Bill Wiltrack wrote:Whenever African-Americans are given a level playing field, they excel over all other races.
What the hells an African-American? American is not a race, you mean Africans I presume. There is at least one concrete exception here, boxing.
Years ago, before desegregation, whites were Caucasians and blacks were Negroes. But now in the USA, blacks are African-Americans. It's just left-wing, liberal, politically correct B.S. foisted upon us, and is in large part responsible for our current "African-American" social problems.
I don't think it's a false accusation. You have easy access to this journal. Publish or perish, my friend!
Such reproduction of copyrighted material which has been published elsewhere is neither ethical nor necessary.
Bob, you've called on rantal to cite some reputable sources and she or he has. The burden now clearly lies with you to show why those citations should not be trusted. Suggesting that rantal's failure to copy and paste something, so as to free you from the task of finding copies of the cited sources and checking them yourself, is somehow proof of her dishonesty - that is merely further evidence (if more were needed) of your feeble grip on reality.
iMod[/quote]
Well, iMod, it's too bad that American sports commentator Jimmy the Greek lost his TV job some years ago by referring to certain African American physical characteristics when he could have easily referred to Rantal's material to corroborate his story. Apparently, all the news media also weren't aware of this material, and that is why I question its authenticity. I guess one way to support my views in this forum is to fictitiously refer to some scientific journal from years back that nobody in his right mind is actually going to investigate. Am I perhaps being too bold to consider that it might be you who has a feeble grip on reality? P.S. As an aside, what do you think of Bill Wiltrack's grip on reality (see the following post)?[/quote]
Bob, how come you are able to refrain from abuse when responding to a moderator but not to others? Sounds a bit like you are creeping to me and totally bogus
I don't think it's a false accusation. You have easy access to this journal. Publish or perish, my friend!
Such reproduction of copyrighted material which has been published elsewhere is neither ethical nor necessary.
Bob, you've called on rantal to cite some reputable sources and she or he has. The burden now clearly lies with you to show why those citations should not be trusted. Suggesting that rantal's failure to copy and paste something, so as to free you from the task of finding copies of the cited sources and checking them yourself, is somehow proof of her dishonesty - that is merely further evidence (if more were needed) of your feeble grip on reality.
iMod
Well, iMod, it's too bad that American sports commentator Jimmy the Greek lost his TV job some years ago by referring to certain African American physical characteristics when he could have easily referred to Rantal's material to corroborate his story. Apparently, all the news media also weren't aware of this material, and that is why I question its authenticity. I guess one way to support my views in this forum is to fictitiously refer to some scientific journal from years back that nobody in his right mind is actually going to investigate. Am I perhaps being too bold to consider that it might be you who has a feeble grip on reality? P.S. As an aside, what do you think of Bill Wiltrack's grip on reality (see the following post)?[/quote]
Bob, how come you are able to refrain from abuse when responding to a moderator but not to others? Sounds a bit like you are creeping to me and totally bogus
all the best, rantal
Some people might consider "Am I perhaps being too bold to consider that it might be you who has a feeble grip on reality?" as abuse, but of course, my response in kind is tit-for-tat, as it usually is. As a child, were you bullied in school? You seem to have very thin skin on the subject.
No, I was not bullied but interesting that you seem to imply you think more of bullies than the bullied. Your actions were not tit f'tat but rather you began abusive behavior unprovoked. Nor am I thin skinned, indeed those who know me consider me the opposite, your behavior is however, indicitive of some emotional instability and narcasistic and therefore completely uncondusive to productive discussion
So, that you were able to respond to the mod without abuse suggests only that you were kissing arse and completely inauthentic
rantal wrote:No, I was not bullied but interesting that you seem to imply you think more of bullies than the bullied. Your actions were not tit f'tat but rather you began abusive behavior unprovoked. Nor am I thin skinned, indeed those who know me consider me the opposite, your behavior is however, indicitive of some emotional instability and narcasistic and therefore completely uncondusive to productive discussion
So, that you were able to respond to the mod without abuse suggests only that you were kissing arse and completely inauthentic
all the best, rantal
You are wrong, my friend, I thought I kicked iMod's ass but good in my genteel way. I normally don't use abusive language unless provoked by stupid people who have no argument, but pick some stupid aspect of the argument to nit-pick like you do. You rarely, if ever, offer an argument or rebuttal of anything.
rantal wrote:No, he means Americans that are black, they are not African any more than those Americans whose ancestors were Scots are Scottish.
They're all yanks to me. Scots aren't a race either but I take your point and agree race is a pointless concept. Although in America it still seems a very important factor in their thinking about themselves.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bill Wiltrack wrote:...
...And I will add African-American boxers have dominated the sport for the last 50 years at least.
Well, in the heavyweight maybe but your claim was that they'd always do so due to some reason known to yourself and this is not the case anymore as the Soviets don't exist anymore so they can now compete and appear to be trashing all comers. Pretty soon Cuba will be on the scene as well and then I think your claim will be even less applicable in the light and middleweights.
bobevenson wrote:... You rarely, if ever, offer an argument or rebuttal of anything.
Talk about pots and kettles.
As far as I've read across your exchanges rantal has offered much rebuttal and argument to your thoughts and so far has received your usual obfuscation and lack of an argument to defend your words.
[/quote]
You are wrong, my friend, I thought I kicked iMod's ass but good in my genteel way. I normally don't use abusive language unless provoked by stupid people who have no argument, but pick some stupid aspect of the argument to nit-pick like you do. You rarely, if ever, offer an argument or rebuttal of anything.[/quote]
No, you become abusive when anyone questions your statements; statements you provide without reason or evidence. This is not the way to debate philosophically rather it is the behavior of a spoiled little girl. Perhaps you also scream and roll about on the floor?
bobevenson wrote:Years ago, before desegregation, whites were Caucasians and blacks were Negroes. ...
Since when did anyone use "Caucasians" before desegregation?
This has always been a common term in the United States. Of course, you being from England would not be familiar with the English language as as it was meant to be spoken.
bobevenson wrote:... You rarely, if ever, offer an argument or rebuttal of anything.
Talk about pots and kettles.
As far as I've read across your exchanges rantal has offered much rebuttal and argument to your thoughts and so far has received your usual obfuscation and lack of an argument to defend your words.
Please, both you and Rantal are peas in a pod regarding having the ability to understand an argument and respond to it.
Talk about pots and kettles.