among the Iraqis. That's totally under
> > the control of Saddam, himself. He has no need for dozens of palaces, or
> > statues and larger than life photos of himself on every streetcorner, or
> > the world's largest mosque, or any of the other wastes of money better
> > used to feed his people. He doesn't care how many of his people suffer.
> >
> I am afraid that he did, and lost it badly. You points about Mr Saddam
> are all correct, apart from saying that Mr Saddam caused the deaths.
>
> The sanctions were imposed by the UN under US pressure, they have caused
> the deaths of 120,000 Iraqi civilians. The UN and the US knew that these
> sanctions would not change Mr Saddam, as I proved to Joey, if they claimed that
> didn't know in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth years,
> their action in providing the scant 'humanitarian relief' proved that
> they lied in this claim.
>
> So, you see, the US is directly responsible for the murder of the Iraqi
> civilians.
>
> To make it easier for you, if you give an axe to a man known to be a mad
> axe murderer, and this man then uses it to kill a dozen people, you, not
> he are guilty of the murders. He is not guilty by reason of insanity, you
> have used the mad murderer as your proxy weapon. So in the case of the
> sanctions, the US has caused the murder of the civilians.
You don't honestly believe this do you? The axe murderer would be
responsible for the murders, not the person who gave him an axe. Unless
of course, if you paid (or otherwise forced) the person, then both of
you would be responsible.
> >
> > >I see that his way of venting his poor, hurt, little ego is to post this
> > >racist crap.
> >
> > I see that you and Sandy both need to learn what racism is.
> >
> Joe believes that Arabs should die, but not that Israelis should, for
> the same crimes. In my book, this is racism.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Arabs and Israelis the same race? So
your claim of him being a racist is not true.
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
- Bryce Lin -
"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know
this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same
time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is
based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we
logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."
Brian Pickrell
Peter Her Majesty Brooks wrote:
>
> In article <34f9da8f...@news.alt.net>
> nospam...@newsguy.com "R A I D E R" writes:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 98 17:40:31 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
> > Brooks") wrote:
> >
> > >>In article <6cuuut$qpn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> takmir...@usa.net writes:
> > >>
> > >> I wonder if the MIT authorities are aware of this racist, Joseph E. Nemec,
> > >> putting this sort of hate posting onto the internet? Maybe they should be
> > >> told.
> > >>
> > >That is interesting, I hadn't noticed that it was Joe ranting on. He lost
> > >a debate with me where I proved that he was wrong in claiming that the Yanks
> > >didn't know that they were murdering thousands of Iraqi citizens with
> > >sanctions - despite this murder being over six years and the Yanks admitting
> > >it by approving 'humanitarian aid'.
> >
> > Uh, Pedro, Joe couldn't possibly have lost a debate with you. Sanctions
> > are NOT causing hunger and death among the Iraqis. That's totally under
> > the control of Saddam, himself. He has no need for dozens of palaces, or
> > statues and larger than life photos of himself on every streetcorner, or
> > the world's largest mosque, or any of the other wastes of money better
> > used to feed his people. He doesn't care how many of his people suffer.
> >
> I am afraid that he did, and lost it badly. You points about Mr Saddam
> are all correct, apart from saying that Mr Saddam caused the deaths.
>
> The sanctions were imposed by the UN under US pressure
They were imposed by the UN because nobody in the UN had the balls
to go in and finish the job. Tell you what, next time
we save the world from a bloodthirsty dictator why don't you
go in and storm the capital yourselves and take the
dictator out? You can take a few whiny, fence-sitting Saudi
Arabians with you to help out. Then we won't have to worry
about any long drawn-out sanctions policy.
Until you're prepared to do this, don't blame us for any dumb-ass
compromises.
> , they have caused
> the deaths of 120,000 Iraqi civilians. The UN and the US knew that these
> sanctions would not change Mr Saddam, as I proved to Joey, if they claimed that
> didn't know in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth years,
> their action in providing the scant 'humanitarian relief' proved that
> they lied in this claim.
>
> So, you see, the US is directly responsible for the murder of the Iraqi
> civilians.
Sorry, that's not murder. You may not like the situation, but the
surrender
policy you seem to be advocating won't help any.
>
> To make it easier for you, if you give an axe to a man known to be a mad
> axe murderer, and this man then uses it to kill a dozen people, you, not
> he are guilty of the murders. He is not guilty by reason of insanity, you
> have used the mad murderer as your proxy weapon. So in the case of the
> sanctions, the US has caused the murder of the civilians.
That's a worthless analogy. I think what you've really demonstrated is
that it would have been better for everyone concerned if we'd nuked
Baghdad seven years ago and gotten it all over with.
> >
> > >I see that his way of venting his poor, hurt, little ego is to post this
> > >racist crap.
> >
> > I see that you and Sandy both need to learn what racism is.
> >
> Joe believes that Arabs should die, but not that Israelis should, for
> the same crimes. In my book, this is racism.
Your book is written in crayon, isn't it?
Most everybody in this group knows that Arabs and Hebrews come from
the same racial origins. This is common knowledge.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Pickrell.................What does not kill me only makes
...............................me stranger.
...............................
Reply To: pma...@REMOVEeskimo.com
Darko
John Perth wrote:
>
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
> > a debate with me where I proved that he was wrong in claiming that the Yanks
> > didn't know that they were murdering thousands of Iraqi citizens with
> > sanctions - despite this murder being over six years and the Yanks admitting
> > it by approving 'humanitarian aid'.
>
>
> > me for my art
>
>
> > (as if the author of this diatribe about his visit to
> > Europe can claim any aesthetic taste!!)
>
> I see.
>
> > has been unable to find a reply.
>
> US murdered Iraqi children. You base this claim on the supposition that
> we *knew* Saddam would starve his own people to death to build fifty
> new palaces. I asked you to provide evidence that we knew. You never got
> back to me.
Records show that economic sanctions are rarely successfull in ousting a
government. Cuba, Lybia, Yugoslavia, Iraq are just clearest examples.
They
also serve as an excuse to erradicate any remains of oposition within a
country in question. In conclusion, under sanctions a nondemocratic
regime
becomes only stronger.
As for palaces I gather you're watching too much of CNN these days. Try
tuning to history for a change. You'd find numerous examples that people
who didn't have anything to eat, gave their posessions so a religious
monument could be built. The reason is quite simple. In times of trouble
people pray more and in absence of mercy on Earth they turn their
attention
to higher authorities for mercy.
Regards!
Darko
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >
> > To make it easier for you, if you give an axe to a man known to be a mad
> > axe murderer, and this man then uses it to kill a dozen people, you, not
> > he are guilty of the murders. He is not guilty by reason of insanity, you
> > have used the mad murderer as your proxy weapon. So in the case of the
> > sanctions, the US has caused the murder of the civilians.
>
> You don't honestly believe this do you? The axe murderer would be
> responsible for the murders, not the person who gave him an axe. Unless
> of course, if you paid (or otherwise forced) the person, then both of
> you would be responsible.
>
I am afraid not. If you know that the person is an axe murderer, than
handing him or her an axe is being an accomplice or conspiring to
murder somebody, this is to be as culpable - or in the case of English
law, often more culpable. Of course if the axe murderer is in fact mad
then she is innocent.
>
> > >
> > > >I see that his way of venting his poor, hurt, little ego is to post this
> > > >racist crap.
> > >
> > > I see that you and Sandy both need to learn what racism is.
> > >
> > Joe believes that Arabs should die, but not that Israelis should, for
> > the same crimes. In my book, this is racism.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Arabs and Israelis the same race? So
> your claim of him being a racist is not true.
>
Most people who shout 'anti-semite' don't actually know this. You are
technically correct. I find it difficult to find a better word for the
way in which Israel treats Arabs - very similar to the ways the Nazis
treated Jews.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > , they have caused
> > the deaths of 120,000 Iraqi civilians. The UN and the US knew that these
> > sanctions would not change Mr Saddam, as I proved to Joey, if they claimed
> that
> > didn't know in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth years,
> > their action in providing the scant 'humanitarian relief' proved that
> > they lied in this claim.
> >
> > So, you see, the US is directly responsible for the murder of the Iraqi
> > civilians.
>
> Sorry, that's not murder. You may not like the situation, but the
> surrender
> policy you seem to be advocating won't help any.
>
You may dislike the alternatives that you can see, this doesn't mean
that there are not many you don't see. Just because you don't wish
Yankland to be responsible for murder doesn't make it so.
>
> >
> > To make it easier for you, if you give an axe to a man known to be a mad
> > axe murderer, and this man then uses it to kill a dozen people, you, not
> > he are guilty of the murders. He is not guilty by reason of insanity, you
> > have used the mad murderer as your proxy weapon. So in the case of the
> > sanctions, the US has caused the murder of the civilians.
>
> That's a worthless analogy. I think what you've really demonstrated is
> that it would have been better for everyone concerned if we'd nuked
> Baghdad seven years ago and gotten it all over with.
>
You take this business of being a mindless Yank seriously, don't you?
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <34f5e88d....@enews.newsguy.com>
nospam...@newsguy.com "R A I D E R" writes:
> >>
> >I am afraid that he did, and lost it badly. You points about Mr Saddam
> >are all correct, apart from saying that Mr Saddam caused the deaths.
>
> Needlessly starving his own people and then trying to redirect the blame
> onto the U.N. sanctions is par for Saddam's curse. It's similar to the
> infamous "Baby Milk Factory" we supposedly destroyed that was actually a
> command and/or communications center. Saddam is well known for his attempts
> to stretch the truth. Nothing has changed.
>
None of this removes the guilt from the Yanks. They also murdered a few
hundred civilians in a bomb shelter with a precision bomb - either Yanks
are pretty hopeless at intelligence, or they are murderers in this case
too.
> >
> >To make it easier for you, if you give an axe to a man known to be a mad
> >axe murderer, and this man then uses it to kill a dozen people, you, not
> >he are guilty of the murders. He is not guilty by reason of insanity, you
> >have used the mad murderer as your proxy weapon. So in the case of the
> >sanctions, the US has caused the murder of the civilians.
>
> Using your example/logic, then, I guess it can also be said that the more
> than 500,000 dead Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda and Burundi are your fault, eh?
> I recall a few articles dealing with the involvement of Britons indirectly
> providing weapons to the perpetrators of the massacre. Since the arms and
> other implements did not directly come from British soil, the investigations
> stopped short, but still, at least 2 executives resigned as a result of the
> probes. "We're innocent, but we quit."
>
I agree with you. Yes, this would be another case. I am afraid that, unlike
Yanks, I can apply one rule to all.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Wiggy
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 at 20:34:58 in article <34F24D...@mit.edu>, John
Perth (John Perth <jce...@mit.edu>) writ...
>My fellow Americans, as I have had the misfortune of having traveled in
>Euro-hell, I feel that it is my duty to write a brief synopsis of the
>barbarians that infest that wasteland so that no other children of this
>glorious land must bear the burden of seeing or smelling a european. To
>this end, I ask that every American on the newsgroup read this. Study it
>well, bretheren, for to be forewarned is to be forearmed!
I think this is meant to be humorous (and it is, in places) but I'll
tackle it from a more serious approach anyway:
>Belgians want only to be someone else. Those
>that speak frog wish they were french.
Walloons favour Rattachisme? Hahahahahahaha! You make me laugh.
>Those that speak flemish wish
>they
>were dutch.
ROTFLVS again!
(= "rolls on the floor larfin' viciously sidesplittingly")
>The french are a nasty bunch.
Can be. But so can all people.
>If it weren't for the fact that they hate
>the english, they would have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Nice one! (not a limey bash or anything, just fun) :-)
>only a few things that an American need know about the french: they
>learned their washing habits from baboons,
True.
>_GERMANS_
>
>The nastiest bunch in Europe.
What a horrid racist generalization that is!
>The dutch are the people half the Belgians want to be.
Tell that to a Fleming and watch yourself get battered to a pulp by the
nutters from the FNP!
>Wanting to be
>dutch means wanting to be a second rate kraut wannabe drug addict who
>speaks a language that sounds like he has something caught in his
>throat.
Tell that to the Dutch, they'll love you!
>Sweden is a country that is largely populated by albinos with names like
>Sven or Olaf.
Hmmm, the U.S. is a country that is largely populated by gun toting
cowboys with names like Clint Eastwood or Bad Boy Billy. :-)
>In its entire history, Sweden has only produced two things
>of note: the porno film and the sex change operation.
This nincompoop has clearly never heard of SAAB, Volvo, and countless
excellent pop groups (including that them foursome wot won the
Eurovision in 1974, can't remember what they were called :-).
>On
>the positive side, the women are quite beautiful
The universe is "quite" big.
>(and lonely, for the
>reasons stated above),
ROTFLVS!
>so sex is easy to come by.
Ah not this old chestnut. I'm afraid that the poster has shown himself
up as being a typical arrogant and ignorant Yank, I'm afraid. It's the
*Yanks* that are easy, and if there is anywhere where sex is "easy to
come by" as this geezer puts it, I'd say it's America, not Sweden, or
any other European country for that matter!
>Simply say "Jag ar
>Amerikaner. Knulla mej",
And sacrilege! The nincompoop kar'nt spel! But he's welcome to return
when he's learned about umlauts. But back to the point: being a typical
grosso Yank is likely to put our (Euro) women off f***in' 'em, not turn
'em on! European women are more sophisticated, intelligent and, er, chic
- than many of their American "cheap-copy" counterparts.
>and get out the video camera so you'll have
>something to show your friends back home.
A typical Yank would be better off with a light load and carrying extra
cash instead to pay for a prostitute... in the unlikely event that she
would be interested. :-)
>Norway is exactly like Sweden,
NOT!
>except the people are bigger,
Are they? If he says so.
>friendlier,
Hmmm, nah.
>and smarter.
NOT!
>Norway (unlike the Herring-eaters discussed above) did not
>knuckle under to the hun during the big war.
Well they weren't neutral during WW2 if that's what you mean. :-)
(and Norwegians are herring eaters too!)
>Unfortunately, they were no
>match for their bloodthirsty bretheren to the south,
The bloodthirsty Danes? ;-)
>_FINLAND_
>
>Often called East Sweden (or, lately, West Russia),
I think we'll stick with West Russia for the time being, EU or not.
>finns are just like
>swedes,
NOT.
>except they are darker, dumber and drunker.
Right, so they're not the same then are they? Geeze...
>Never, ever, drink
>with a finn. They are born with neither a liver nor a brain,
EU citizens do all have brains. Or at least they would if the UK wasn't
a member state. :-)
>Most finns occupy their time with taking the ferry to Sweden
>back and forth, so that they don't have to pay duty on their liquid
>addiction.
Luckily we in the EU will be abolishing Duty Free in the name of "The
Faith". :-) (an expression courtesy of R Gregory)
>_IRELAND_
>
>If you're man enough, you'll call them West English.
Or "little Brits", or "little brothers of the Brits". :-)
Brave men would call the Welsh "West English", and the Scots "North
English" (the latter requires great bravery).
>If you're dumb
>enough, you'll take the challenge. If you really want to meet Irish
>people, however, save some money, and go to New York,
Cheaper to my house for most people here, I'd say, I'm 1/8 Irish, if
that's good enough. :-)
>or even "Paddy O'Furniture's",
Great stuff, I like that joke!
>_LUXEMBOURG_
>
>Drive slow, or you'll miss it.
Which would be a pity. A small country with a big heart, and a big
appetite for just about anything Euro (most establishments there have
"Euro" somewhere in their title). If one could only visit one EU
country, this is the one.
>_AUSTRIA_
>
>South Germany.
The piss takes in here are endless! :-)
>When ordering food in an Austrian restaurant, be sure to
>try the "Anschluss". It's the national dish.
Great stuff. :-)
>_ENGLAND_
>
>Always save the worst for last, I always say, so that is what I have
>done. One should never, ever go to England.
Bit hard when you live just behind its border. :-(
>Some of
>the
>great contributions to world history that the english have provided us
>with are homosexuality, nazi skinheads
Neo-Nazi skinheads are a *British* "invention"? Says who?
>and warm beer. If you must go to
>England, remember that they drive on the wrong side of the road.
Just like all the nations on this island do.
>Also, the sight of their women has been known to cause
>irreversible mental damage.
Half agree. But many limeys are of Scandinavian heritage which explains
why they're not all drab 'n' ugly.
>Belive me, you'll be glad you
>stayed
>home. I wish I had.
I'm proud to be Euro, and if any Yank hates us, that's fine by me, they
can stay out of my country, Europe, and stick to their own land of
bloated beerbelly cowboy gun toters. I'm not a xenophobe or anything,
but if one wants to live here, they should at least have some respect
for our Union and Continent.
--
WIGGY Cardiff Wales UK EU \ Freude, schöner Götterfunken
************* fax: +44 1222 549878 / Tochter aus Elysium
email: ibthe1<AT>gerrit.demon.co.uk \ Wir betreten Feuertrunken
web: http://www.gerrit.demon.co.uk/ / Himmlische Dein Heiligtum!...
Brian Pickrell
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> In article <34F4DC...@erols.com> emph...@erols.com "Brian Pickrell" writes:
>
> > > , they have caused
> > > the deaths of 120,000 Iraqi civilians. The UN and the US knew that these
> > > sanctions would not change Mr Saddam, as I proved to Joey, if they claimed
> > that
> > > didn't know in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth years,
> > > their action in providing the scant 'humanitarian relief' proved that
> > > they lied in this claim.
> > >
> > > So, you see, the US is directly responsible for the murder of the Iraqi
> > > civilians.
> >
> > Sorry, that's not murder. You may not like the situation, but the
> > surrender
> > policy you seem to be advocating won't help any.
> >
> You may dislike the alternatives that you can see, this doesn't mean
> that there are not many you don't see. Just because you don't wish
> Yankland to be responsible for murder doesn't make it so.
You're one of the endless hordes of nittering nitwits who first
scream that the USA isn't responsible for the rest of the world,
and then, when something goes wrong, shriek that the USA
is responsible. Is it any wonder that we never pay you any
mind?
> >
> > >
> > > To make it easier for you, if you give an axe to a man known to be a mad
> > > axe murderer, and this man then uses it to kill a dozen people, you, not
> > > he are guilty of the murders. He is not guilty by reason of insanity, you
> > > have used the mad murderer as your proxy weapon. So in the case of the
> > > sanctions, the US has caused the murder of the civilians.
> >
> > That's a worthless analogy. I think what you've really demonstrated is
> > that it would have been better for everyone concerned if we'd nuked
> > Baghdad seven years ago and gotten it all over with.
> >
> You take this business of being a mindless Yank seriously, don't you?
We're not impressed when one of you Euro-peons whines about how
stupid we supposedly are, either. We heard exactly the
same thing while we were inventing the telegraph, the airplane,
the atom bomb, and the integrated circuit.
dem...@hotmail.com
In article <888523...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > So, you see, the US is directly responsible for the murder of the Iraqi
> > > civilians.
...
> You may dislike the alternatives that you can see, this doesn't mean
> that there are not many you don't see. Just because you don't wish
> Yankland to be responsible for murder doesn't make it so.
...
> You take this business of being a mindless Yank seriously, don't you?
If a child is kidnapped and I refuse to pay the ransom,
am I guilty of murder if the kidnapper kills the child?
In the case of Iraq, Saddam has kidnapped his *own* child,
and you accuse the US of murder for not paying the ransom.
Just because you wish the US of being guilty of murder
doesn't make it so.
If you care at all about being persuasive, you'd be better
to seperate the facts from your obvious anti-American
prejudice. Otherwise, all you are is a troll. An
intelligent troll perhaps, but still a troll.
Ken Ehrett
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Arabs and Israelis the same race? So
>> your claim of him being a racist is not true.
>>
>Most people who shout 'anti-semite' don't actually know this. You are
>technically correct. I find it difficult to find a better word for the
>way in which Israel treats Arabs - very similar to the ways the Nazis
>treated Jews.
Might have something to do with being invaded twice and constant Arab
declarations of driving them into the sea even while signing peace
agreements.
Ken
Chris Hempsall
Wiggy <refe...@nospam.net> wrote in article
<o+1olGAV...@gerrit.demon.co.uk>...
> On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 at 20:34:58 in article <34F24D...@mit.edu>, John
> Perth (John Perth <jce...@mit.edu>) writ...
>
> >My fellow Americans, as I have had the misfortune of having traveled in
> >Euro-hell, I feel that it is my duty to write a brief synopsis of the
> >barbarians that infest that wasteland so that no other children of this
> >glorious land must bear the burden of seeing or smelling a european. To
> >this end, I ask that every American on the newsgroup read this. Study it
> >well, bretheren, for to be forewarned is to be forearmed!
>
> I think this is meant to be humorous (and it is, in places) but I'll
> tackle it from a more serious approach anyway:
>
> >Belgians want only to be someone else. Those
> >that speak frog wish they were french.
>
> Walloons favour Rattachisme? Hahahahahahaha! You make me laugh.
>
> >Those that speak flemish wish
> >they
> >were dutch.
>
> ROTFLVS again!
> (= "rolls on the floor larfin' viciously sidesplittingly")
I don't know enough about the disputes between the flemish and french
speakers to comment. But a word of warning.....never attempt to follow a
road map in Belgium whilst comparing it to the road signs. You'll find that
a place is called one thing on a road sign, only to be called something
completely different 10 miles down the road (which unless you have a road
map which is marked in both languages can make things a little difficult!).
Strange for a country which spews out all the harmonisation regulations eh?
:-)
Chris
Brian Pickrell
Chris Hempsall wrote:
>
> Wiggy <refe...@nospam.net> wrote in article
> <o+1olGAV...@gerrit.demon.co.uk>...
> > Perth (John Perth <jce...@mit.edu>) writ...
> >
> > >My fellow Americans, as I have had the misfortune of having traveled in
> > >Euro-hell, I feel that it is my duty to write a brief synopsis of the
> > >barbarians that infest that wasteland so that no other children of this
> > >glorious land must bear the burden of seeing or smelling a european. To
> > >this end, I ask that every American on the newsgroup read this. Study it
> > >well, bretheren, for to be forewarned is to be forearmed!
> >
> > I think this is meant to be humorous (and it is, in places) but I'll
> > tackle it from a more serious approach anyway:
> >
> > >Belgians want only to be someone else. Those
> > >that speak frog wish they were french.
> >
> > Walloons favour Rattachisme? Hahahahahahaha! You make me laugh.
> >
> > >Those that speak flemish wish
> > >they
> > >were dutch.
> >
> > ROTFLVS again!
> > (= "rolls on the floor larfin' viciously sidesplittingly")
>
> speakers to comment. But a word of warning.....never attempt to follow a
> road map in Belgium whilst comparing it to the road signs. You'll find that
> a place is called one thing on a road sign, only to be called something
> completely different 10 miles down the road (which unless you have a road
> map which is marked in both languages can make things a little difficult!).
>
> Strange for a country which spews out all the harmonisation regulations eh?
Maybe this explains why a battle fought at La Belle Alliance was called
the battle of Waterloo instead.
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <3516af0b...@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM>
do...@bother.com "plastic" writes:
>
> 3) Arabs are not human so they dont count.
>
I thought so. Racism in the raw. Thank you for confirming the
Yank view of the world.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <34f6403...@news.supernews.com>
ya...@olg.com "Ken Ehrett" writes:
I see. This is the 'its ok to be racist if you are pro-Israeli argument'.
Nice to see that the good ole' boy white trash are still the same - it
seems that Hitler still has a safe haven - at least if his ghost is prepared
to be circumcised.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Stefane Dowet
Li 27 Feb 1998 23:17:34 GMT, "Chris Hempsall"
<christophe...@virgin.net.nospam> a scrit:
>I don't know enough about the disputes between the flemish and french
>speakers to comment. But a word of warning.....never attempt to follow a
>road map in Belgium whilst comparing it to the road signs. You'll find that
>a place is called one thing on a road sign, only to be called something
>completely different 10 miles down the road (which unless you have a road
>map which is marked in both languages can make things a little difficult!).
Imagine if we had signroads like, Londres, Douvres, Cantorbéry, near
the Chunnel !!! And I don't speak of Dutch versions !
Djuskas di Waloneye,
Salutations wallonnes,
--
Stéfâne Dowčt, dispu 1978, Nam(e)ur, Wallonie (EU)
My European page is at http://www.ping.be/federal-europe/
|Let's make the EU more democratic - vote YES to Amsterdam
--- NON au rattachisme ŕ la France ---
Po m'îmęlez : rtiroz li "_NOSPAM" divant @ping.be
Andrew/
Brian Pickrell (emph...@erols.com) wrote:
: Maybe this explains why a battle fought at La Belle Alliance was called
: the battle of Waterloo instead.
True to form Brian is totally and utterly wrong on this. As is to
be expected from a regular contributor to the well-known troll ng
alt.good.morning.
Emeritus Professor of European Military History, Ingle Gumby at the
Univeristy of Going a Bit Red in Helsinki has established that the
Battle of Waterloo was actually fought in Cudworth, Yorkshire. According
to Professor Gumby, Drake was too clever for the German Fleet.
Brian Pickrell is a research assistant at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem which has a proven track record of producing psuedo-academic
shite masquerading as fact on the Usenet. The reality is that a.g.m
is in fact the present home of the net pranksters alt.syntax.tactical.
Ignore them.
Andrew/
"There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth"
-- Jesus H. Christ
Brian Pickrell
Stop it with your LIES, Andrew/. It's WELL PROVEN that YOU
are the troller from alt.good.morning. And I've reported this
blatant troll attempt to the authorities at the University
of Helsinki, and I'm sure everyone else in soc.culture.dutch
will do the same if you don't CEASE IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!
!!!!!
And I saw right through your FORGED HEADERS. You're not
posting from Lincolnshire at all.
Ken Ehrett
He's a roo-fucker you dipshit.
Ken
Ken Ehrett
>In article <34f6403...@news.supernews.com>
> ya...@olg.com "Ken Ehrett" writes:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 98 20:02:17 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
>> Brooks") wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Arabs and Israelis the same race? So
>> >> your claim of him being a racist is not true.
>> >>
>> >Most people who shout 'anti-semite' don't actually know this. You are
>> >technically correct. I find it difficult to find a better word for the
>> >way in which Israel treats Arabs - very similar to the ways the Nazis
>> >treated Jews.
>>
>> Might have something to do with being invaded twice and constant Arab
>> declarations of driving them into the sea even while signing peace
>> agreements.
>>
>I see. This is the 'its ok to be racist if you are pro-Israeli argument'.
>Nice to see that the good ole' boy white trash are still the same - it
>seems that Hitler still has a safe haven - at least if his ghost is prepared
>to be circumcised.
You are truly an amazingly hateful little asshole aren't you? So
being pro-israeli makes me a racist now? The Israelis occupy a patch
of land in the vast reaches of the Middle East that is so small you
can drive completely across it's borders in less than one hour. Every
other place in the area is ruled by islamic arabs. Arabs, by the way,
who have made it clear over and over again that they do not believe
the Israelis have a fundamental right to exist. Do you hate them so
much that you can't allow them to have this tiny little patch of land?
BTW, you're such a ignorant moron that you can't even get your
stereotypes correct. A "good ole boy white trash" tends to hate jews
just as much as you do so you really should not berate your friends
and allies.
Ken
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <34faadca...@news.supernews.com>
ya...@olg.com "Ken Ehrett" writes:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 98 03:47:08 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
> >> Might have something to do with being invaded twice and constant Arab
> >> declarations of driving them into the sea even while signing peace
> >> agreements.
> >>
> >I see. This is the 'its ok to be racist if you are pro-Israeli argument'.
> >Nice to see that the good ole' boy white trash are still the same - it
> >seems that Hitler still has a safe haven - at least if his ghost is prepared
> >to be circumcised.
>
> You are truly an amazingly hateful little asshole aren't you? So
>
If its getting to you, it is probably beginning to work, no pain, no
gain.
>
> being pro-israeli makes me a racist now? The Israelis occupy a patch
> of land in the vast reaches of the Middle East that is so small you
> can drive completely across it's borders in less than one hour. Every
> other place in the area is ruled by islamic arabs. Arabs, by the way,
> who have made it clear over and over again that they do not believe
> the Israelis have a fundamental right to exist. Do you hate them so
> much that you can't allow them to have this tiny little patch of land?
>
Pathetic. If you wish to argue for the state of Israel, created in an
unprecidented and foolish manner, that has caused shit ever since and
is still determined to torture, kill and render homeless thousands
of people only because they are Arabs, you have to do a bit better
than this.
>
> BTW, you're such a ignorant moron that you can't even get your
> stereotypes correct. A "good ole boy white trash" tends to hate jews
> just as much as you do so you really should not berate your friends
> and allies.
>
I bow to your superior knowledge of racist stereotypes.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Chris Hedley
In article <34F24D...@mit.edu>,
John Perth <jce...@mit.edu> writes:
> Hello, fellow Americans.
... snip ...
Brought to you courtesy of "The Beginner's Guide to Starting a Flame War."
Nothing else can explain the lameness and unoriginality. How dull.
0/10. No, make that 1/10 for wasting bandwidth. I'd have thought you'd've
managed better than that, Joey boy, and trying to get away with it by
posting under a pseudonym, too. Dear oh dear, you've really lost your touch.
Chris.
Ken Ehrett
>In article <34faadca...@news.supernews.com>
> ya...@olg.com "Ken Ehrett" writes:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Feb 98 03:47:08 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
>> >> Might have something to do with being invaded twice and constant Arab
>> >> declarations of driving them into the sea even while signing peace
>> >> agreements.
>> >>
>> >I see. This is the 'its ok to be racist if you are pro-Israeli argument'.
>> >Nice to see that the good ole' boy white trash are still the same - it
>> >seems that Hitler still has a safe haven - at least if his ghost is prepared
>> >to be circumcised.
>>
>> You are truly an amazingly hateful little asshole aren't you? So
>>
>If its getting to you, it is probably beginning to work, no pain, no
>gain.
You think you're getting to me? Ha, what a laugh. You're nothing but
a squalid jew baiting little scum bag. It's not like you're anything
unique or witty.
>>
>> being pro-israeli makes me a racist now? The Israelis occupy a patch
>> of land in the vast reaches of the Middle East that is so small you
>> can drive completely across it's borders in less than one hour. Every
>> other place in the area is ruled by islamic arabs. Arabs, by the way,
>> who have made it clear over and over again that they do not believe
>> the Israelis have a fundamental right to exist. Do you hate them so
>> much that you can't allow them to have this tiny little patch of land?
>>
>Pathetic. If you wish to argue for the state of Israel, created in an
>unprecidented and foolish manner, that has caused shit ever since and
>is still determined to torture, kill and render homeless thousands
>of people only because they are Arabs, you have to do a bit better
>than this.
Anything the Israelis may have done to arabs trying to kill them pales
in comparison to what arabs and the world at large has done to
Israelis and jews in general over the centuries. Since it's obvious
that you won't allow them their tiny patch of land in the desert
please describe in detail what is to be done with them. Should they
be loaded up on boxcars again? I would have to say that based on the
monstrous things people like you have demonstrated you're capable of
against jews in the recent past, don't look for any Israeli to go
meekly into the night again.
>>
>> BTW, you're such a ignorant moron that you can't even get your
>> stereotypes correct. A "good ole boy white trash" tends to hate jews
>> just as much as you do so you really should not berate your friends
>> and allies.
>>
>I bow to your superior knowledge of racist stereotypes.
Hey, I'm just trying to keep you out of hot water with your fellow
travelers. You're an ungrateful bastard as well.
Ken
Adrian C Symonds
John Perth wrote in message <34F24D...@mit.edu>...
>Hello, fellow Americans.
>
>Here is something I wrote almost four years ago. It was never more true.
>Keep it in your hearts, noble Americans, for it is a good guide to
>the idiots and scumbags that live across the pond!
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: nem...@acf4.nyu.edu (Da Nemecizer)
>Newsgroups: alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.nuke.europe
Lots of crap cut.
I do not know who the hell you are, or think you are, but considering the
states got more crime than anywhere else, you got nothing to be proud off.
I never known a race like the yanks, full of self importance and looking
down at everyone else.
the states seems to be full of mental cases, by what we see on our T.V.
BTW, my Dad is a yank, and I have relatives over in los Angelas, but my
views are still the same,
But I must admit, I still prefer the yanks to Germans.
Adrian
Keep Britain Free from E.U junk, keep the British pound
Good luck to our Farmers, keep rubbish meat from Britain.
Website www.graphi.mcmail.com
Nigel Smith
I used to hold Americans in high regard until I read this posting. You can
no more say that these are all traits of all these people, than I can say
all Americans are stupid loud mouthed fools, which incidentally is the
category I place your good self. I believe sir, that you do your American
counterparts a severe injustice.
Can you not find something more creative to do than rant on with your
childish comments. Most Americans I have had the pleasure of meeting have
been extremely polite and courteous. Should I now consider them all to be
like you?
John Perth wrote in message <34F24D...@mit.edu>...
>Hello, fellow Americans.
>
>Here is something I wrote almost four years ago. It was never more true.
>Keep it in your hearts, noble Americans, for it is a good guide to
>the idiots and scumbags that live across the pond!
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: nem...@acf4.nyu.edu (Da Nemecizer)
>Newsgroups: alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.nuke.europe
>Subject: Yank Guide to the Euro-scum
>Date: 11 Jul 1994 21:51:35 GMT
>Organization: New York University
>
>
>My fellow Americans, as I have had the misfortune of having traveled in
>Euro-hell, I feel that it is my duty to write a brief synopsis of the
>barbarians that infest that wasteland so that no other children of this
>glorious land must bear the burden of seeing or smelling a european. To
>this end, I ask that every American on the newsgroup read this. Study it
>well, bretheren, for to be forewarned is to be forearmed!
>
>_BELGIANS_
>
>I begin with Belgians because even the though of those waffleirons
>raises
>the bile. Plus, as there are only a handful of the little blue smurf
>bastards, I don't have to write alot. Belgium is known for only two
>things: the invention of the french fry (for which they did not get
>credit), and the open door policy that they showed to Hitler during his
>vacation in France fifty-odd years ago. Belgium has two official
>languages: french and flemish. Both grate on your ears, much as their
>women grate on you eyes. Belgians want only to be someone else. Those
>that speak frog wish they were french. Those that speak flemish wish
>they
>were dutch. I wish they would all just go away. When in Europe, do in
>Belgium what the Wehrmacht did: cross it in under two hours.
>
>_FRENCH_
>
>The french are a nasty bunch. If it weren't for the fact that they hate
>the english, they would have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. There
>are
>only a few things that an American need know about the french: they
>learned their washing habits from baboons, and haven't won a war by
>themselves in over two hundred years. The French like to be constantly
>reminded of the fact that they owe us everything, so please do so. Also,
>it is fun to sneak up behind them and yell in German, and then watch
>them
>surrender to you faster than an Iraqi to a CNN camerman.
>
>_GERMANS_
>
>The nastiest bunch in Europe. These are the only euro-peons with any
>rudimentary motor skills, which the consantly use to build chemical
>weapons factories in lands run by half-crazed mullahs with dish towels
>on
>their heads. We bombed the whole country flat about fifty years ago, and
>in this author's humble opinion, we should've salted the earth as well.
>As we did not, they grew strong again, mostly by building lots of
>Mercedes that they sold to suckers who like to pay thorugh the nose for
>second rate cars with no head room. The only good thing about Germany is
>cheap beer and the Autobahn, which has no speed limits, and the two
>should always be used together. And should you cause a wreck and kill a
>few krauts, don't worry, it's a rental car. But a word of advice. If a
>German asks you if you'd like to go to camping, don't go. The camp he
>has
>in mind isn't near Lake Wobegone.
>
>_DUTCH_
>
>The dutch are the people half the Belgians want to be. Wanting to be
>dutch means wanting to be a second rate kraut wannabe drug addict who
>speaks a language that sounds like he has something caught in his
>throat.
>If you must visit Holland, tell them you're a canuck, as this is the
>only
>place in the world that actually likes Canadians. You see, the Americans
>let the moosefuckers liberate the clogwearers from the jerrys (all six
>that were left in the country at the time) at the end of WWII, and they
>are still grateful. While there, be sure to visit the red light district
>that is in every town. There you an see how the average dutch wife earns
>her living so that her husband can afford to buy his daily two kilos of
>hash at the local coffee shop. While in Holland, it is considered polite
>to yell at strangers at the top of your lungs the following Dutch
>phrase:
>"Ich bin Deutscher, und wir haben den Krieg gewonnen."
>
>_SWEDEN_
>
>Sweden is a country that is largely populated by albinos with names like
>Sven or Olaf. In its entire history, Sweden has only produced two things
>of note: the porno film and the sex change operation. The former was
>used
>to lure unsuspecting American males so the Swedes could perform the
>latter, thus reducing their dependence on sheep for sexual release. On
>the positive side, the women are quite beautiful (and lonely, for the
>reasons stated above), so sex is easy to come by. Simply say "Jag ar
>Amerikaner. Knulla mej", and get out the video camera so you'll have
>something to show your friends back home.
>
>_NORWAY_
>
>Norway is exactly like Sweden, except the people are bigger, friendlier,
>and smarter. Norway (unlike the Herring-eaters discussed above) did not
>knuckle under to the hun during the big war. Unfortunately, they were no
>match for their bloodthirsty bretheren to the south, and have the
>indignity of following in that great french tradition of being occupied
>by a foreign power.
>
>_FINLAND_
>
>Often called East Sweden (or, lately, West Russia), finns are just like
>swedes, except they are darker, dumber and drunker. Never, ever, drink
>with a finn. They are born with neither a liver nor a brain, and you
>will
>wake up in Estonia with no clothes and a six-year hangover if you even
>think of going head to head with these human breweries. If you are
>unconvinced, just keep in mind that even Russians are afraid to drink
>with finns. Most finns occupy their time with taking the ferry to Sweden
>back and forth, so that they don't have to pay duty on their liquid
>addiction.
>
>_RUSSIANS_
>
>Russia is the country that lost the cold war. This is not a surpries, as
>they are the drunkest people in Europe (with one exception. See above)
>Russians are second rate at everything. The French have uglier women,
>the
>Brits have lousier food, and the Belgians have worse teeth. Don't go to
>Russia, unless you are a criminal. Then feel free, as you'll be among
>the
>majority, and won't stand out. (Kinda like Australia, but with worse
>liquor)
>
>
>_ITALIANS_
>
>There are very few of these left, as the ones in the North have all gone
>to America, and the ones in the south have all been killed by the Mafia.
>This is the place where the Spanish take driving lessons.
>
>_SPANISH_
>
>The party people of Europe. This is the place to go for cheap booze,
>cheap women and cheap thrills. Come to think of it, almost everything in
>this third world country is cheap. A popular sport here is to kill a
>feeble old bull that has been pumped up with sedatives while wearing an
>outfit that would make the average english male pitch a tent in his
>pants. A word of warning, however. It is very difficult to tell the
>difference between a bull and a Spanish woman over 40, so be careful
>what
>you kill.
>
>_PORTUGAL_
>
>Like Spain, only cheaper.
>
>_GREECE_
>
>The country with the lowest standard of living in europe, the greeks are
>so lazy that even after two-thousand odd years, they still have
>renovated
>any of those old buildings that are falling down.
>
>_IRELAND_
>
>If you're man enough, you'll call them West English. If you're dumb
>enough, you'll take the challenge. If you really want to meet Irish
>people, however, save some money, and go to New York, as half the
>population is here already. Simply find a bar that called something like
>population is here already. Simply find a bar that called something like
>"Paddy O'Brian's", "Paddy MacDougal's" or even "Paddy O'Furniture's",
>and
>upon entering, yell "Immigration" at the top of your lungs. This is
>Gaelic for "welcome to America"
>
>_LUXEMBOURG_
>
>Drive slow, or you'll miss it.
>
>_AUSTRIA_
>
>South Germany. Austrians are just like Germans, only dumber and meaner.
>It's always fun, however, to remind them that Hitler was and Austrian.
>They like that. When ordering food in an Austrian restaurant, be sure to
>try the "Anschluss". It's the national dish.
>
>_ENGLAND_
>
>Always save the worst for last, I always say, so that is what I have
>done. One should never, ever go to England. First of all, there is the
>distinct possibility that they will eat you, as all their beef is
>infected with mad cow disease. And if the english don't get you, the
>english food will. This is a land where they boil everything. Some of
>the
>great contributions to world history that the english have provided us
>with are homosexuality, nazi skinheads and warm beer. If you must go to
>England, remember that they drive on the wrong side of the road.
>Actually, as the whole country is drunk from dawn to dusk, they usually
>drive on both sides of the road. Both sides, that is, except for where
>half the road is closed down by traffic cones, which is pretty much
>everywhere. (They are still trying to figure out how the Romans did it,
>you see). When in England, always make sure to stand downwind from them,
>as the lady with the recipe for hot water died, and, as such, they do
>not
>bathe. Also, the sight of their women has been known to cause
>irreversible mental damage.
>
>Well, my fellow Americans, I hope that this guide has been useful.
>Please
>keep it for future reference. And a word of advice: if you are thinking
>of going over the drink, sit back down in your easy-chair, open another
>bottle of Sam Adams, and watch one of the more than 100 good ole
>American
>TV channels until the though passes. Belive me, you'll be glad you
Alan Pollock
Adrian C Symonds (asym...@mcmail.com) wrote:
:
:John Perth wrote in message <34F24D...@mit.edu>...
:>Hello, fellow Americans.
:>
:>Here is something I wrote almost four years ago. It was never more true.
:>Keep it in your hearts, noble Americans, for it is a good guide to
:>the idiots and scumbags that live across the pond!
:>
:>
:>----------------------------------------------------------------------
:>From: nem...@acf4.nyu.edu (Da Nemecizer)
:>Newsgroups: alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.nuke.europe
:
:Lots of crap cut.
:
:I do not know who the hell you are, or think you are, but considering the
:states got more crime than anywhere else, you got nothing to be proud off.
:
:I never known a race like the yanks, full of self importance and looking
:down at everyone else.
:
:the states seems to be full of mental cases, by what we see on our T.V.
:
:BTW, my Dad is a yank, and I have relatives over in los Angelas, but my
:views are still the same,
:
:But I must admit, I still prefer the yanks to Germans.
:
:
:
:Adrian
Eureka! I've found it! A Brit with absolutely *no* sense of humor. Nex
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ah, if in this world there were no such thing as cherry blossoms,
perhaps then in spring time our hearts would be at peace."
Ariwara no Narihira
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Smith
In article <88898247...@wagasa.cts.com>, Alan Pollock
<ne...@king.cts.com> writes
>Adrian C Symonds (asym...@mcmail.com) wrote:
>:
>:John Perth wrote in message <34F24D...@mit.edu>...
>:>Hello, fellow Americans.
>:>
>:>Here is something I wrote almost four years ago. It was never more true.
>:>Keep it in your hearts, noble Americans, for it is a good guide to
>:>the idiots and scumbags that live across the pond!
>:>
>:>
>:>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>:>From: nem...@acf4.nyu.edu (Da Nemecizer)
>:>Newsgroups: alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.nuke.europe
>:
>:
>:Lots of crap cut.
>:
>:I do not know who the hell you are, or think you are, but considering the
>:states got more crime than anywhere else, you got nothing to be proud off.
>:
>:I never known a race like the yanks, full of self importance and looking
>:down at everyone else.
>:
>:the states seems to be full of mental cases, by what we see on our T.V.
>:
>:BTW, my Dad is a yank, and I have relatives over in los Angelas, but my
>:views are still the same,
>:
>:But I must admit, I still prefer the yanks to Germans.
>:
>:
>:
>:Adrian
>:
>
>Eureka! I've found it! A Brit with absolutely *no* sense of humor. Nex
Half American, tho'. The gene may well be recessive.
--
Adrian Smith
Adrian C Symonds
Alan Pollock wrote in message <88898247...@wagasa.cts.com>...
>:>
:
>
>Eureka! I've found it! A Brit with absolutely *no* sense of humor. Nex
>
If you think that is Humour, then maybe you are out of your mind
Adrian
Keep Britain Free from E.U junk, keep the British pound
.
Website www.graphi.mcmail.com
Steph
Ken Ehrett wrote in message <34f9ab01...@news.supernews.com>...
>On Sat, 28 Feb 98 03:15:49 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
>Brooks") wrote:
>
>>In article <3516af0b...@NEWS.SUPERNEWS.COM>
>> do...@bother.com "plastic" writes:
>>
>>>
>>> 3) Arabs are not human so they dont count.
>>>
>>I thought so. Racism in the raw. Thank you for confirming the
>>Yank view of the world.
>
>He's a roo-fucker you dipshit.
>
Ken,
thankyou for subtly and kindly pointing him in the right direction
Wiggy
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998 at 21:32:21 in article <34fc7...@news1-hme0.mcmail.
com>, Adrian C Symonds (Adrian C Symonds <asym...@mcmail.com>) writ...
>I do not know who the hell you are, or think you are, but considering the
>states got more crime than anywhere else, you got nothing to be proud off.
Really? South Africa has about 10x the murder rate of the U.S., at
least, IIRC (one murder every 3 minutes said a newspaper article). Also
the trend has recently been for a fall in crime in the U.S. and a rise
in the EU. Plus there is more crime, and in fact more violence, recorded
in Europe (including Britain) than the U.S. ("crime" = all offences
recorded by Police; "violence" = total of offences of murder + rape +
robbery + assault)
>But I must admit, I still prefer the yanks to Germans.
Still remember the War eh? :-)
--
WIGGY Cardiff Wales UK EU \ This is the right hand side
************* fax: +44 1222 549878 / of my new .sig where special
email: ibthe1<AT>gerrit.demon.co.uk \ quotes, announcements and
web: http://www.gerrit.demon.co.uk/ / other info can be found.
DAB
>>>>
>>>> 3) Arabs are not human so they dont count.
>>>>
>>>I thought so. Racism in the raw. Thank you for confirming the
>>>Yank view of the world.
>>
>>He's a roo-fucker you dipshit.
>>
>>Ken
>
>I think it's agreed that it's okay to give the Arabs a huge serve.
Hear hear!
Gary Weiss
plastic (pla...@melb.alexia.net.au) wrote:
: "Nigel Smith" <nts...@ndirect.co.uk> wrote:
: >I used to hold Americans in high regard until I read this posting. You can
: >no more say that these are all traits of all these people, than I can say
: >all Americans are stupid loud mouthed fools, which incidentally is the
: >category I place your good self. I believe sir, that you do your American
: >counterparts a severe injustice.
: >Can you not find something more creative to do than rant on with your
: >childish comments. Most Americans I have had the pleasure of meeting have
: >been extremely polite and courteous. Should I now consider them all to be
: >like you?
: >
: No, no. You obviously dont understand. The polite and courteous
: Americans you met were obviously impostors.
: They are all backward gun toting cowboys from the back woods hillbilly
: areas who breed with their sisters.
: They all come from convict stock too.
: >
How amazingly accurate!! And, as I'm fatally offended by those imposters
(ain't nobody gonna give _me_ a good name, darnit!!), I'm a-gonna hunt
down that no-good varmint with my huntin'-cat and claw that sucker to
death!! (As for my rifle: The reason I have so many holes up my ass is
'cuz I use that ol' shotgun as an itchin'-stick!) (BTW: That convict
stock I'm descended from: My paternal grandfather was a draft-dodger -
from Europe!)
NC Gary ;
Stefane Dowet
Li Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:32:21 -0000, "Adrian C Symonds"
<asym...@mcmail.com> a scrit:
>
>John Perth wrote in message <34F24D...@mit.edu>...
>>Hello, fellow Americans.
>>
>>Here is something I wrote almost four years ago. It was never more true.
>>Keep it in your hearts, noble Americans, for it is a good guide to
>>the idiots and scumbags that live across the pond!
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>From: nem...@acf4.nyu.edu (Da Nemecizer)
>>Newsgroups: alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.nuke.europe
>
>
>Lots of crap cut.
>
>I do not know who the hell you are, or think you are, but considering the
>states got more crime than anywhere else, you got nothing to be proud off.
>
>I never known a race like the yanks,
There is no American race.
Paul Morris
Stefane Dowet wrote in message <350144fc...@news.ping.be>...
>Li Tue, 3 Mar 1998 21:32:21 -0000, "Adrian C Symonds"
><asym...@mcmail.com> a scrit:
>
>>
>>John Perth wrote in message <34F24D...@mit.edu>...
>>>Hello, fellow Americans.
>>>
>>>Here is something I wrote almost four years ago. It was never more true.
>>>Keep it in your hearts, noble Americans, for it is a good guide to
>>>the idiots and scumbags that live across the pond!
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>From: nem...@acf4.nyu.edu (Da Nemecizer)
>>>Newsgroups: alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.nuke.europe
>>
>>
>>Lots of crap cut.
>>
>>I do not know who the hell you are, or think you are, but considering the
>>states got more crime than anywhere else, you got nothing to be proud off.
>>
>>I never known a race like the yanks,
>
>There is no American race.
>
Then who was it who wiped out General Custer and his men.
The pixies?
--Paul Morris
Chris Hempsall
Stefane Dowet wrote in message <34f84863...@news.ping.be>...
>Li 27 Feb 1998 23:17:34 GMT, "Chris Hempsall"
><christophe...@virgin.net.nospam> a scrit:
>
>>I don't know enough about the disputes between the flemish and french
>>speakers to comment. But a word of warning.....never attempt to follow a
>>road map in Belgium whilst comparing it to the road signs. You'll find
that
>>a place is called one thing on a road sign, only to be called something
>>completely different 10 miles down the road (which unless you have a road
>>map which is marked in both languages can make things a little
difficult!).
>
>Imagine if we had signroads like, Londres, Douvres, Cantorbéry, near
>the Chunnel !!! And I don't speak of Dutch versions !
eh?
Chris
Chris Hempsall
M. Lemstra
Heeehaw! Now THAT is entertainment. Maybe it has to do with my drug habit
that i seem to be the only one getting this. A sense of humor is the only
true sign of civilisation. Love it, love it, love it!
Gotta go now, my wifes pimp gets mad when I pick her up to late.
--
M. Lemstra
mlemstr...@hotmail.com
"If you can get them to ask the wrong questions, you don´t have to worry
about the answers."
Stefane Dowet
Li Sat, 7 Mar 1998 17:50:52 -0000, "Paul Morris"
<pmo...@dircon.co.uk> a scrit:
There is only the human species - no races.
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <3501bd5d...@news.ping.be>
pin0003...@ping.be "Stefane Dowet" writes:
>
> There is only the human species - no races.
>
A popularly repeated lefty incantation. The first part is true, but
the second doesn't follow and takes no account of sub-species.
I am afraid that, much as the pc would like to change the world by
changing language, it doesn't work. When you spread this sort of
bullshit around all you do is appear to be a bullshitter, you don't
change the world.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Stefane Dowet
Li Sun, 08 Mar 98 16:52:40 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
Brooks") a scrit:
And the one who believe in many human races is a racist.
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <35030462...@news.ping.be>
pin0003...@ping.be "Stefane Dowet" writes:
> Li Sun, 08 Mar 98 16:52:40 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
> Brooks") a scrit:
>
> >In article <3501bd5d...@news.ping.be>
> > pin0003...@ping.be "Stefane Dowet" writes:
> >
> >>
> >> There is only the human species - no races.
> >>
> >A popularly repeated lefty incantation. The first part is true, but
> >the second doesn't follow and takes no account of sub-species.
> >
> >I am afraid that, much as the pc would like to change the world by
> >changing language, it doesn't work. When you spread this sort of
> >bullshit around all you do is appear to be a bullshitter, you don't
> >change the world.
>
> And the one who believe in many human races is a racist.
>
Actually, no. Racism (or racialism as it was called before this became
too long a word for the pinko brain) is actually the negative discrimination
against people on the grounds of race, and one I strongly object to - look
up some of my postings on the ethnic cleansing of the workplace.
Your definition would prove that Nelson Mandela, to name one, is a racist.
Anybody who doesn't understand that there are different human races is
not only a fool, but a politically correct fool which is even more
pathetic. Oh, yes, if you wish to use some of the Orwelian language that
the pc like, you could, as they do, claim that races are actually
'ethnic groups', or some such - the Apartheid regime in South Africa
liked that one too. I always find it funny to see how much the politically
correct fascists share with the South African fascists.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Randy McDonald
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> In article <3501bd5d...@news.ping.be>
> pin0003...@ping.be "Stefane Dowet" writes:
>
> >
> > There is only the human species - no races.
> >
> A popularly repeated lefty incantation. The first part is true, but
> the second doesn't follow and takes no account of sub-species.
>
> I am afraid that, much as the pc would like to change the world by
> changing language, it doesn't work. When you spread this sort of
> bullshit around all you do is appear to be a bullshitter, you don't
> change the world.
> Peter H.M. Brooks
Actually, Stefane is right -- there are no such things as distinct
'races' of humans.
For instance, if you're talking about distinct 'African' and 'European'
races, then you have to ignore that there has been a great deal of
mixing between 'African' and 'European' populations of the centuries;
how do you decide if a Sudanese peasant or a Senegalese immigrant in
Montréal is African?
More seriously, if you examine the biological definition of race, then
you'll see that it isn't compatible to humans. A race is a population of
animals that is hindered from breeding with another closely-related
because of biological and genetic differences. Though you might be able
to talk about distinct races in such animals as birds, which are
genetically programmed to mate with other birds of their species (or
subspecies), you can't talk about that with humans, who have no problem
at all in interbreeding with any other human being.
Fundamentally, race is an antiquated social category. It should be
abandoned.
__________________________________________________________________
R.F. McDonald
rmcd...@upei.ca
Home E-mail: mcdo...@isn.net
Home phone: (902) 629-1694
"What! call a Turk, a Jew, and a Siamese, my brother? Yes, of course;
for are we all not children of the same father, and the creatures of
the same God?"
- Voltaire, from Treatise on Tolerance, 1763
__________________________________________________________________
Peter H.M. Brooks
> More seriously, if you examine the biological definition of race, then
> you'll see that it isn't compatible to humans. A race is a population of
> animals that is hindered from breeding with another closely-related
> because of biological and genetic differences. Though you might be able
> to talk about distinct races in such animals as birds, which are
> genetically programmed to mate with other birds of their species (or
> subspecies), you can't talk about that with humans, who have no problem
> at all in interbreeding with any other human being.
>
Not true. The whole point of a sub-species is that it doesn't qualify for
being a full species because interbreeding is possible.
>
> Fundamentally, race is an antiquated social category. It should be
> abandoned.
>
Repeating politically correct tripe doesn't stop it being tripe.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Matthew Cunliffe
Concerning An American's guide to the EU, Peter H.M. Brooks writes
>Not true. The whole point of a sub-species is that it doesn't qualify for
>being a full species because interbreeding is possible.
If we are all subspecies, then what is the species?
>> Fundamentally, race is an antiquated social category. It should be
>> abandoned.
>>
>Repeating politically correct tripe doesn't stop it being tripe.
>
And just because people use political correctness as a term of
derogation doesn't mean it isn't true.
Regards,
Matthew Cunliffe
==========================================
Political Resources for the European Union
http://www.cunliffe.demon.co.uk/Politics/
==========================================
Remove * to email reply
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <za7klJA3...@cunliffe.demon.co.uk>
Matthew@*cunliffe*.demon.co.uk "Matthew Cunliffe" writes:
> Concerning An American's guide to the EU, Peter H.M. Brooks writes
> >Not true. The whole point of a sub-species is that it doesn't qualify for
> >being a full species because interbreeding is possible.
>
> If we are all subspecies, then what is the species?
>
Homo sapiens, is the species that we are members of.
>
> >> Fundamentally, race is an antiquated social category. It should be
> >> abandoned.
> >>
> >Repeating politically correct tripe doesn't stop it being tripe.
> >
> And just because people use political correctness as a term of
> derogation doesn't mean it isn't true.
>
This is absolutely correct. Political correctness is evil bullshit because
it denies reality and thinks that changing words changes the world, not
because any normal person would be upset to be accused of it.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Matthew Cunliffe
Concerning An American's guide to the EU, Peter H.M. Brooks writes
>> >> abandoned.
>> >>
>> >Repeating politically correct tripe doesn't stop it being tripe.
>> >
>> And just because people use political correctness as a term of
>> derogation doesn't mean it isn't true.
>>
>This is absolutely correct. Political correctness is evil bullshit because
>it denies reality and thinks that changing words changes the world, not
>because any normal person would be upset to be accused of it.
>
"politically correct" by those who dislike his opinion, or those who
think it proper to hide behind empty phrases.
If I said that I had no feelings of animosity towards gays and lesbians,
would you call my opinion on that "politically correct" tripe?
Or if I said that I get on well with people of different creed or
colour?
It is "politically correct" not to hate anyone just because they may
have a different sexual orientation, believe in something else, or look
different to me, but it is not tripe.
Just as asserting that differentiating between people on the basis of
race is an outdated precept is not tripe. Certainly, there are people
who use the definition of race in order to create an identity that is
"us and not them" - in other words, racists. They should not be
ignored. But neither should they be applauded because they are not
"politically correct".
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <HmoSrEAXKZD1Ewn$@cunliffe.demon.co.uk>
Matthew@*cunliffe*.demon.co.uk "Matthew Cunliffe" writes:
> >> >Repeating politically correct tripe doesn't stop it being tripe.
> >> >
> >> And just because people use political correctness as a term of
> >> derogation doesn't mean it isn't true.
> >>
> >This is absolutely correct. Political correctness is evil bullshit because
> >it denies reality and thinks that changing words changes the world, not
> >because any normal person would be upset to be accused of it.
> >
> So what are you whinging about? His opinion may have been deemed
> "politically correct" by those who dislike his opinion, or those who
> think it proper to hide behind empty phrases.
>
Anybody who 'thinks it proper' to hide behind empty phrases is wrong.
>
> If I said that I had no feelings of animosity towards gays and lesbians,
> would you call my opinion on that "politically correct" tripe?
>
No. Why?
>
> Or if I said that I get on well with people of different creed or
> colour?
>
No. Why?
>
> It is "politically correct" not to hate anyone just because they may
> have a different sexual orientation, believe in something else, or look
> different to me, but it is not tripe.
>
No. You seem to have missed the point here fairly fundamentally.
>
> Just as asserting that differentiating between people on the basis of
> race is an outdated precept is not tripe. Certainly, there are people
>
It is not outdated, to claim this is tripe. Differentiation is a function
of objective fact, negative discriminstion is something quite different.
You appear to be confused between the two.
>
> who use the definition of race in order to create an identity that is
> "us and not them" - in other words, racists. They should not be
> ignored. But neither should they be applauded because they are not
> "politically correct".
>
Nobody said that they should. You are also completely wrong in what you
call racist. It is not racist to see and recognise a difference, that
is simple honesty. It is racist to discriminate against people in a negative
way as a result of this difference.
The objection is to the lies, like the one you are suggesting, that there
is no difference between people of different races - it is an obvious and
stupid lie. It is the essense of politically correct tripe.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Matthew Cunliffe
Concerning An American's guide to the EU, Peter H.M. Brooks writes
>> "politically correct" by those who dislike his opinion, or those who
>> think it proper to hide behind empty phrases.
>>
>Anybody who 'thinks it proper' to hide behind empty phrases is wrong.
Agreed. The point I was trying to make (and probably not very clearly)
was that the original poster was not intentionally being "politically
correct".
>> If I said that I had no feelings of animosity towards gays and lesbians,
>> would you call my opinion on that "politically correct" tripe?
>> Or if I said that I get on well with people of different creed or
>> colour?
>>
>No. Why?
Because they are both attitudes that are "politically correct" according
to some people. Yet I am not being intentionally "politically correct."
They just happen to be my views. You cannot accuse someone of being
politically correct unless they intentionally did so.
>The objection is to the lies, like the one you are suggesting, that there
>is no difference between people of different races - it is an obvious and
>stupid lie. It is the essense of politically correct tripe.
>
What I was suggesting was that such differences were, or should be,
irrelevant. Just because someone is caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid or
any other classification should not matter.
I think essentially we were talking at cross purposes. When people
point out differences between themselves and others, it is normally in a
negative manner. How about this: I would consider that differentiating
(between) against people on the basis of race is (outdated) wrong.
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <PClQyDAi...@cunliffe.demon.co.uk>
Matthew@*cunliffe*.demon.co.uk "Matthew Cunliffe" writes:
> Concerning An American's guide to the EU, Peter H.M. Brooks writes
> >> So what are you whinging about? His opinion may have been deemed
> >> "politically correct" by those who dislike his opinion, or those who
> >> think it proper to hide behind empty phrases.
> >>
> >Anybody who 'thinks it proper' to hide behind empty phrases is wrong.
>
> Agreed. The point I was trying to make (and probably not very clearly)
> was that the original poster was not intentionally being "politically
> correct".
>
Isn't that even worse? The rot has gone so far that people can suffer the
affliction and not be conscious of the problem.
>
> >> If I said that I had no feelings of animosity towards gays and lesbians,
> >> would you call my opinion on that "politically correct" tripe?
> >> Or if I said that I get on well with people of different creed or
> >> colour?
> >>
> >No. Why?
>
> Because they are both attitudes that are "politically correct" according
> to some people. Yet I am not being intentionally "politically correct."
> They just happen to be my views. You cannot accuse someone of being
> politically correct unless they intentionally did so.
>
These are not pc views. 'Gay' is arguably a pc word in that it tried to
suggest that male homosexuals were happy. It was actually a result of
illiteracy, the coiners of the word believed that homosexual was not
inclusive of women as they misunderstood the 'homo' to mean 'man', when
it, in this case, means 'the same'.
>
> >The objection is to the lies, like the one you are suggesting, that there
> >is no difference between people of different races - it is an obvious and
> >stupid lie. It is the essense of politically correct tripe.
> >
> What I was suggesting was that such differences were, or should be,
> irrelevant. Just because someone is caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid or
> any other classification should not matter.
>
Why not? It seems to matter when it comes to choosing basketball players.
It certainly matters when it comes to screening populations for genetic
diseases. Where are you putting this fiat, and why? Do you think that it
is not possible for somebody to know that somebody is different, but
treat them fairly and equitably?
>
> I think essentially we were talking at cross purposes. When people
> point out differences between themselves and others, it is normally in a
> negative manner. How about this: I would consider that differentiating
> (between) against people on the basis of race is (outdated) wrong.
>
You may only do it in a 'negative manner'. I don't think you can say
that this is always a case. 'Look at those nice tits', for example, is
pointing out a difference between men and women that is quite positive.
As I pointed out above, there are a number of important reasons (medical,
sporting, education) to understand the difference between races. It is
a proper object of scientific study in its own right, as well as for the
light it shed on our evolutionary past.
What is wrong, but not outdated (Nelson Mandela is about to institute it
in South Africa again) is negative discrimination against people on grounds
of their race. Apartheid, ethnic cleansing of the workplace (aka affirmative
action) and other such measures are morally wrong.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Doris
THE 1890 MASSACRE
Wounded Knee reverberates in the consciousness of all
Native people. On Dec. 29, 1890, the U.S. 7th Cavalry
massacred over 300 unarmed Native people--most of them
women, children and elders--there.
Many were shot in the back while trying to flee.
Their bodies were left to freeze in a mass grave.
Soldiers and officers sliced off jewelry,
moccasins and other "souvenirs."
Bourgeois historians often refer to this massacre as the
"last battle" of the Indian wars on the Plains.
It has long been used to represent the
"final defeat" of Native people in the United States.
After Wounded Knee, Indigenous people
supposedly had had the fight kicked out of them by the
"heroic" Americans.
Indians were supposed to fade away,
permitted only to appear as quaint or exotic
relics of the past, or perhaps allowed to show
up occasionally at the Lone Ranger's side.
After being forced onto reservations,
generations of Native people were punished
for their resistance.
Hunger was everywhere.
Thousands died from tuberculosis and malnutrition.
Thousands of Native children were stolen from their homes,
to be raised by white foster families or placed in
residential schools run by the government and the churches.
At these residential schools,
their hair was cut and
they were beaten if they spoke their Native languages
or practiced Native spirituality.
Abuse--both physical and sexual--was the norm.
Most of the remaining Native lands were parceled out for
exploitation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Department of the Interior. Every treaty that the U.S.
government ever made with Native nations was violated.
Some Native nations,
such as the Menominee,
were "terminated"--that is,
the U.S. government told them that they no longer existed.
Thousands of Native people were pushed off the
reservations under relocation programs.
Ill-equipped for urban life,
they lived in the poorest sections of cities
like Chicago, Denver and San Francisco.
Discrimination and unemployment were rampant.
All too many Native men ended up in prison.
--------------------------------------
For confirmation of the events that took place
in Wounded Knee use your favorite search engine,
such as yahoo, Alta Vista and bring up
Library of Congress.
Hjalmar Gerber
Tor...@worldnet.att.net whines...
>
>THE 1890 MASSACRE
>
>Wounded Knee. . . blah, blah, blah. . .
I'm not disputing the facts, but what's your
point ? Do you want to use them to suck on
the tits of taxpayers who weren't even born
when these events took place ?
Name me one individual or group who does not
have at least one ancestor who was unjustly
tortured, persecuted or exploited during the
sorry march of human history. Face it, as a
species we're not nearly as "human" as we
pretend [or would like] to be.
I should get my lawyer to suck some money out
of the British taxpayers for what they did to
my family. . . just kidding. :-)
Now grow up and get in touch with reality.
Hjalmar
________
rafiki
just to be pedantic, i thought we all belonged to the HUMAN race??
rifraf
Rena
Doris wrote:
>
> THE 1890 MASSACRE
>
> Wounded Knee reverberates in the consciousness of all
> Native people. On Dec. 29, 1890, the U.S. 7th Cavalry
> massacred over 300 unarmed Native people--most of them
> women, children and elders--there.
>
> Many were shot in the back while trying to flee.
>
> Their bodies were left to freeze in a mass grave.
>
> --------------------------------------
> For confirmation of the events that took place
> in Wounded Knee use your favorite search engine,
> such as yahoo, Alta Vista and bring up
> Library of Congress.
Or pick up the book "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown.
An even more indepth history of the U.S. Government assault on the
Lakotas/Native People: "In The Spirit of Crazy Horse" by Peter
Matthiessen
ISBN - 0-14-014456-0
Lars Erik Bryld
>Concerning An American's guide to the EU, Peter H.M. Brooks writes
>>The objection is to the lies, like the one you are suggesting, that there
>>is no difference between people of different races - it is an obvious and
>>stupid lie. It is the essense of politically correct tripe.
>>
>What I was suggesting was that such differences were, or should be,
>irrelevant. Just because someone is caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid or
>any other classification should not matter.
Are we to assume, that gender difference is or should be irrelevant as
well, then ?? Man and woman are believed to belong to the same
species, I've heard.
>I think essentially we were talking at cross purposes. When people
>point out differences between themselves and others, it is normally in a
>negative manner. How about this: I would consider that differentiating
>(between) against people on the basis of race is (outdated) wrong.
I'll dabble further on the gender issue. Fundamentally there's no
reason to discriminate against women (or men for that matter). My
impression is,that there is general agreement on this. Still, in order
to secure women's career opportunities in the armed forces, the
required physical tests had to be down-regulated to match female
standards.
Now, I'm not saying that there necessarily is a difference between a
predominant ethnic group and another.My opinion is just that IF there
is, failure to recognise such a real difference and act accordingly
can be even more racist.
Best Regards
Lars Erik Bryld
Copenhagen
My real address is at my site
www.uni2.dk/home/larserik
Richard Gregory
rafiki wrote:
>
> just to be pedantic, i thought we all belonged to the HUMAN race??
> rifraf
>
I prefer to say that we all belong to the human species. Naturally
there is some physical diversity given than humans live in a very
wide spectrum of environment, but these are really very minor
differences.
LDavis
what has this got to do with South Africa?
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <3512CF...@interalpha.co.uk>
rgre...@interalpha.co.uk "Richard Gregory" writes:
You are right 'human race' is just an old fashioned term for 'human species'.
It does not rule out the existance of sub-species, or races. When you say
that the differences are really 'very minor', this is entirely a matter
of opinion. If I were an Eskimo wishing to be world champion Basket Ball
champion, I would find race a fairly fundamental hurdle, but then, no
doubt, sporting prowess is really 'very minor', in the scheme of things.
Most of the problems raised in 'The Bell curve' are also, of course,
really 'very minor', which is why nobody makes a fuss about racism, as we
all know.
The use of medical screening which discriminates between different races,
as well as the two sexes fails on political correctness, but saves millions
by not trying to screen men for cervical cancer. Of course, in the grand
scheme of things, millions compared to political correctness is really
'very minor'.
After all, when you think of it, life itself is really 'very minor' in
the overall scheme of things.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Chris Hempsall
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote
>Most of the problems raised in 'The Bell curve'.......
What's the Bell curve?
Chris
Richard Gregory
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> You are right 'human race' is just an old fashioned term for 'human species'.
> It does not rule out the existance of sub-species, or races. When you say
> that the differences are really 'very minor', this is entirely a matter
> of opinion. If I were an Eskimo wishing to be world champion Basket Ball
> champion, I would find race a fairly fundamental hurdle, but then, no
> doubt, sporting prowess is really 'very minor', in the scheme of things.
Precisely. The differences exist, but are really very minor from
a biological view. We're all from the same basic design, with
some minor modifications.
> Most of the problems raised in 'The Bell curve' are also, of course,
> really 'very minor', which is why nobody makes a fuss about racism, as we
> all know.
It's a strange phenomenon. Probably it's just a fear of that which
is different. it also seems to be a human characteristic to look for
differences (maybe that stems from the way we learn to differentiate
between individuals).
> The use of medical screening which discriminates between different races,
> as well as the two sexes fails on political correctness, but saves millions
> by not trying to screen men for cervical cancer.
Of course. The differences are indeed minor, but even so can be
significant - look at the example of blood-types.
> Of course, in the grand
> scheme of things, millions compared to political correctness is really
> 'very minor'.
Yes.
> After all, when you think of it, life itself is really 'very minor' in
> the overall scheme of things.
Quite.
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <6f0ueh$38q$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>
christophe...@virgin.net.nospam "Chris Hempsall" writes:
I suppose that this is some sort of equivalent to a Judge asking who 'The
Beatles' might be. 'The Bell curve' is the name of a book, named after
the normal distribution that most biological populations follow that
is a curve that looks like a bell. The book is famous because it brought
a lot of recently established facts about race into the public arena
for the first time in a popular book. It is also famous as it debated
the implications of those facts for North American society. It upset
the politically correct considerably, and a number of very poor attempts
to rubbish it have since been convincingly shown for the nonsense that
they were. The more interesting debate as to how much the political
implications are as the book claimed them to be, and, if they are, what
could be done about it has yet to take place.
A very badly written smear of modern investigations into humanity that
is infamous for linking long discredited studies such as prenology with
recent research through journalistic devices is a book called 'The
mismeasure of man' by Stephen Gould. If you ever wish to plumb the depths
of unscientific dishonesty, that is a book well worth reading.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <351404...@interalpha.co.uk>
rgre...@interalpha.co.uk "Richard Gregory" writes:
> > You are right 'human race' is just an old fashioned term for 'human species'.
> > It does not rule out the existance of sub-species, or races. When you say
> > that the differences are really 'very minor', this is entirely a matter
> > of opinion. If I were an Eskimo wishing to be world champion Basket Ball
> > champion, I would find race a fairly fundamental hurdle, but then, no
> > doubt, sporting prowess is really 'very minor', in the scheme of things.
>
> Precisely. The differences exist, but are really very minor from
> a biological view. We're all from the same basic design, with
> some minor modifications.
>
Just as one could say that the difference between reptiles and mammals
are very minor as, both being vertibrates, they are both from the same
basic design with some minor modifications.
>
> > Most of the problems raised in 'The Bell curve' are also, of course,
> > really 'very minor', which is why nobody makes a fuss about racism, as we
> > all know.
>
> It's a strange phenomenon. Probably it's just a fear of that which
> is different. it also seems to be a human characteristic to look for
> differences (maybe that stems from the way we learn to differentiate
> between individuals).
>
Absolutely! Xenophobia is simply the reverse of kinship and family love.
It isn't just a human characteristic, though. You mention biology above,
ants and bees recognise other nests or hives and will even enslave
other ants, just because they smell different. Just as ewes will reject
lambs that don't smell right. It is a very basic part of animal behaviour.
>
> > The use of medical screening which discriminates between different races,
> > as well as the two sexes fails on political correctness, but saves millions
> > by not trying to screen men for cervical cancer.
>
> Of course. The differences are indeed minor, but even so can be
> significant - look at the example of blood-types.
>
Yes.
>
> > Of course, in the grand
> > scheme of things, millions compared to political correctness is really
> > 'very minor'.
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > After all, when you think of it, life itself is really 'very minor' in
> > the overall scheme of things.
>
> Quite.
>
Thank you.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
rafiki
i hear you both. i am glad my comment sparked such clarifying
discussion.
peace
rifraf
Richard Gregory wrote:
>
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> >
>
> > You are right 'human race' is just an old fashioned term for 'human species'.
> > It does not rule out the existance of sub-species, or races. When you say
> > that the differences are really 'very minor', this is entirely a matter
> > of opinion. If I were an Eskimo wishing to be world champion Basket Ball
> > champion, I would find race a fairly fundamental hurdle, but then, no
> > doubt, sporting prowess is really 'very minor', in the scheme of things.
>
> Precisely. The differences exist, but are really very minor from
> a biological view. We're all from the same basic design, with
> some minor modifications.
>
> > Most of the problems raised in 'The Bell curve' are also, of course,
> > really 'very minor', which is why nobody makes a fuss about racism, as we
> > all know.
>
> It's a strange phenomenon. Probably it's just a fear of that which
> is different. it also seems to be a human characteristic to look for
> differences (maybe that stems from the way we learn to differentiate
> between individuals).
>
> > The use of medical screening which discriminates between different races,
> > as well as the two sexes fails on political correctness, but saves millions
> > by not trying to screen men for cervical cancer.
>
> Of course. The differences are indeed minor, but even so can be
> significant - look at the example of blood-types.
>
Mark Framness
In message <6eos5m$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> - "Doris"
<Tor...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
#>
#>Some Native nations,
#>such as the Menominee,
#>were "terminated"--that is,
#>the U.S. government told them that they no longer existed.
Oh okay. This clears up some doubt I was having about news reports in my
homestate about Menominee reservations. Apparently they do not exist.
Take Care!
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
Spam booby trap!!!
FROM: Mark Allen Framness
HOME: framness@.NO_SPAM.EMIRATES.NET.AE
WORK: m477@NO_SPAM.ugru.uaeu.ac.ae
HTTP: http://netnet.net/~farmer/index.html
URL for comp.lang.c NG: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
To reply via e-mail, delete the given reply to address and delete the NO_SPAM
from the above addresses.
&
All standard disclaimers apply. Anyone who says otherwise is itching for a
fight.
Mark Framness
Richard Gregory
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> Just as one could say that the difference between reptiles and mammals
> are very minor as, both being vertibrates, they are both from the same
> basic design with some minor modifications.
Indeed. Probably it will take the discovery of a radically
"alien" form of life to show this.
> Absolutely! Xenophobia is simply the reverse of kinship and family love.
> It isn't just a human characteristic, though. You mention biology above,
> ants and bees recognise other nests or hives and will even enslave
> other ants, just because they smell different. Just as ewes will reject
> lambs that don't smell right. It is a very basic part of animal behaviour.
Yes. In part, this is a biological imperative. Two reasons:
1) The unknown is potentially dangerous
2) What is like us but different in some ways might well
be a mutation. Destroy it before it can damage the species.
As you say, both these reactions are very common indeed amongst
many species. Sadly, it seems a peculiarly human trait to expand
these imperatives so that they include differences in
social behavior, culture etc.
BM Peters
Chris Hempsall wrote:
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote
>
> >Most of the problems raised in 'The Bell curve'.......
>
> What's the Bell curve?
>
> Chris
The bell curve is an 800+ page treatise written by two Harvard
professors, Herrnstein and Murray.
Herrnstein, I believe passed away just before the book was printed.
It is a rather long winded book with suspect research techniques. See
for example Strauss' critique
published in the 'New Yorker'.
Repetition abounds making for an extremely boring read. And since there
are so many
controversial issues discussed, it is a shame that the book was so
poorly developed.
There are too many assumptions that are not developed and certainly too
many loop holes
in their arguments. Which begs the question: is this really science or
was the 'Bell Curve'
part of a process in which Specific principalities sought to regain the
intellectual upper hand
with regard to the accepted understanding of "What is wrong with
America"?
There were clear political policy implications if the book was to be
accepted/believed as an
authoratative source on how to solve America's problems.
Well, enough said. If you, or anybody else, is interested in reading a
summary/critique of the book,
there is a nice article put out by an organization called Institute NHI,
which is a think tank.
Drop me an email, and I'll gladly send you a copy. Unfortunately the
Institute is in the
process of migrating it's web page so the article will be available soon
on the web.
Hope this helps
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <3516C630...@houston.geoquest.slb.com>
bmpe...@houston.geoquest.slb.com "BM Peters" writes:
> > What's the Bell curve?
> >
>
> It is a rather long winded book with suspect research techniques. See
> for example Strauss' critique
> published in the 'New Yorker'.
>
The 'New Yorker' delightful literary magazine as it may be, is no
scientific journal.
>
> Repetition abounds making for an extremely boring read. And since there
> are so many
> controversial issues discussed, it is a shame that the book was so
> poorly developed.
>
No doubt, being unversed in difficult books you find it boring. The
book is a Yank book, I agree, and suffers from the usual Yank repetition
and simplicity, but, given that, it is rather tightly developed.
>
> There are too many assumptions that are not developed and certainly too
> many loop holes
> in their arguments. Which begs the question: is this really science or
> was the 'Bell Curve'
> part of a process in which Specific principalities sought to regain the
> intellectual upper hand
> with regard to the accepted understanding of "What is wrong with
> America"?
>
The 'Bell Curve' has a large and soundly researched bibliography. You
should look up the results if you find them uncomfortable, not rant
against them.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <35150B...@interalpha.co.uk>
rgre...@interalpha.co.uk "Richard Gregory" writes:
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> >
>
> > Just as one could say that the difference between reptiles and mammals
> > are very minor as, both being vertibrates, they are both from the same
> > basic design with some minor modifications.
>
> Indeed. Probably it will take the discovery of a radically
> "alien" form of life to show this.
>
Slime moulds.
>
> > Absolutely! Xenophobia is simply the reverse of kinship and family love.
> > It isn't just a human characteristic, though. You mention biology above,
> > ants and bees recognise other nests or hives and will even enslave
> > other ants, just because they smell different. Just as ewes will reject
> > lambs that don't smell right. It is a very basic part of animal behaviour.
>
> Yes. In part, this is a biological imperative. Two reasons:
>
> 1) The unknown is potentially dangerous
> 2) What is like us but different in some ways might well
> be a mutation. Destroy it before it can damage the species.
>
Yes.
>
> As you say, both these reactions are very common indeed amongst
> many species. Sadly, it seems a peculiarly human trait to expand
> these imperatives so that they include differences in
> social behavior, culture etc.
>
No. Ants enslaving other ants include differences in social behavior,
culture etc..
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Mark Framness
In message <890501...@psyche.demon.co.uk> - pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk
("Peter H.M. Brooks")Sat, 21 Mar 98 17:33:24 GMT writes:
#>
#>In article <3512CF...@interalpha.co.uk>
#> rgre...@interalpha.co.uk "Richard Gregory" writes:
#>
#>> rafiki wrote:
#>> >
#>> > just to be pedantic, i thought we all belonged to the HUMAN race??
#>> > rifraf
#>> >
#>>
#>> I prefer to say that we all belong to the human species. Naturally
#>> there is some physical diversity given than humans live in a very
#>> wide spectrum of environment, but these are really very minor
#>> differences.
#>>
#>You are right 'human race' is just an old fashioned term for 'human species'.
#>It does not rule out the existance of sub-species, or races. When you say
#>that the differences are really 'very minor', this is entirely a matter
#>of opinion. If I were an Eskimo wishing to be world champion Basket Ball
#>champion, I would find race a fairly fundamental hurdle, but then, no
#>doubt, sporting prowess is really 'very minor', in the scheme of things.
It is funny how people preaching "diversity" are the ones who typically try to
enforce uniformity the most!
That we must have diversity for the sake of diversity. But when diversity of
talents and capabilities comes up it appears they see us all coming from the
same cookie cutter.