|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: FACEFACE Date: Jun 8, 2008 09:34
From fasgnadh yahoo.com>, in uk.politics.misc on Mon, 09 Jun 2008
01:06:20 +1000 :
>FACE wrote:
>> From "Cleo Frank" nospam.com>, in uk.politics.misc on Sat, 7 Jun 2008
>> 16:30:33 -0400 :
>> >>> Everyone is cooing about the first *black* President.
>>>
>>> One Drop Rule still...
|
| Show full article (2.09Kb) |
|
| | 68 Comments |
|
|
Author: fasgnadhfasgnadh Date: Jun 8, 2008 17:53
I first issued the Great 'race' challenge in 2003 to a group
of Usenet racists who continually failed to develop a consistent,
usable, SCIENTIFIC based taxonomy for 'race.
All they had to do was tell us;
1. How many 'races' are there?
2. What are they called?
3. What is the scientific basis for differentiating them
As they were utterly unable to manage even the FIRST of these
simple tasks the obvious conclusion is that there is no such
thing as 'race' a conclusion supported by the DNA evidence.
and such august bodies of peer reviewed research as the American
Association of Anthropologists
To rub salt in the racists open wounds, I issued the
Great 'race' Challenge.
# From: "fasgnadh" yahoo.com>
# Newsgroups: aus.politics,aus.culture.true-blue
# Subject: The Great Race - an open challenge to Racists
# Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:54:46 +1000
# Message-ID:...
|
| Show full article (7.07Kb) |
|
| | 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: hwakehwake Date: Jun 9, 2008 04:10
On Jun 9, 1:53Â am, fasgnadh yahoo.com> wrote:> I first issued the Great 'race' challenge in 2003 to a group
> of Usenet racists who continually failed to develop a consistent,
> usable, SCIENTIFIC based taxonomy for 'race.
>
> All they had to do was tell us;
>
> 1. Â How many 'races' are there?
>
> 2. What are they called?
>
> 3. What is the scientific basis for differentiating them
>
> As they were utterly unable to manage even the FIRST of these
> simple tasks the obvious conclusion is that there is no such
> thing as 'race' a conclusion supported by the DNA evidence.
|
| Show full article (0.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: fasgnadhfasgnadh Date: Jun 9, 2008 05:37
abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:53:36 +1000, fasgnadh yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>
>> I first issued the Great 'race' challenge in 2003 to a group
>> of Usenet racists who continually failed to develop a consistent,
>> usable, SCIENTIFIC based taxonomy for 'race.
>>
>> All they had to do was tell us;
>>
>> 1. How many 'races' are there?
>>
>> 2. What are they called?
>>
>> 3. What is the scientific basis for differentiating them
>>
>> As they were utterly unable to manage even the FIRST of these
>> simple tasks the obvious conclusion is that there is no such
>> thing as 'race' a conclusion supported by the DNA evidence. ...
|
| Show full article (4.98Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: fasgnadhfasgnadh Date: Jun 9, 2008 06:03
> On Jun 9, 1:53 am, fasgnadh yahoo.com> wrote:>> I first issued the Great 'race' challenge in 2003 to a group
>> of Usenet racists who continually failed to develop a consistent,
>> usable, SCIENTIFIC based taxonomy for 'race.
>>
>> All they had to do was tell us;
>>
>> 1. How many 'races' are there?
>>
>> 2. What are they called?
>>
>> 3. What is the scientific basis for differentiating them
>>
>> As they were utterly unable to manage even the FIRST of these
>> simple tasks the obvious conclusion is that there is no such
>> thing as 'race' a conclusion supported by the DNA evidence.
>
> In England, we have all the definition of 'race' we need.
|
| Show full article (4.86Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: abelardabelard Date: Jun 9, 2008 06:25
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:37:51 +1000, fasgnadh yahoo.com>
wrote:
>abelard wrote:
>> there is no such thing as a tree....
>
>Here is just ONE of many hundreds of trees contained in the detailed
>scientific taxonomy of plant species.
acres of your hysterical posturing removed as usual
|
| Show full article (3.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: hwakehwake Date: Jun 9, 2008 06:33
On Jun 9, 2:03Â pm, fasgnadh yahoo.com> wrote:>> On Jun 9, 1:53 am, fasgnadh yahoo.com> wrote:>>> I first issued the Great 'race' challenge in 2003 to a group
>>> of Usenet racists who continually failed to develop a consistent,
>>> usable, SCIENTIFIC based taxonomy for 'race.
>
>>> All they had to do was tell us;
>
>>> 1. Â How many 'races' are there?
>
>>> 2. What are they called?
>
>>> 3. What is the scientific basis for differentiating them
>
>>> As they were utterly unable to manage even the FIRST of these
>>> simple tasks the obvious conclusion is that there is no such
>>> thing as 'race' a conclusion supported by the DNA evidence.
>
>> In England, we have all the definition of 'race' we need. ...
|
| Show full article (4.76Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: fasgnadhfasgnadh Date: Jun 9, 2008 06:35
abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:37:51 +1000, fasgnadh yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >> abelard wrote:
>
>>> there is no such thing as a tree....
We can leave this blithering abelard idiot here
to dispute with himself, because he has conceded
the point:
>> That is because trees are real science. 'race', as you have just
>> admitted, is NOT!! B^)
>
> i have not 'admitted' that it is not....i have stated that it is not..
B^D
|
| Show full article (1.34Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: abelardabelard Date: Jun 9, 2008 06:55
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:35:03 +1000, fasgnadh yahoo.com>
wrote:
>abelard wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:37:51 +1000, fasgnadh yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> abelard wrote:
>>
>>>> there is no such thing as a tree....
>
>
>We can leave this blithering abelard idiot here
>to dispute with himself, because he has conceded
>the point:
liar...i have 'conceded' no 'point'
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
