The Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name
Duncan R. MacMillan
True to the traditions of the soggy '60's leftovers holding court in
that ideological Winter Palace, the BBC, the latest Reith Lectures continue
the theme of racial equalitarianism, last aired under the guise of Prof. Steve
"Slugsy" Jones And His Amazing Genealogy Chart. (For those fortunate enough to
be unacquainted with Slugsy's doings, let me just say that they include his,
single-handedly, tracing *EVERYBODY'S* ancestors back to a mere *SIX* guys in
Africa, recent 150,000-year-old finds in Australia notwithstanding).
Oneness bigotry thrives on the social and racial hatreds which it
incites, encouraging those unable to compete in a meritocracy to regard
themselves as "victims" or "oppressed" and to regard tax-thieving,
mass-murdering lefties as "liberators" and, unless Equalitarian hate speech is
answered at every turn, some day bites us *ALL* in the ass.
Among those prominent in assessing and communicating the social
implications of genetically-based racial inequalities and differences are:
- Dr. Chris Brand (Edinburgh Univ.)
- Dr. Philippe Rushton (Univ. of Western Ontario)
- Dr. Charles Murray/Dr. Herrnstein (I forget which one died recently)
- Rabbi Mayer Schiller
and if you too think that the BBC should accommodate the growing
questioning of the desirability and achievability of racial "equality", send
your e-mail to feed...@bbc.co.uk (remembering to include your weight).
---
D. MacMillan
John Cartmell
In article <856350...@drmac.demon.co.uk>, Duncan R. MacMillan
<URL:mailto:Dun...@drmac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> For those fortunate enough to
> be unacquainted with [Prof. Steve Jones] doings,
> let me just say that they include his,
> single-handedly, tracing *EVERYBODY'S* ancestors back to a mere *SIX* guys in
> Africa, recent 150,000-year-old finds in Australia notwithstanding.
>
I hadn't heard that he'd managed this work entirely on his own - I
honestly thought there were quite a few excellent teams of scientists
coming up with various pieces of evidence which Prof Jones correctly
reported. Being science none of this is the last word but the
results are neither surprising nor contradictory. It is entirely
possible eg for the whole human race to be descended from one woman
despite the fact that whilst alive she had sisters, cousins and
thousands of more distant relatives. The only assumption needed is
that none of the children of other women have descendants alive
today. In a small population this is not only possible but nigh on
certain. I do appreciate that you find the information difficult to
grasp at first but all you are showing by your posting is that you
have failed to understand some basic logic yet are willing to be
abusive in your ignorance. It puts your cause and yourself in a poor
light. I find that gratifying.
--
_/_/_/ _/ John Cartmell
_/ __/_/ _/_/ _/_/ using Acorn Risc PCs - and StrongARMed
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ UK designed and made - British software
_/_/ _/__/ _/ _/ _/ _/ supporting our own; even if it is the best ;-)
Bob Whitaker
And isn't it wonderful taht your absolute Scientific Truth just happens
to be Poltically Correct?
Scientific Anthropology has always been lucky that way.
Frank Raymond Michaels
Dun...@drmac.demon.co.uk ("Duncan R. MacMillan") wrote:
<snip>
>(For those fortunate enough to
>be unacquainted with Slugsy's doings, let me just say that they include his,
>single-handedly, tracing *EVERYBODY'S* ancestors back to a mere *SIX* guys in
<snip>
Six *GUYS* were the progenitors of the human race?
What's wrong with this picture?
---------------------------------------------------------
Frank Raymond Michaels ("Explains truck-pulls, though...")
Duncan R. MacMillan
In article <ant20002...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk "John Cartmell" writes:
> I hadn't heard that he'd managed this work entirely on his own - I
> honestly thought there were quite a few excellent teams of scientists
> coming up with various pieces of evidence which Prof Jones correctly
> reported.
Slugsy's selective reporting, like his genealogy chart, is all his
own work. *NOBODY* is trying to take that away from him. It's his unlimited
access to every mike in the business that such as myself are trying to prise
from his grasp.
> Being science none of this is the last word but the
> results are neither surprising nor contradictory. It is entirely
> possible eg for the whole human race to be descended from one woman
> despite the fact that whilst alive she had sisters, cousins and
> thousands of more distant relatives. The only assumption needed is
> that none of the children of other women have descendants alive
> today. In a small population this is not only possible but nigh on
> certain. I do appreciate that you find the information difficult to
> grasp at first but all you are showing by your posting is that you
> have failed to understand some basic logic yet are willing to be
> abusive in your ignorance.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doncha love it! well, that's two people who think that Mitochondrial
Eve was a person. Any more takers? meanwhile, for those who know enough to
fear for the future of (Western) civilisation, that address again is:
feed...@bbc.co.uk
> It puts your cause and yourself in a poor
> light.
My cause, the whole point of my post, which your bigotry caused you
to overlook so completely, is *DIVERSITY*.
For instance, the only person I ever heard mention "The Bell Curve"
on the BBC was, guess who? *SLUGSY*, who took LESS THAN 15 SECONDS of Radio
4's "Science Now" to rubbish the entire work, an attitude as contemptible as
it is contemptuous of the audience.
Again, the only person I ever heard mention genetically-based racial
inequalities/differences on the BBC was, guess who? *SLUGSY*, whose idea of a
cure for cystic fibrosis is wholesale Negro immigration and interbreeding with
Whites.
> I find that gratifying.
I'm sure you do and I'm equally sure that, given the opportunity to
hear a little from the people on the list that I submitted and, instead, to
hear a lot less of Slugsy, Melvin and Reith-lecturing Negroes passing off
their genetic shortcomings as Whites' fault, you and others like you would
have a lot less to be smug/ignorant about.
> _/_/_/ _/ John Cartmell
> _/ __/_/ _/_/ _/_/ using Acorn Risc PCs - and StrongARMed
> _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ UK designed and made - British software
> _/_/ _/__/ _/ _/ _/ _/ supporting our own; even if it is the best ;-)
Who or what is this? "Hammerton" under Cartmell? "Cartmell" on a
Hammerton...?
I used to think Bob was only joking with all that "PC clone" stuff.
I now realise the man's a genius.
---
D. MacMillan
Da skeptic
Hello, Mr. Racists? Aren't we forgetting our spelling?
Expergated?Chromaozones? Keep this up and you ruin your good name.
Jack Durst wrote:
>
> Frank Raymond Michaels (fra...@i-2000.com) wrote:
> : Dun...@drmac.demon.co.uk ("Duncan R. MacMillan") wrote:
> : <snip>
> : >(For those fortunate enough to
> : >be unacquainted with Slugsy's doings, let me just say that they include his,
> : >single-handedly, tracing *EVERYBODY'S* ancestors back to a mere *SIX* guys in
> : >Africa, recent 150,000-year-old finds in Australia notwithstanding).
> : <snip>
>
> : Six *GUYS* were the progenitors of the human race?
> : What's wrong with this picture?
> More accurately, that all current human males have varriations in the Y
> chromazome consistant with their having descended from one of 6 males in
> the distant past (assuming constant mutation rates)
>
> This is because only the Y chromazome is passed on unchanged from one
> generation to another while all other cromazomes are part of pairs and
> thus mixed during meitosis (Duplication of sex cells). Since only males
> with one Y chromazome are capable of reproduction and genes are not
> traded between the Y and X chromazomes the Y chromazome is better suited
> to tracking genetic shifts.
>
> But then again, my sources are high school biology, a comic book guide to
> genetics and another usenet post; so take it with a grain of salt.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jack Durst
> Sp...@sierra.net
Jack Durst
Jack Durst
Da skeptic (no...@looking.glass) wrote:
: Hello, Mr. Racists? Aren't we forgetting our spelling?
: Expergated?Chromaozones? Keep this up and you ruin your good name.
Sorry, I was posting that from my UNIX account which dosn't have a spell
checker. Who am I kidding, I don't spell check my usenet posts even when
I am using my PPP account! And don't misspell my misspellings! I
spelled it `Chromazomes' and no word which could be construed as
expergated appeared in the post.
(Whew, gotta take my lithium, the Mad Linguist almost came out on that one.)
...That's better.
And as to the comment about my being a racist, how? The first poster
mentioned a theory, which the following poster (to whom I responded) took
issue with. He misinterpreted the first poster's intent and raised the
obvious biological issue that 6 male humans couldn't have reproduced
without females. At which point I entered the conversation.
I explained the relevant scientific theory in reasonable terms. I did
not state that I supported, or even agreed with the ramifications of the
theory. I simply explained the theory.
I have been on usenet for three years, and in my experience spelling
flames work best when they accurately represent the spellings in the
document. The document in question *WAS* loded with spelling errors, and
you could have had your pick of letter doubleings, substitutions,
typographical errors, even a braino (meitosis should've been meiosis) but
instead you chose to pick on a non-existant misspelling and a reasonably
phonetic guess.
Forgive me in that I'm a grad student in linguistics and not a
biologist. Try writing accurately about something that's not your field
with your server going buggy on you every 5 minutes, and see how well you
spell. Now, I'm going to give you one more chance, Skeptic. Take what
you've learned and create a proper spelling flame for this post.
Sincerely,
Jack (I dare you) Durst
Sp...@sierra.net
G.l. Morrison
> Dun...@drmac.demon.co.uk ("Duncan R. MacMillan") wrote:
> <snip>
> >(For those fortunate enough to
> >be unacquainted with Slugsy's doings, let me just say that they include his,
> >single-handedly, tracing *EVERYBODY'S* ancestors back to a mere *SIX* guys in
> >Africa, recent 150,000-year-old finds in Australia notwithstanding).
> <snip>
>
> Six *GUYS* were the progenitors of the human race?
> What's wrong with this picture?
> Frank Raymond Michaels ("Explains truck-pulls, though...")
Hey! You hit my pet bug-a-boo (which is worse than squishing spiders).
Rolled up socks not withstanding, I'm championing "Guys" as a gender-free
word. I feel its is a victim of the same bloke who came along -ess and
ette-izing little women into their little places. A poet is a poet unless
she's a poetess. What's that except the tired assertion that all working
nouns are the sole domain of the penis-endowed?
Not to invoke the dreaded romper room thread, but you think when Rita was
calling HEY YOU GUYS!!! only half the cast answered? Where's Jennifer of
the Jungle when you need her?
G.L. (Its the plumber. And she's come to fix more than the sink.)
Frank Raymond Michaels
"G.l. Morrison" <gl...@efn.org> wrote:
>> Six *GUYS* were the progenitors of the human race?
>> What's wrong with this picture?
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Frank Raymond Michaels ("Explains truck-pulls, though...")
>Hey! You hit my pet bug-a-boo (which is worse than squishing spiders).
>Rolled up socks not withstanding, I'm championing "Guys" as a gender-free
>word.
Sorry, G.L. -- but not only is "guys" masculine, it only refers to a
small specific sub-class of males (Read _Dave Barry's Guide to Guys_
for the whole poop). Let me give you an idea:
1) A Man climbs Mt. Everest -- a Guy throws Milk Duds from the top to
see how far they can go.
2) A Man pilots the captured alien spacecraft to defeat the invading
aliens -- a Guy opens the hood and takes the engine apart to see how
it works.
3) A Man invented the airplane -- a Guy invented that little teddy
bear that farts when you squeeze it.
Tom Clancy is a Man -- Dave Barry is a Guy.
Get the idea?
FWIW, I've been using "folk" as a non-gender-specific plural lately.
>I feel its is a victim of the same bloke who came along -ess and
>ette-izing little women into their little places. A poet is a poet unless
>she's a poetess.
Now diminutives do bug me, but many of the gender-specificity comes
equally from the female side -- I know of at least two female editors
to whom I've sent work who are very specific about calling themselves
"Editrix" instead of "Editor". I have a female friend whom I call a
"poet" but who's corrects me repeatedly. I think what we should do is
ban diminutives. Else we will one day have a Presidentrix of the
United States.
>What's that except the tired assertion that all working
>nouns are the sole domain of the penis-endowed?
I dunno. I'm a Guy.
---------------------------------------------------
Frank Raymond Michaels ("Wanna see me turn my eyelids inside out?")
Da Skeptic
I humbly admit that my reply went awry. Under more sober relection I
realize I reponded to a sickening post by Ursus Major in the same thread.
That's where the expergated came from. Yours I stupidly included as part
of the that thread.
As far as a decent flame, all I can say is takes one to no one.
piranha
In article <5euhjb$dt$6...@news2.i-2000.com>,
Frank Raymond Michaels <fra...@i-2000.com> wrote:
>1) A Man climbs Mt. Everest -- a Guy throws Milk Duds from the top to
>see how far they can go.
i'm a guy.
>2) A Man pilots the captured alien spacecraft to defeat the invading
>aliens -- a Guy opens the hood and takes the engine apart to see how
>it works.
i'm a guy.
>3) A Man invented the airplane -- a Guy invented that little teddy
>bear that farts when you squeeze it.
i'm a guy.
but then that's not news to me. and other guys recognize it,
even tho superficially i come in the wrong package. it's
only men and women who don't get it. :-)
>Now diminutives do bug me, but many of the gender-specificity comes
>equally from the female side -- I know of at least two female editors
>to whom I've sent work who are very specific about calling themselves
>"Editrix" instead of "Editor".
*shudder*. i try to avoid living in french-speaking countries
for a reason. (we'll ignore that uppity province to the east.)
the only "diminutive" like that i respect is "dominatrix".
>Frank Raymond Michaels ("Wanna see me turn my eyelids inside out?")
yes. send png.
-alix^H^Hor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
former PLATO people, listen up: reunion in champaign-urbana, march 15.
http://avenir.cso.uiuc.edu/reunion (ain't just for CERLites; come all).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Durst
Da Skeptic (no...@looking.glass) wrote:
: I humbly admit that my reply went awry. Under more sober relection I
: That's where the expergated came from. Yours I stupidly included as part
: of the that thread.
: As far as a decent flame, all I can say is takes one to no one.
Well, I don't get much practice as I tend to be a nice person most of the
time. I pride myself on only having issued very minor flames.
Sincerely,
Jack Durst
Sp...@sierra.net
James A Hammerton
Duncan R. MacMillan (Dun...@drmac.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <ant20002...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>
: jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk "John Cartmell" writes:
[snip]
: > It puts your cause and yourself in a poor
: > light.
: My cause, the whole point of my post, which your bigotry caused you
: to overlook so completely, is *DIVERSITY*.
You keep claiming to be interested in diversity. It might interest you
to know that one of the mechanisms which increases genetic diversity
is gene flow*, a technical term for the mixing of populations, something
you claim to be opposed to in the name of diversity!
[snip]
: > _/ __/_/ _/_/ _/_/ using Acorn Risc PCs - and StrongARMed
: > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ UK designed and made - British software
: > _/_/ _/__/ _/ _/ _/ _/ supporting our own; even if it is the best ;-)
: Who or what is this? "Hammerton" under Cartmell? "Cartmell" on a
: Hammerton...?
What are you trying to say here?
: I used to think Bob was only joking with all that "PC clone" stuff.
: I now realise the man's a genius.
Well someone with an IQ of 0.5 might well come to that conclusion
about someone with an IQ of 5.
James
* See the "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology", under the section
"Mechanisms that Increase Genetic Variation", on the talk.origins
archive. URL:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
--
James Hammerton, Research Student, School of Computer Science,
University of Birmingham | DO *NOT* SEND JUNK EMAIL TO ME
Read http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/email.html before sending email.
WWW Home Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/
Connectionist NLP WWW Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/CNLP/cnlp.html
Duncan R. MacMillan
In article <5fc8bi$l...@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>
J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk "James A Hammerton" writes:
> You keep claiming to be interested in diversity. It might interest you
> to know that one of the mechanisms which increases genetic diversity
> is gene flow*, a technical term for the mixing of populations, something
> you claim to be opposed to in the name of diversity!
You *ARE* confused.
A few months ago you flipped "there is no such biological entity as
race". Now you're flopping about gene flows between "social constructs"!
---
D. MacMillan
--
James A Hammerton
<followups altered to weed out newsgroups with no obvious link to this thread>
Duncan R. MacMillan (Dun...@drmac.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <5fc8bi$l...@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>
: J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk "James A Hammerton" writes:
: > You keep claiming to be interested in diversity. It might interest you
: > to know that one of the mechanisms which increases genetic diversity
: > is gene flow*, a technical term for the mixing of populations, something
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > you claim to be opposed to in the name of diversity!
: You *ARE* confused.
No. You are confusing the concept of 'race' with the concept of
'population'.
: A few months ago you flipped "there is no such biological entity as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: race". Now you're flopping about gene flows between "social constructs"!
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Read what I wrote: Gene flow is the mixing of *populations* -- I was
not talking about *races*. Populations are not a social construct. You
can have geographically separated populations without any need for
defining those populations as being separate races. You seem
particularly opposed to mixing of those from Africa with others and
opposed to immigration in general. In any case, you have not addressed
the point that such mixing AIDS diversity, which you claim to be in
favour of despite opposing such mixing.
I couldn't recall which article you were referring to where I was
meant to have argued that race is not a biological entity, so I tried
the following searches which turned up nothing on dejanews:
Hammerton & race & ("social construct" | "biological entity")
Hammerton & ("social construct" | "biological entity")
On the search term "Hammerton & race & concept" I got 19 articles on
the old database, none on the current one. One has the following stuff
written by myself (using my tardis account):
Subject: Re: Edinburgh Race-Row: Living Marxism Comm
From: ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Date: 1996/05/05
Message-Id: <DqxroJ.6o0.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
[snip]
Also it is not clear that race is a rigourously defined concept as opposed to a
social construct.
This was written in 1995 on the now defunct uk.politics newsgroup. I
had almost completely forgotten about it. However even here I don't
argue "Race is not a biological entity". I merely assert that it is
not clear (to me) that it isn't. I have usually been non-committal in
any articles I write on this question, largely because I am not
acquainted with all the biology/anthropology regarding this and feel
that others who are would be better equipped to slog it out. Anyway,
regardless of whether race is a valid concept, I was talking about
population mixing, not race mixing (which if race is a valid concept
would be a subset of population mixing) and therefore my original
point stands. Equating race with population gives the ridiculous
result that white Glaswegians are a different race from white people
in Edinburgh -- protestations in favour of this proposition from the
inhabitants of those cities notwithstanding ;-).
James
Paul J. Allen
"Duncan R. MacMillan" <Dun...@drmac.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<857338...@drmac.demon.co.uk>...
Failed the Turing test, eh? That implies that the entity calling itself
"Duncan R. MacMillan" is really a robot programmed to imitate human
behaviour and send out pre-recorded messages at regular intervals.
Explains much...
--
Paul.
The above does not necessarily reflect the views of my employer
To email, remove the x from the front of the stated address
Duncan R. MacMillan
In article <5ffa1i$1...@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>
J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk "James A Hammerton" writes:
> No. You are confusing the concept of 'race' with the concept of
> 'population'.
As I recall, *YOU* raised the matter of gene flow, so please explain
how a genetically distinct "population" is distinct from "race" (hint: you
can't).
---
D. MacMillan
cereba
Duncan R. MacMillan wrote:
> To somebody I've snipped:
>* * * please explain how a genetically distinct "population" is distinct
from "race" (hint: you can't).
>
Well, I can. A genetically distinct "population" can be defined
scientifically as a group having objective genetic features that are
distinct from those of any other group; a "race" cannot be so
defined because it is a sociological rather than a scientific term,
and is further fraught with such an abundance of political overtones
and value judgments so as to be of essentially no use in scientific
discourse.
How's that?
Willy Lump Lump
James A Hammerton
I don't see the relevance of this thread to uk.education.misc,
alt.psychology, misc.writing, uk.misc, uk.legal, uk.media.radio.bbc-r4
(earlier threads regarding a yalk given by Steve Jones on radio 4
might have been relevant but this is not), soc.culture.usa and
alt.journalism in the distribution of this thread so I've removed them
from the followup field.
cereba (cer...@europa.com) wrote:
: Duncan R. MacMillan wrote:
: > To somebody I've snipped:
: >* * * please explain how a genetically distinct "population" is distinct
: from "race" (hint: you can't).
: >
: Well, I can. A genetically distinct "population" can be defined
: scientifically as a group having objective genetic features that are
: distinct from those of any other group; a "race" cannot be so
As well as that I'd imagine that you could have two groups that have
different distributions of genes, such that although no particular
combination is unique to either group, their frequencies could
differ. You could of course define a race as a genetically distinct
population. Then you'd have to separate all genetically distinct
populations as being of different races, which would probably entail
splitting up whites in different countries (certainly those in
different continents) into different races. The question is what
purpose would such a classification serve?
[snip]
: How's that?
I more or less agree with you.
hin...@global.california.com
On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, cereba wrote:
> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 00:06:45 -0800
> From: cereba <cer...@europa.com>
> Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc, soc.culture.usa,
> alt.politics.nationalism.white, sci.anthropology, alt.journalism,
> uk.legal, uk.misc, misc.writing, uk.media.radio.bbc-r4,
> uk.education.misc, alt.psychology
> Subject: Re: "Research student" in .sig file drama! - pictures
>
> Duncan R. MacMillan wrote:
>
> > To somebody I've snipped:
>
> >* * * please explain how a genetically distinct "population" is distinct
> from "race" (hint: you can't).
> >
> Well, I can. A genetically distinct "population" can be defined
> scientifically as a group having objective genetic features that are
> distinct from those of any other group; a "race" cannot be so
> defined because it is a sociological rather than a scientific term,
> and is further fraught with such an abundance of political overtones
> and value judgments so as to be of essentially no use in scientific
> discourse.
>
> How's that?
>
> Willy Lump Lump
The last 30 words or so express it beautifully. Nice going and any
attempts to define it in sociological terms has less success than
Xeno's hare.
hinotru
Bob Whitaker
cereba wrote:
>
> Duncan R. MacMillan wrote:
>
> > To somebody I've snipped:
>
> >* * * please explain how a genetically distinct "population" is distinct
> from "race" (hint: you can't).
> >
> Well, I can. A genetically distinct "population" can be defined
> scientifically as a group having objective genetic features that are
> distinct from those of any other group; a "race" cannot be so
> defined because it is a sociological rather than a scientific term,
> and is further fraught with such an abundance of political overtones
> and value judgments so as to be of essentially no use in scientific
> discourse.
>
As I explain to each of you clones in turn, my problem with your
so-called
"objective non-racism" is that you are only interested in pushing it in
white majority
countries. You demand massive third world immigration into EVERY white
majority
country -- which you call "promoting diversity" -- and ONLY into white
majority
countries. You demand your so-called "race" mixing, which is actually
only *white*
mixing, and you use public money for busing and "low-cost"(black)
housing to chase
down any white escapees.
Your so-called solution to the race problem is always only the final
solution to the white problem.
Don't worry, I'll keep repeating this until each and every one of you
clones has
heard it.
Bob Whitaker
hin...@global.california.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, cereba wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 00:06:45 -0800
> > From: cereba <cer...@europa.com>
>
> > Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc, soc.culture.usa,
> > alt.politics.nationalism.white, sci.anthropology, alt.journalism,
> > uk.legal, uk.misc, misc.writing, uk.media.radio.bbc-r4,
> > uk.education.misc, alt.psychology
> > Subject: Re: "Research student" in .sig file drama! - pictures
> >
> >
> > > To somebody I've snipped:
> >
> > >* * * please explain how a genetically distinct "population" is distinct
> > from "race" (hint: you can't).
> > >
> > Well, I can. A genetically distinct "population" can be defined
> > scientifically as a group having objective genetic features that are
> > distinct from those of any other group; a "race" cannot be so
> > defined because it is a sociological rather than a scientific term,
> > and is further fraught with such an abundance of political overtones
> > and value judgments so as to be of essentially no use in scientific
> > discourse.
> >
> >
> > Willy Lump Lump
>
> attempts to define it in sociological terms has less success than
> Xeno's hare.
As I explain to each of you clones in turn, my problem with your
so-called
"objective non-racism" is that you are only interested in pushing it in
white majority
countries. You demand massive third world immigration into EVERY white
majority
country -- which you call "promoting diversity" -- and ONLY into white
majority
countries. You demand your so-called "race" mixing, which is actually
only *white*
mixing, and you use public money for busing and "low-cost"(black)
housing to chase
down any white escapees.
Your so-called solution to the race problem is always only the final
solution to the white problem.
Don't worry, I'll keep repeating this until each and every one of you
clones has
heard it.
>
> hinotru
Tim Scrimshaw
Bob Whitaker wrote:
>
> As I explain to each of you clones in turn, my problem with your
> so-called
> "objective non-racism" is that you are only interested in pushing it in
> white majority
> countries. You demand massive third world immigration into EVERY white
> majority
> country -- which you call "promoting diversity" -- and ONLY into white
> majority
> countries.
I wasn't aware of anyone demanding mass immigration anywhere. Sheesh - get a life!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace/Jobs/Freedom
James Hammerton
> J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk "James A Hammerton" writes:
>
> > No. You are confusing the concept of 'race' with the concept of
> > 'population'.
>
> As I recall, *YOU* raised the matter of gene flow, so please explain
That I did. I did not deny that I raised it.
> how a genetically distinct "population" is distinct from "race" (hint: you
Well whilst two "races" might form genetically distinct populations,
would the reverse always hold, i.e. that two genetically distinct
populations form two different races? It would if you *defined* a race
as being a genetically distinct population, in which case you'd have
to regard caucasian Americans and caucasian Europeans as belonging to
different races. Also defining race in this way would still leave you
drawing arbitrary lines between the races you wished to separate, as
"genetically distinct" is a rather vague quality that admits of
degrees. A family that has a very rare gene in it could be defined as
being of different race to the people on the same street as them. I am
genetically distinct from my sister, and from my parents. Would
classifying me as a different race from them serve any useful purpose
whatsoever? Anyway my original point, which holds regardless of the
discussion of the concept of race, is that gene flow between
different populations increases diversity, and you claim to be in
favour of diversity so why do you oppose mixing?
James
--
James Hammerton, PhD Student, School of Computer Science,
University of Birmingham | Email: J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk
WWW Home Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah
Duncan R. MacMillan
In article <331D29...@europa.com> cer...@europa.com "cereba"
writes:
> Well, I can. A genetically distinct "population" can be defined
> scientifically as a group having objective genetic features that are
> distinct from those of any other group; a "race" cannot be so
> defined because it is a sociological rather than a scientific term,
> and is further fraught with such an abundance of political overtones
> and value judgments so as to be of essentially no use in scientific
> discourse.
"A race is the descendants of a common ancestor, especially those
who inherit a common set of characteristics" and we all know that a gene is
the basic unit of inheritance, don't we?
> How's that?
Because we went to school. Anyway, how is the above "fraught with such
an abundance of political overtones"? wait a minute, there's a load of people
suddenly jumped out of a van labelled "Birmingham EQUALITY Unit" and they're
putting up rolls of rusty barbed wire all round my house.
Well, look on the bright side, at least I'll be able to ask why the
HEAD of the EQUALITY Unit gets 54,000 POUNDS STERLING pa, while the TWO
ASSISTANTS each only get a measly 40,000 POUNDS STERLING pa.
Excuse me, you bunch of fat, tax-thieving, mass-murdering New Labour
assholes...
---
D. MacMillan
Duncan R. MacMillan
In article <E6MEsC.Az9.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk "James Hammerton" writes:
> you claim to be in
> favour of diversity so why do you oppose mixing?
You are as confused about "diversity" as you are about "gene flows
between social constructs".
If you took a little time to give some specific examples, say, of the
"diversity" arising from miscegenation of Whites with Negroes, you would
realise one very important point about all this gene flow - who's paying.
---
D. MacMillan
James A Hammerton
Bob Whitaker (bw...@conterra.com) wrote:
Hi Bob,
Nice to see you playing the same broken record again.
: cereba wrote:
: >
: > Duncan R. MacMillan wrote:
: >
: > > To somebody I've snipped:
: >
: > >* * * please explain how a genetically distinct "population" is distinct
: > from "race" (hint: you can't).
: > >
: > Well, I can. A genetically distinct "population" can be defined
: > scientifically as a group having objective genetic features that are
: > distinct from those of any other group; a "race" cannot be so
: > defined because it is a sociological rather than a scientific term,
: > and is further fraught with such an abundance of political overtones
: > and value judgments so as to be of essentially no use in scientific
: > discourse.
: >
: As I explain to each of you clones in turn, my problem with your
: so-called
: "objective non-racism" is that you are only interested in pushing it in
: white majority
: countries. You demand massive third world immigration into EVERY white
: majority
Can you cite someone who demands this? I simply demand freedom of
movement worldwide.
: country -- which you call "promoting diversity" -- and ONLY into white
: majority
Gene flow does promote diversity. South Africa is a BLACK majority
country pursuing racial integration.
: countries. You demand your so-called "race" mixing, which is actually
: only *white*
: mixing, and you use public money for busing and "low-cost"(black)
Only white mixing? Surely that means whites mixing with whites? Busing
doesn't occur here in the UK.
: housing to chase
: down any white escapees.
: Your so-called solution to the race problem is always only the final
: solution to the white problem.
: Don't worry, I'll keep repeating this until each and every one of you
: clones has
: heard it.
This guy is serious regarding the last line. It's about the 20th time
I've seen this exact paragraph being posted unchanged, despite its
claims being refuted repeatedly. Do a DejaNews search on this guy's
name to see what I mean.
James
--
James Hammerton, Research Student, School of Computer Science,
University of Birmingham | DO *NOT* SEND JUNK EMAIL TO ME
Read http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/email.html before sending email.
WWW Home Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/
James A Hammerton
: ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk "James Hammerton" writes:
: > you claim to be in
: > favour of diversity so why do you oppose mixing?
: You are as confused about "diversity" as you are about "gene flows
: between social constructs".
I've never talked about gene flows between social constructs and have
pointed out that "race" and "genetically distinct population" are
different concepts -- you haven't provided any argument (as opposed to
bland assertion) yet for equating the two -- so where is the confusion?
: If you took a little time to give some specific examples, say, of the
: "diversity" arising from miscegenation of Whites with Negroes, you would
: realise one very important point about all this gene flow - who's paying.
It is an accepted fact from evolutionary biology that gene flow
increases genetic diversity, so what is your point?
James A Hammerton
: writes:
: > Well, I can. A genetically distinct "population" can be defined
: > scientifically as a group having objective genetic features that are
: > distinct from those of any other group; a "race" cannot be so
: > defined because it is a sociological rather than a scientific term,
: > and is further fraught with such an abundance of political overtones
: > and value judgments so as to be of essentially no use in scientific
: > discourse.
: "A race is the descendants of a common ancestor, especially those
: who inherit a common set of characteristics" and we all know that a gene is
Who's definition is this? Also we all have a common ancestor, namely
the first form of life that occured which every other form of life on
this planet is descended from. Does that mean vegetables and humans
are part of the same race? Also if two groups of people have different
common ancestors when traced back to one point in time, but those
ancestors themselves share a common ancestor at an earlier point in
time, what is the rationale for choosing the more recent ancestors and
separating them into separate races? By the way being genetically
distinct does not necessarily fit the above definition of race -- I'm
genetically distinct from my sister and my parents.
Duncan R. MacMillan
In article <5fpcuq$1...@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk>
J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk "James A Hammerton" writes:
> : If you took a little time to give some specific examples, say, of the
> : "diversity" arising from miscegenation of Whites with Negroes, you would
> : realise one very important point about all this gene flow - who's paying.
>
> It is an accepted fact from evolutionary biology that gene flow
> increases genetic diversity, so what is your point?
Oops, I expressed that rather badly.
I meant that miscegenation between Whites and Negroes is a one-way
gene flow, from Whites to Negroes, which does absolutely nothing for the
decreasing remainder of Whites, while any diversity that mulattoes bring to
the Negro gene pool does precious little good, as evidenced by all those
Caribbean and North American hell-holes created by Negroes with a
*SUBSTANTIAL* amount of White in them.
Flow is all about sinks and sources and in this context the Negro
represents something of a gene sump.
---
D. MacMillan
James A Hammerton
: J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk "James A Hammerton" writes:
: > : If you took a little time to give some specific examples, say, of the
: > : "diversity" arising from miscegenation of Whites with Negroes, you would
: > : realise one very important point about all this gene flow - who's paying.
: >
: > It is an accepted fact from evolutionary biology that gene flow
: > increases genetic diversity, so what is your point?
: Oops, I expressed that rather badly.
: I meant that miscegenation between Whites and Negroes is a one-way
: gene flow, from Whites to Negroes, which does absolutely nothing for the
This doesn't make sense. A white and a 'negro' mate, the offspring has
genes from both parents. The offspring's genes are equally drawn from
the white and negro sides. Why should this be considered a one-way
flow? Or are you trying to say that whites are entering black
populations and mating with members of those populations but the
reverse isn't happening?
: decreasing remainder of Whites, while any diversity that mulattoes bring to
: the Negro gene pool does precious little good, as evidenced by all those
: Caribbean and North American hell-holes created by Negroes with a
: *SUBSTANTIAL* amount of White in them.
You are again talking nonsense. Humans share the vast bulk of their
genes regardless of their race. Indeed 75% of genes are identical in
each person. Of the remaining 25% that vary, only 6% (i.e. 6% of the
25%, that is 0.24% of the total not 6% of the total) is the result of
people belonging to what are often regarded as different
races. Moreover no gene is unique to a race. See
the URL:
http://www.vrx.net/aar/educate5.html
Genetically, race is an arbitrary concept.
Richard Caley
Duncan R. MacMillan wrote:
> "A race is the descendants of a common ancestor, especially those
> who inherit a common set of characteristics"
Ah, so we're all members of the same race, and so is the tomato I'm just
about to stick on a pizza. Certainly simplifies things.
--
r...@lillith.demon.co.uk _O_
|<
Richard Caley
Duncan R. MacMillan wrote:
> I meant that miscegenation between Whites and Negroes is a one-way
> gene flow, from Whites to Negroes,
So, er, when a black person and a white person have a child, the child
has genes from both, but somehoe the `white genes' (whatever that means)
are somehow attached to the black ones, but the black ones aren't
attached to the white ones (or vice-vera, it's hard to keep track of
this patently absurd nonsense).
> Flow is all about sinks and sources and in this context the Negro
> represents something of a gene sump.
Genes don't flow, genes don't mix[*], genes just duplicate, mutate or
change their neighbours.
[*] at least not in the way meant here.
--
r...@lillith.demon.co.uk _O_
|<
Dolores Fortino
Dun...@drmac.demon.co.uk ("Duncan R. MacMillan") wrote:
> You are as confused about "diversity" as you are about "gene flows
>between social constructs".
> If you took a little time to give some specific examples, say, of the
>"diversity" arising from miscegenation of Whites with Negroes, you would
>realise one very important point about all this gene flow - who's paying.
That's easy. The man always pays. Women aren't dumb enough to have to
pay for sex.
Dolores
Duncan R. MacMillan
In article <3321CE3C...@lillith.demon.co.uk>
r...@lillith.demon.co.uk "Richard Caley" writes:
> Ah, so we're all members of the same race, and so is the tomato I'm just
> about to stick on a pizza. (or vice-vera, it's hard to keep track of
> this patently absurd nonsense).
Stop writing it then.
---
D. MacMillan
Alma Hromic
>Duncan R. MacMillan wrote:
>
>> "A race is the descendants of a common ancestor, especially those
>> who inherit a common set of characteristics"
>
>Ah, so we're all members of the same race, and so is the tomato I'm just
>about to stick on a pizza. Certainly simplifies things.
oh, so there is something to the term "couch potato" after all, then?
*****************************************************************************
If life had a second edition, how I would correct the proofs!
(John Clare)
*****************************************************************************
Duncan R. MacMillan
In article <5fs34l$n6g$1...@news.gate.net>
dfor...@gate.net "Dolores Fortino" writes:
> Women aren't dumb enough to have to
> pay for sex.
They pay for "personal fitness instructors" instead.
That'll be ten dollars - American Express? 'll do just fine, lady.
---
D. MacMillan
Richard Caley
Duncan R. MacMillan (fist cousin of a butternut squash) wrote:
> > [ I didn't say the following, Mr MacMillan glued together bits
> > of two messages in the hope of fooling someone]
> > Ah, so we're all members of the same race, and so is the tomato I'm just
> > about to stick on a pizza. (or vice-vera, it's hard to keep track of
> > this patently absurd nonsense).
> Stop writing it then.
I don't have to, I have this clever optioon which allows me to quote
what you say without having to rewrite it. It also doesn't randomly
eddit together sentences of yours from separate articles.
I notice you haven't managed to defend your drivel yet.
--
r...@lillith.demon.co.uk _O_
|<
Jack Durst
: > To somebody I've snipped:
: >* * * please explain how a genetically distinct "population" is distinct
: from "race" (hint: you can't).
: >
: Well, I can. A genetically distinct "population" can be defined
: scientifically as a group having objective genetic features that are
: distinct from those of any other group; a "race" cannot be so
: defined because it is a sociological rather than a scientific term,
: and is further fraught with such an abundance of political overtones
: and value judgments so as to be of essentially no use in scientific
: discourse.
: How's that?
Pretty good, but you forgot the clincher statistic. The genetic
difference between any two people is roughly the same as the genetic
difference between two people of different races. (Clones notwithstanding)
Sincerely,
Jack Durst
Sp...@sierra.net