community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
To The Editors of IndyMedia Pittsburgh
by k
Monday, Jan. 05, 2004 at 8:30 PM
Time to shut down the comments section of this site.
To The Editors of IndyMedia Pittsburgh
I really think you should consider getting rid of the comments section of this site. I�m not
sure why, but this site has become infested with the lowest of the low posting comments.
Do you really want your site to be a platform for the nasty, bigoted, evil and stupid? For
some reason, your comments section has become just that. Of all the IndyMedias, I would
say, this is the worse. Time to shut it down. Allow the scum to find some other haunts to
prey upon, so this site can continue to serve the purpose for which it was founded.
I know, freedom of speech and all that........but really, this site has become infected: the
comments section has become the sounding board of diseased minds. Time to shut the
comments section down as LA did. (at least, for a while)
///
by ///
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 6:43 AM
I'd agree with doing something. The level of disruption is too high. There needs to be a balance of restriction that is adjusted according to how much disruption is being attempted by those uninterested in discussion.
I do think the comments section is critical in the long term for debate and to prevent the newswire from getting cloged so if it's taken down hopefully people can bring it back at some point.
low, stupid, evil
by Irving
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 10:42 AM
"BTW, conservatives accusing progressives of being "hateful" or "angry" is a great example of projection."
FYI
by paleskin
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 12:40 PM
IRVING and others like him have targeted other Indymedia sites in the past. His pattern suggests that it is only a matter of time before he moves his hate posts to another city.
See: Removing Irving's Hood
http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/12057.php
Providing the Stage for Evil
by Hanna
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 12:48 PM
Yes, it's time to get this section off the air.
I don't know what happened here........maybe something in the water, or too much
in-breeding, but this site has become sick.
And yes, I too believe in freedom of speech, etc., but there are enough neo-nazi sites for
these creeps to post on....
not here.
You only have to go to the comments section of Rachel Corrie article below, to get an
idea of what kind of garbage is being dumped on this site.
(.....I think about her parents seeing this stuff.......)
It's becoming the equivalent of a "snuff movie": pornographic, creepy, cruel, and EVIL!
Yeah, you could say that they are providing the best argument for what we believe in, for
what we're fighting for, putting a graphic face on those we're fighting against.....
(I certainly cannot think of a more powerful argument against Sharon, then seeing that this is the kind of people who support him)
.....but is it worth it?
I think not.
The Purpose of Indymedia
by 2Beers, Irving, Yassir D., S.O.Daminsane, Jac
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 1:38 PM
kal, Prodigal Yunzer, No Name, et al
________________________________
To name a few of the notable and quatable.
The bombast of the various Irving aside, as only a recent condition, the readers and writers at this site provide exactly what indymedia was created for. Open discourse. As we know, it is this diverstiy of thought that can lead to better understanidng. We shouldn't shy away from the insults of Irving. We shoudl see them for what they are. Similarly, we should recognize the kernel of truth that Irving and others that many here would rather disregard have in just about every posting. The Pittsburgh Indymedia is far more successful than all other Indymedias because it allows and does not actively censor these multitude of opinins. That makes IMC effective.
Pittsburgh IMC is a groundbreaking IMC in its openness and support for discussion from all viewpoints. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater to try to solve what a few may perceive as a problem. This openness is what Pittsburgh IMC does well, and IMC should not abandon its distinguishing characteristic among the IMC's just to serve a specific constituency's desire for more homogenized discussions.
It is fine that we all accpet that not everyone agrees with the actions or purpsoes of, or the subsequent beatification of, Rachel Corrie. It is fine that we all accept that not everyone agrees that it is acceptable for somone to blow themselves and others to hell just to make a political point. It is fine that we all accept that not everyone believes a full scale invasion of an arab nation was at all part and parcel of the war against the terrorists that caused 9-11. It is also fine that not everyone agrees that the 9-11 hijackers were unjustified in their actions. By presenting, the good the bad adnthe ugly, of these various and conflicting views we must achieve a greater understanding of each other.
Do not give in to the voices of those that beleive that only their voice is worthy of sanctuary at IMC. Keep the comments open. Embrace the liberty of raw discourse. Embrace Irving. Group Hug for Irving.
I disagree
by H
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 2:07 PM
I disagree
there's a line between discourse & pornography
between
opinion, and evil
and when a young woman's face who was murdered is put on a urinal
that to me is both pornography,
and EVIL
True evil doesn't just kill
True evil kills and then laughs about it.
That is the kind of posters that this site is attracting
those who support murder,
and then laugh about it.
To them, it's a joke
(your typical Sharon supporter)
....and I don't think this site should povide a platform for this kind of evil.
Let them go back to their kkk sites.
Tolerance is not the same thing as Respect
by paleskin
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 2:09 PM
I'll give a "group hug" to Irving only when Irving first gives a group hug to a DIVERSE group of MULTI-CULTURAL, MULTI-RACIAL Americans.
I suspect that will be some time after Hell freezes over.
durutti must go
by Doug Weaver
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 4:45 PM
jdpw02@yahoo.ca Halifax,N.S.,Canada
durutti is the one responcible and I agree with "H", he goes way beyond sick. He is definately evil. He is a Sharon supporter all the way. By using other peoples names, he has caused a lot of the regulars on the Idaho Media Centre to give up trying to have decent conversations. Just ignore the asshole as best you can. Good luck on your sight, I hope you can make a success of it.
durutti must go
by Doug Weaver
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 4:45 PM
jdpw02@yahoo.ca Halifax,N.S.,Canada
durutti is the one responcible and I agree with "H", he goes way beyond sick. He is definately evil. He is a Sharon supporter all the way. By using other peoples names, he has caused a lot of the regulars on the Idaho Media Centre to give up trying to have decent conversations. Just ignore the asshole as best you can. Good luck on your sight, I hope you can make a success of it.
durutti must go
by Doug Weaver
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 4:45 PM
jdpw02@yahoo.ca Halifax,N.S.,Canada
durutti is the one responcible and I agree with "H", he goes way beyond sick. He is definately evil. He is a Sharon supporter all the way. By using other peoples names, he has caused a lot of the regulars on the Idaho Media Centre to give up trying to have decent conversations. Just ignore the asshole as best you can. Good luck on your sight, I hope you can make a success of it.
i
by i
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 5:28 PM
"there's a line between discourse & pornography
between
opinion, and evil
and when a young woman's face who was murdered is put on a urinal
that to me is both pornography,
and EVIL "
But when Bush is labeled Hitler and there is open celebration about deaths of American troops that's ok? Thank 'insert appropriate deity here' that Pittsburgh IMC has the guts to continue their open dialogue.
It's a problem
by Teal
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2004 at 5:57 PM
Well, the good thing about allowing these comments is that it allows everyone to see
exactly what kind of people support Sharon.
For anyone who had doubts, this provides the clearest indication of just how depraved
and heartless are Sharon and his followers.
The problem, is that they could inflict added pain to the relatives of that young woman
who was murdered......they get picked-up by the search engines and say if that woman's
parents put in a search for her name, this garbage would get dredged up. It would be
torture.
And while these supporters as Sharon, seems to enjoys inflicting pain and certainly
approves of torture, we don't.
...and I hate to see this site becoming another of Sharon�s torture rooms, even if it does
prove our point.
Racists and Terrorists
by Irving
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 4:03 AM
It's obvious from the sentence structure and cadence that the posters "paleskin", "h", "Hannah", "Teal", and "///" (plus a few others, such as "Sam" and "durutti" and "USS Liberty") are one and the same, a hate filled little PaliNazi.
Amazing how it's called pornography to plaster an America hating terrorist sympathizer on a urinal, but not a word is said when the various IndyMedias are spammed with a pornographic parody of the Time cover, where swastikas are put on soldiers who risk their lives to keep the terrorists from gaining any more ground.
And I hope that Corrie the pigs parents do see that image. After all, I saw some pornographic image of them, supposedly Americans, going to Palestine to kneel and genuflect at the cloven hoof of Arafat, presenting him with some painting of their Little Precious�, their darling little bundle of PaliNazi joy that had also left her homeland to aid and abet those who would murder innocent children on buses. Or me. Or my children.
Corrie's parents made a political statement with that visit, and their statement was crystal clear - they are for terrorists and they are my Enemies and the enemies of all Americans. That means they are a target. I feel not a molecule of sympathy for such hate filled Leftists as those two.
And nobody give me any crap about they're in grief and don't know what they're doing.
"paleskin" has been the poster child for everything we on the Right have said about Leftists. They claim to be for human rights, yet cry out in disgust in the name of Terrorists and Race Hucksters, and label others who speak simple truths everything under the sun.
So much for their lies about "peace" and "justice"�.
pornography
by Doug Weaver
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 4:19 AM
Halifax,N.S.,Canada
it's a problem
by Teal
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 4:26 AM
Well, the good thing about allowing these comments is that it allows everyone to see
exactly what kind of people support Arafat.
For anyone who had doubts, this provides the clearest indication of just how depraved
and heartless are Arafat and his followers.
The problem, is that they could inflict added pain to the victims of that young woman
who was martyred......they get picked-up by the search engines and say if that terrorists
parents put in a search for her name, this truth would get dredged up. It would be
torture for the victims to see their murder be beatified. And while these supporters as Arafat, seems to enjoys inflicting pain and certainly
approves of torture, we don't.
...and I hate to see this site becoming another of Arafat�s torture rooms, even if it does
prove our point.
Both Sides of the Same Coin
by Dodgerambler
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 4:34 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com
To the people that criticize Irving, don't you realize that the collective "you" are responsible for the same kind of "hate mongering"? Why do you think that there has been such a visceral response to the R. Corrie incident? Some believe she is a traitor to her country and some believe she was standing up for humanity in front of monsters and was slaughtered. Those two positions are based in faith, more than anything (It goes far beyond opinion).
To shut down a board because some people cannot stomach other peoples POV is childish. If you cannot handle the postings, don't come to this grown up discussion site...go to a disney site, or go to a "one-sided-discussion" site, where you will never have to hear a dissenting opinion that will offend your delicate senses, EVEN THOUGH THOSE IDEAS EXIST.
If you do not pay attention to those ideas, they can come back to haunt you. You should try and remain aware of them as much as you can.
To me, the spirit of INDYMEDIA depends on the parts of the word: INDY (independant and, thus, not bound by RULES of the conventional), and media (self explanitory).
If you want to start imposing editorial rules, dude, then you are the problem.
George
by American Citizen
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 7:15 AM
George, you've never struck me as terribly bright, but your inability to distinguish the US from Israel is very confusing.
On-topic
by Evan W., Imperial Editor
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 8:05 AM
Hey, folks. Can we please, *pretty please*, at least keep this discussion on topic?
RE: To the editors
by paleskin
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 9:35 AM
This paleskin isn't the commentator of multiple nicknames that you claim, nor have I ever called for Irving to be banished from this IMC.
In fact, I have been perhaps Irving's most ardent critic and have relished the opportunity to expose his hatred for all to see.
American Citizen
by George K.
Wednesday, Jan. 07, 2004 at 11:27 AM
dodgerambler@yahoo.com
American Citizen...I am likely far "brighter", smarter, and wiser than thou. For example, I reamined pretty much on topic for this particular thread. I recognize that this area is meant for free expression of ideas, and I utilize it as such. Free expression of ideas means, at its most basic, permitting expression of *all* points of view to be heard.
So, you resort to the tired tactic of diversion to draw the discussion away from the question originally posed: should the comment boards be closed down?
It is you who are small-minded and easily distracted.
As for the distinction between the US and Israel...these two countries are bound by government, faith, and long-term goals. Explain why they should NOT be bound together.
That is a topic for another thread, though.
Just ignore them.
by Sam
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2004 at 3:19 AM
Don't feed the trolls.
"The Sad Decline of Indymedia"
by Sam
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2004 at 3:29 AM
(Note: This article was written by Chuck Munson of Mid-Atlantic Infoshop. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but it's a decent article on the topic of IndyMedia editorial policy nonetheless.)
It was a great idea when the Independent Media Center opened up its first website for the Seattle anti-WTO protests in December 1999. The first IMC website came out of years of alternative and grassroots media activism. By a strange quirk of fate, the Seattle IMC also included something called the "open newswire," an experiment that allowed every reader to be a reporter, if they wanted to get involved in DIY, participatory media production. The IMC network recently observed its 3rd anniversary and the 100th IMC went online, but the IMC project is facing some serious problems which, if they aren't addressed by the supporters of the IMC network, will eventually destroy the wonderful idea that is Indymedia.
There are some that would argue that the Indymedia network needs a stronger organization to address its current and persistent problems. This may be somewhat true, but those of us who have pressed for reforms find ourselves at the mercy of a network of people who are afraid to step forward and make tough decisions. It might help if there were some more organized processes, but I see the chief problem with Indymedia these days to be a political one, not an organizational or technical problem.
The IMC Network has a statement of principles and so do most local IMCs. However, the political orientation of the IMC has never been firmly established. Other IMC volunteers and myself have strongly argued for a series of regional IMC meetings and conventions to resolve these questions. The problems with the IMC's vague politics is not so much what ideology it should embrace, rather what ideologies and content the IMC Network rejects and opposes. This vagueness on politics has allowed an international network of right wingers and racists to abuse and disrupt the IMC websites, which has harmed the IMC's functionality and reputation in ways that may not be fixable without stepping on lots of toes.
If you are a regular visitor to the IMC-Global website (http://www.indymedia.org), you may have noticed some big changes earlier this year. The "open" newswire was moved off the front page for a variety of reasons. The most diplomatic reason was that many felt that the features being created by local IMCs should be featured on the Global website. This was a solid idea and should have been implemented despite the other reasons. The messier reason why the open newsire was relocated was because the IMC Global volunteers were fighting a losing campaign against right wing disruption of the website. This disruption aimed to establish "free speech" space on the Indymedia websites for right wing views and racist posts--the people doing this knew that the liberal free speech attitudes of most IMC volunteers would paralyze them from implementing consistent moderation. This right wing attack also included the posting of constant anti-semitic content, right wing op-eds and articles (carefully stripped of their source infromation), conspiracy theories, and other crap designed to ruin the reputation of the Independent Media Network.
I was part of the IMC Global Newswire collective during this period and made proposals concerning a process to deal with this problems. I also painstakenly documented the attack patterns by the right wingers and showed that certain individuals were posting similar content at the same time to various IMCs. This campaign by our enemies was successful because the IMC volunteers refused to implement aggressive moderation and otherwise dragged their feet until the changes were made earlier this year.
What did we lose when the right-wingers won? First, we lost the Indymedia network as a public space for our activists. If you remember what the IMC websites were like in the year after Seattle, you will remember them as places where activists came together to talk about issues. After the right wingers had their way for a year, you would commonly hear activists complain about Indymedia and say that they didn't bother with Indymedia anymore.
Secondly, the inability of the IMC network to take aggresive action against racist and anti-semitic posts further damaged the Indymedia's reputation with Jewish people and people of color. We understand that some pro-Israel extremists think that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, but the IMC network became a hotbed of just plain anti-Jewish articles, opinions, and comments. Part of the problem within the IMC network is that most activists refused to stand up to the free speech totalitarians within the network, who argued that everything posted should stay visible to the public. I've been a free speech advocate for many years and often considered myself to be a free speech zealot, but not even I would argue that our websites should provide any space for right wing and racist views. The racists have their websites--we don't need to use our limited resources to promote their hideous and offensive views.
The net result of this inaction is that racist and anti-semitic views became normalized on Indymedia websites. Sure, newswire moderators would remove the occasional racist rant or picture, but lots of stuff was left online. This normalization of racist content showed the racists and right wingers that they could have their way with Indymedia. It also alienated lots of potential Indymedia supporters. Why should a Jewish activist participate in an alternative media project that tolerates hate speech against that person?
I'm also convinced that the right wing posted lots of conspiracy content to ruin the repuation of Indymedia. I have no problem with the occasional conspiracy-type article posted to an IMC website, but I think there was good circumstantial evidence that the right wing was posted conspiracy content with the aim of damaging the reputation of Indymedia, not just in the eyes of the public, but in the eyes of the chief stakeholders: the activist community (and movements).
I still remain a big supporter of the Indymedia project. The Indymedia project has become a revolutionary force that has greatly empowered DIY journalists, rank-and-file activists, and average working people. This essay is not meant to criticize IMC volunteers, rather to call out to supporters of alternative media projects to speak up and demand that the IMC make some tough decisions to address these vexing and persistent problems. The Indymedia project has great potential. Let's not throw out the baby with bathwater in our efforts not to step on toes.
Dodgerambler
by Sam
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2004 at 4:36 AM
"Independent" does not mean "without rules". Indeed, without rules, independent media outlets are even more likely to become dependent upon the status quo and the dominant ideology.
To Sam, Mary and Others
by Ewan Kenkesmearse
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2004 at 4:50 AM
Open means fewer rules, other than common decency of discussion, which we can not regulate. Keep it open, keep it free. To remove the comments all together is not at all unlike unleashing the Killer Cookie Tool on everyone in order to preserve a singular monolithic discussion tone and content. Do not fall into the circle of decline and doom that other IMC's have given in to. We all know that Irving is a prime example of the rude and closed minded flawed personality that dominates the political right. We do not need an IMC Iron Curtain of Thought to protect us from the Irvings of the world.
I voted "no" at last week's meeting, and I still vote "no" on Proposition 1.
my dear Ewan
by Irving
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2004 at 7:16 AM
Sorry, I'm short on dialog today.
How about a karmic hug instead?
I disagree part 2
by paleskin
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2004 at 9:50 AM
arthurhuiq.gif, image/gif, 674x958
I forgot to mention that the RACIAL IQ list devised by Arthur Hu -- the fellow Bo Sears writes to in one of his letters (see above)
It's a very interesting chart placing various racial stereotypes along an IQ chart, with the bottom positions occupied by the "Borderline Retarded"
and "Black Delinquents" and the top positions by the "Above Superior" and "White/Asian MIT".
Still think Irving is a fine fellow?
216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:DLDFHqfFyW8J:www.christianparty.net/iq.htm+%22A...
I disagree part 1
by paleskin
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2004 at 9:56 AM
Oops, it would help if you first read "I disagree part 1" which is posted under the thread "Removing Irving's Hood."
Part 1 explains the philosophical foundation of Irving's hatred.
pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/12057_comment.php#12116
The IQ Table
by M. Evans
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2004 at 12:04 PM
mwevans1234@hotmail.com
If you adjust for socioeconomic status on that IQ table, everything equals out. I wrote my senior thesis on the phenomenon between IQ and race and found there to be no causal effect. Strong relationships exist, however, between family wealth and race. They also exist between family wealth and IQ. I'm not arguing with anyone, but I just happened across that table this afternoon and was just trying to make sure no one thinks that one race is inherently superior to another.
What?
by paleskin
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2004 at 2:34 PM
I do agree with the sentiment about race being a non-factor in the genetically derived component of intelligence. However Arthur's table is clearly meant to portray African Americans as intellectually inferior to Whites. Of the 14 groups listed as less intelligent than "Koko the Gorilla," 11 are African or African American, one is Caucasian American, and two are generic (Dull Normal and Borderline Retarded).
Now consider what Arthur Hu has to say about genetics, intellectual ability, and adoption:
"It is commonly assumed that adoption studies have proven that IQ is not connected to race. Not so. Studies in cited in the Bell Curve and Jensens 1998 G Factor indicated that adopted children still do worse (black) or better (Asian) than adopted whites. Adoption helps IQ, but Asian children do better than white children, who do better than black children, and IQ's resemble group averages as they reach adult age."
In case you missed in, Arthur Hu cited the infamous work of Arthur Jensen which is most often accpeted by those interested in eugenics. However with the advances in molecular biology, such as genome mapping, this ascertions of Jensen have been shown to be scientificall unfounded:
Volume 348:1166-1170
March 20, 2003
Number 12
Race and Genomics
Richard S. Cooper, M.D., Jay S. Kaufman, Ph.D., and Ryk Ward, Ph.D.
...Since we do not know about the genetic variants that predispose persons to common chronic diseases, one might assume that arguments for the existence of genetic predispositions would be made for all population groups equally. THE REALITY IS VERY DIFFERENT. Minority groups, particularly blacks in the United States, are assumed to be genetically predisposed to virtually all common chronic diseases.17,18,19,20,22,23,24,25,26 Genes are regularly proposed as the cause when no genetic data have been obtained, and the social and biologic factors remain hopelessly confounded.23,24,25,26 Even when molecular data are collected, causal arguments are based on NONSIGNIFICANT FINDINGS or genetic variation that does not have an established association with the disease being studied.19,20,22 COINCIDENCE is not a plausible explanation of the widespread occurrence of this practice over time and across subdisciplines. The correlation between the use of USUPOPORTED genetic inferences and the social standing of a group is GLARING EVIDENCE OF BIAS and demonstrates how RACE is used both to categorize and to rank order subpopulations.27,28
Not only are the relevant genetic data ABSENT, but the distribution of POLGENIC PHENOTYPES DOES NOT SUGGEST that race is a useful category. Consider as an example height, a continuous trait that is highly heritable in all populations. Does continental race tell us something useful about average height? People who attain both the tallest stature (the Masai) and the shortest (the Biaka) are found in sub-Saharan Africa; Swedish people have traditionally been much taller than Sicilians; and although Japanese people used to be short, the current generation of children in Japan cannot fit in the desks in schools. The concept of race does not summarize this information effectively. If that complexity is multiplied by THOUSANDS OF TRAITS, which are RANDOMLY DISTRIBUTED among groups within continents, one gets an idea of the LIMITATIONS of race as a classification scheme....
..The ability to catalogue molecular variants in persons and populations has thrust genetics into a new relationship with society. Interpreting that catalogue within the existing framework of race, as was done in the case of EUGENICS, VIOLATES the principles that give science its unique status as a force outside the social hierarchy, one that does not take sides in factional contests.
www.medical-journals.com/r03race.htm
hook, line, and sinker
by Irving
Friday, Jan. 09, 2004 at 8:35 AM
paleskin feel for my bait even more than I'd hoped. Went right after Sears.
This same berserk paleskin didn't in the least acknowledge the blatantly racist study of Jennifer Richeson.
Such credibility a DiversiNazi has.
Pot, meet kettle.
You have no factual evidence
by paleskin
Friday, Jan. 09, 2004 at 9:51 AM
I have given you scientific evidence (published in the New England Journal of Medicine) that clear demonstrates that the Arthur Jensen studies of Race & IQ has no factual genetic basis as evidenced by the Human Genome.
In contrast, all you have done with the Richeson study is to state your opinion, over and over, often with hate-filled insults.
So please, do us all a courtesy and cite your published scientific evidence which refutes the methodology and conclusions of the Richeson/Darthmouth group -- funded by the National Science Foundation and the Rockefeller Center and published in the journal Nature Neuroscience
kettle speaks to pot
by Irving
Friday, Jan. 09, 2004 at 10:32 AM
Richeson is a Race Nazi, and so is an obsessive like you. You have yet to acknowledge the bias of her "study" or the fact a Klansman, a leftist, a liberal, is in the Senate of the United States. You also push multi-culti mental illness. You do your kind such favors by painting them with such a broad brush, that they're forever victims of the White Man, (how racist). People like you imply that all are weak, unable to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And when they do, they're ridiculed, like Rice, Powell, Peterson, Sowell, Elder, Williams, etc.
You're a plantation owner, paleskin. You keep reminding us that certain classes are too stupid to make it on their own without legislation and force.
Hide behind the Bill of Rights, Little Precious. You're still a Race Nazi.
Where's your factual evidence?
by paleskin
Friday, Jan. 09, 2004 at 11:02 AM
Please, do us all a courtesy and cite your published scientific evidence which refutes the methodology and conclusions of the Richeson/Darthmouth group -- funded by the National Science Foundation and the Rockefeller Center and published in the journal Nature Neuroscience.
I bet you can't.
no, little precious
by Irving
Friday, Jan. 09, 2004 at 11:48 AM
The burden is on you to defend the methodology of a racist funded by holdovers of the Clinton Administration.
The burden on you is to explain why it was scientifically sound to use whites only, instead of a mixture of people, as millions have also questioned.
The burden is on you, and we won't demand that you have a diploma signed by a biased Leftist professor either. We'll allow your common sense and logic and intuition only, free of the excess baggage of subconscious approval of university elitists that wish for a Million Mogadisu's. (Intellectuals don't exist, unless you believe they do. And isn't elitism racist anyway?).
The Scientific Method
by paleskin
Friday, Jan. 09, 2004 at 12:10 PM
You obviously don't understand the principles of Science.
Once a paper has been submitted for peer review (meaning published), it is then up to the scientific community at-large to present counter-evidence if they wish to dispute the findings.
Okay, so it's obvious your not a scientist, but now that you know how the process works, let's hear your evidence.
what's obvious about scoundrels
by Irving
Friday, Jan. 09, 2004 at 2:02 PM
"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side', I calmly say 'Your child belongs to us already. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'"
- Adolf Hitler, 1939
James Madison Explains the Constitution to Thomas Jefferson
by paleskin
Friday, Jan. 09, 2004 at 2:10 PM
Excerpted from letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 24, 1787 (Madison 1865, I, pages 343 to 357)
You will herewith receive the result of the Convention, which continued its session till the 17th of September. I take the liberty of making some observations on the subject, which will help to make up a letter, if they should answer no other purpose.
It appeared to be the SINCERE and UNANIMOUS wish of the Convention to cherish and preserve the Union of the States. No proposition was made, no suggestion was thrown out, in favor of a partition of the Empire into two or more Confederacies.
It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of Sovereign States. A VOLUNTARY observance of the FEDERAL law by all the members could NEVER be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent and guilty, the necessity of a military force, both obnoxious and dangerous, and, in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war than the administration of a regular Government.
Hence was embraced the ALTERNATIVE of a Government which, instead of operating on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence the change in the principle and proportion of representation.
This ground-work being laid, the great objects which presented themselves were: 1. To unite a proper energy in the Executive, and a proper stability in the Legislative departments, with the essential characters of Republican Government. 2. To draw a line of demarkation which would give to the General Government every power requisite for general purposes, and leave to the States every power which might be most beneficially administered by them. 3. To provide for the different interests of different parts of the Union. 4. To adjust the clashing pretensions of the large and small States. Each of these objects was pregnant with difficulties. The whole of them together formed a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it. Adding to these considerations the NATURAL DIVERSITY of human opinions on all new and complicated subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle...
...If, then, there must be DIFFERENT INTERESTS and parties in society, and a majority, when united by a common interest or passion, cannot be restrained from OPPRESSING THE MINORITY, what remedy can be found in a republican Government, where the majority must ultimately decide, but that of giving such an extent to its sphere, that no common interest or passion will be likely to unite a majority of the whole number in an unjust pursuit? In a large society, the people are broken into so many interests and parties, that a common sentiment is less likely to be felt, and the requisite concert less likely to be formed, by a majority of the whole. The same security seems requisite for the CIVIL as for the RELIGOUS RIGHTS of individuals. If the same sect form a majority, and have the power, other sects will be sure to be depressed. DIVIDE ET IMPERIA, the reprobated axiom of tyranny is, under certain qualifications, the ONLY POLICY by which a republic can be administered on JUST PRINCIPLES.
www.jmu.edu/madison/ratification/madexpcontojeff.htm
what the Race Nazi wants
by Irving
Friday, Jan. 09, 2004 at 2:26 PM
"A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent and guilty, the necessity of a military force, both obnoxious and dangerous, and, in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war than the administration of a regular Government."
Why do you hate James Madison and the Constitution?
by paleskin
Friday, Jan. 09, 2004 at 3:11 PM
In the interest of clarity, please answer these questions based on the ascertions of James Madison, co-author of the Constitution. 1. "If, then, there must be different interests and parties in society, and a majority, when united by a common interest or passion, cannot be restrained from oppressing the minority."
2. "In a large society, the people are broken into so many interests and parties, that a common sentiment is less likely to be felt, and the requisite concert less likely to be formed, by a majority of the whole."
3. "If the same sect form a majority, and have the power, other sects will be sure to be depressed."
4. "Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny is, under certain qualifications, the only policy by which a republic can be administered on just principles."
|
a question about Thurmond
by reese
Sunday, Jan. 11, 2004 at 10:48 AM
Wasn't Thurmond a democrat until the '60s?
a question about Thurmond
by reese
Sunday, Jan. 11, 2004 at 10:48 AM
Wasn't Thurmond a democrat until the '60s?
Test
by test
Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2004 at 9:14 AM
test comment
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)