> > > You seem to flip flop like a fish out of water.
> > I have to disagree with you there, as, you see, I never said anything
> > my viewpoints on exclusively black organizations, and did indeed come to
> > this conclusion on my own. Sorry to disappoint you, but you've had no
> > influence on my thinking whatsoever.
> What you said is a matter of public record, and impossible for you to
>refute, since anyone chronologically reading the messages will be able to
>to their own conclusions. Although your grammar and spelling are slightly
>better, intellectually you seem only slightly improved over "Jeff". :o/
I only wish I could be as hilariously ignorant as Jeff is; it would make
things a lot more fun, I'll tell you.
And you've really had absolutely no influence over my feelings about racism
-- either that perpetrated by whites or by minorities. I defy you to name
one single thing which I have actually refuted, as opposed to the
presuppositions of yours which I've shattered with my alleged
> > > What do you think of the fact that negroes have racial
> > >such as the NAACP, Rainbow coalition, and the UNCF,
> > I think, as I'm sure you do, that it's outrageous and racist for such
> > to exist and for whites-only organizations not to. That's the climate of
> > world today; I had nothing to do with it.
> You don't stand forward and say "I am caucasian, and caucasian, along
>with asian people built and created everything we have, very little was
>contributed by the negro, regardless what revisionist historians claim".
>the one doing that, not you. You spout obscenities at my "racism" then
>agree with my "racist" comments, this constitutes a flip flop.
I agree with many of the ideas you have put forth ABOUT racism, but I still
do not agree with those ideas which I denounced as racist. I have always
considered unfair the racism of both black and white groups in America. I
never "flip-flopped" -- you just assumed that I felt certain ways about
racist black groups simply because I found you to be a racist person.
> One thing is clear, I have made you think, and I've influenced your
>opinion on the licit racism of the negroes. You may claim I'm not an
>upon you, but clearly I am. :o)
Go on thinking that, but no matter how much you think it, it'll never be
> > > I agree, I simply want to increase the intelligence level of
> > >and the USA by taking all the negroes we have here, and sending them
> > >Africa. The average IQ in both Africa _and_ in the USA would INCREASE!
> > The average IQ of a country does not matter -- to suggest so is
> > and only serves as a weak argument for your racist point.
> If it were not for the intelligent, specifically those of German
>heritage who (among many things which has changed your life) created the
>Bomb for the USA example, you might not be here, or you might be a slave of
>Japanese Empire, or working in a nazi industrial slave camp (as an
>Thus you are incorrect regarding the importance of intelligence. There are
>countless other examples why you should be damn glad you live in the USA,
>our freedoms are currently being eroded, and at an ever increasing pace.
I never questioned the importance of intelligence; clearly intelligence is
an important factor in the advancements that humans have made in the past.
What I called into question was the importance of "national IQ", as you put
it -- the idea that the OVERALL IQ of a country (Africa and the USA, in this
case) was important. The IQs of individuals are indeed very important, but
your IQ doesn't change simply because of a change in geography.
> > What matters in
> > this country is personal freedom and the idea that all men are created
> Negroes were not considered men, but rather farm animals, or property.
>When the Constitution was written, the framers never considered that they
>need to specify that negroes were excluded from the Constitution. They
>was clear to anyone, by just looking that them, that they were more aligned
>with the barnyard horse, or the plow mule, than with man.
I fully agree with this statement, that the early founders of our country
did not indeed consider negroes as men while drafting the constitution. But
the constitution is based on the idea of elasticity, that the government can
change with the changing climate of the people -- this is why we have
amendments. The people of the USA generally consider negroes to be human
beings today; therefore, the fundamental rights put forward in the
constitution SHOULD apply to them.
> > (I know that this isn't how the government really operates, but it's the
> > ideal we're supposed to be striving for in the USA, and I stand by it.
> > a good ideal).
> The rich have always been more free than the poor, it's the same
>regardless where you live. You have two options, be extremely rich to
>above-the-law freedoms, or be extremely poor (and ignored by the system).
You have my absolute full agreement on this; I never denied that.
> > To cart all blacks off to Africa is completely against these
> > ideas. If they wanted to go to Africa, they'd go of their own accord. It
> Abraham Lincoln disagreed with that logic. "Why should they leave this
>country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You
>we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists
>between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need
>discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both,
>think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us,
>ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this
>admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated." Abraham
>Lincoln; New York Daily Tribune, (August 15, 1862)
I never said that Lincoln was some sort of saint. Most of the people who
consider Lincoln as some messiah for the black people are simply
undereducated and misunderstanding of history. I never put Lincoln on a
pedestal, and I have always believed that Lincoln was something of a
hypocrite. The abolition of slavery only entered the war as a political
stroke -- it had nothing to do with Lincoln's personal feelings.
Furthermore, many of the black slaves of America were not so far removed
from their original tribes at that time -- it would have been much easier
for them to relocate to their homeland (and many of them did indeed do
that). However, over these past 141 years since Lincoln made that statement,
much has changed about the culture of the black people of America, and many
of them certainly could not cope with forced relocation to a primitive land.
> Daniel, aren't you starting to feel rather foolish, that you are
>becoming the academic equate to the religious zealot "Jeff"? You will rue
>day you decided to match wits with the likes of me. ;o)
Jeff's main argument centers around fellatio, James. I have much more
logical points. Even you can see that.
> > would be tantamount to returning to the slavery. And, furthermore, most
> > the blacks in this country (especially the middle- and upper-class ones)
> > would be unable to live in a place like Africa.
> They may enjoy too much the preferential treatment they receive here,
>something they would NOT receive in the negro-dominant africa. However, if
>they have the desire, they could do as the educated robert mugabe did, and
>become dictator over one of the nations, and live as kings in luxury, away
>europe, while their people back home starve. Sounds like opportunity to
You can't possibly believe that that's a good idea.
> > If you mean to suggest that
> > they should be sent back to the tribes they originated at, then you're
> > completely rediculous.
> Thanks to christianity, tribes don't exist anymore, a 3rd world shanty
>village where natives wear american good will clothing, and live in sheet
>shacks exists where the primitive villages used to stand. Most of africa
>indistinguishable from "the projects" in most larger cities.
There are still many undeveloped areas of Africa. They certainly are
dwindling, but they're there.
> > There's too much distance between the blacks of
> > America and the blacks of Africa (though judging from the way many of
> > dress and act and name their children, you wouldn't think so).
> I agree, they still have their jungle/tribal instincts intact. Funny
>how you start out the sentence above, then refute your own words at the
I was making a dig at the rediculous fake African culture of many of the
black people today trying to get back to their roots. It would be like me
wearing loincloths and changing my name to Running Wolf simply because I am
of a pretty good part American Indian descent. (Not Native American, mind
you -- that's simply the sickening label of white politically correct
And doesn't it make you look pretty presumptuous, assuming that I am
predominantly white? I'm quite a mutt, only part of which is anglo-saxan.
> > It would be
> > like placing you in a Germanic tribe thousands of years ago and
> > you to cope. It doesn't work.
> I'd quickly take over and rule, and rapidly bring them up to speed. As
>I said before, I'm a leader, it's what I do. Now follow or get out of my
Now you're just being rediculous. First of all, you would not be able to
speak the language, you'd be dressed in (what they would consider)
rediculous clothing, and you would not be accepted by the group to begin
with, let alone become their leader.
> > And if you mean to suggest that we should send them to the civilized
> > of Africa, then what's the point? Why send them to Africa at all? Why
> > Europe, or Asia? Why not Australia? What makes Africa so special in this
> > respect?
> Because I don't think any of us here hate Europe, Asia or Australia
>that much to give them "our negro problem". Well, some would suggest we
>them to France, who is already suffering because of the influx of w.
>with the resultant increase in crime and rape cases. Now I'm sure you're
>chuckling at this reasoning, because it is funny, but it wasn't intended to
I don't see any "negro problem" in America, but that's just my opinion.
> > > "there is nothing more painful to me . . . than to walk down
> > > the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about
> > > robbery--then look around and see somebody white and feel
> > > relieved." -- Jesse Jackson
> > > http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ls/ls-08.htm
> > Actually, I live very close to an urban area frequented by gangs
> > comprised mostly of Cambodian immigrants, not blacks), and I have often
> > entered ghettos in the middle of the night. I have been nervous, at
> > but only in areas which I knew for a fact had gangs, and only because I
> > they had gangs. I have nothing against black people; I can easily turn
> > back on them and feel perfectly safe. I'm not a racist; I only feel
> > threatened by established, true threats, be they minorities or
> The first time you are vicimized by one of them, you'll change your
>mind. You're more racist than you think, read your own words. As for me,
>never trust those subhuman beasts, nor do I turn my back on them.
I am not racist, I'm simply blunt. It's certainly true that there are
minority gangs in America; I won't deny that. However, there are white
gangs, too. It's more of a problem of poverty culture than racial culture.
> > > I wear my kookdom as a badge of honor. I am not like you, in
> > >according to statistics, if you line up six million (6,000,000) people,
> > >would have the highest IQ of all of them (on average). I am a leader,
> > >strong and firm in my beliefs. I am a Scientist, anything which you
> > Now, you see, you place yourself above me, and yet you know very little
> > about me. You assume that my IQ is far below yours (and, if your
> > self-analysis is in fact true, statistically I probably would be). But
> > fact of the matter is, I'm not so sorry to say, I was tested (with a
> > state-approved IQ test) to be in the top one-millonth percentile of all
> > people. There are very few people in this world with equal or greater
> > intelligence to mine. You really don't know who you're dealing with.
> Oh, it is MORE than evident who I am dealing with. Just the high
>concentration of misspelled words [more so in your previous] messages is
Now, I find very few to no misspelled words in my messages; maybe I'm simply
missing them, but I highly doubt that. Please point out specific examples.
>I have no idea what you mean by a "state
>approved IQ test", do you mean college aptitude test?
By "state approved IQ test", I'm referring to an IQ test administered by a
state-approved psychologist. It's much easier when dealing with the
unintelligent to simplify my terminology.
> > Furthermore, I have to take issue with this 232 IQ you speak of, as 232
> > would be much higher than the percentile you claim to be in -- somewhere
> > around the 99.999999999999999999 percentile, you jackass.
> I hope you can clearly see how you are becoming the academic equate to
>the zealot "Jeff" inasmuch as you insist on calling me jackass, asshole,
>forth, REPEATEDLY in our conversations. When have I once resorted to such
>antisocial behavior? Perhaps it's because I don't need to, because YOU do
I find it entertaining to use "antisocial behavior".
It's fun, dumbsh*t, that's all. I'm not intimidated, I'm entertained.
Are you having fun, James? Because I'm certainly having LOADS of fun. No,
seriously, I am.
>It is clear to all _exactly_ what you are, and the simple fact
>that you do not seem to know there are TWO accepted scales used for IQ, the
>Stanford-Binet (for those near normal IQ) and the Cattell (reserved for
>of genius IQ) suggests you are probably a liar. My IQ places me (exactly)
>the 99.99999809636012 percentile (FYI). My Cattell score is 232, and my
>Stanford-Binet score is 188. There are only 114 people alive who have
>equal or greater than I. Beyond the fact you resorted to name calling, the
>fact you did not know this fact speaks volumes. Had you even bothered to
>research (using the search engine ON THE SITE) you would have had your
>Probably your greatest handicap is your inability to perform research.
I did indeed know that there were two accepted IQ scales, but felt very
little need to discuss such things with jackasses who I don't believe in the
Yes, you're a jackass. And I don't believe that 232 one bit.
> > It would be
> > completely off the charts; certainly not down at 99.99999 that would
> > with being more intelligent than the average six million people.
> The one in six million claim is for anyone in the MENSA category of
>"top 1000" of which I am. To be in the top 1000, you need to score 182 or
>higher on the Stanford-Binet exam (Cattell=223). To use that figure is a
>more modest, since I am rather fond of the idea of our grouping. If you
>calculate my rarity based upon my _actual_ score, I am _exactly_ one in
>52,530,944 for what that's worth, placing me in the middle between the
>chess player who ever lived (Bobby Fischer - IQ=180) and the smartest man
>the USA (Chris Langan - IQ=195) [both based upon the Stanford-Binet].
References, sir. I need proof before I'll consider believing your story.
> > There must
> > be some miscommunication on your part. Or maybe good old-fashioned
> > find that more credible, out of a guy who suggests carting all negroes
> > to Africa is a good idea.
> The fact you did not know that scores < 200 are based on the
>Stanford-Binet scale, and those > 200 are on the Cattell scale tells me
>everything that I need to know. You probably have never tested your IQ,
>based upon your logic displayed thus far, I'd guess your IQ to be above
>but less than 120, and certainly less than the MENSA entrance requirement
>132 (top 2%). As for my solution to the negro problem, I did not invent
>idea of returning them from whence they came, Lincoln (their savior) did!
I am a MEMBER of MENSA, jackass, so I'll have to assume that you have a
complete inability to seperate fact from your own ludicrous reality.
And I never said that Lincoln was their savior; you just assumed that I felt
> > > As for my influence in atheism, you'll find I'm on the fringe.
> > >atheists agree with me in secret, but reject most of my opinions (only)
> > >public. They do this because they are weak.
> > I'm quite glad that you have so little influence on atheism. It should
> > that way. I know many fine atheists, and none are as terrible human
> > as you are. And furthermore, most of them sound much more intelligent.
> Don't get me wrong, most atheists agree with me in private, in secret,
>but for SOCIAL reasons, don't espouse on such beliefs in mixed company.
Really? Because ALL of my atheist friends who have seen your website have
proclaimed your ideas along the lines of "ignorant", "bizzare", and, let's
just say, "kookish".
> > Keep responding; my friends and I are having a good laugh at your
> I doubt you'll let them read this message, because it exposes your
>[probable] lies so exquisitely, but if you do, it should make them question
>your academic claims (at the very minimum).
I've posted all of your messages onto my personal weblog (I'd give you the
address, but you already know too much [e.g. absolutely nothing] about me).
>You remind me of this fellow I met
>at a party once, I was the guest of my girlfriend, and most of the people
>were people she worked with. I had not boasted at all, but made small-talk
>with people she introduced me to, conversing with them at length on their
>chosen subjects (I can talk with just about anyone on just about any
I find that hard to believe.
>Then I met the loud mouth. You remind me of him. ;o) He was boasting
>how good he was at chess, and how smart he was, and how he was a member of
>MENSA, so I asked him, "Where is your MENSA lapel pin"? He said, "Oh, I
>wear it, I didn't want to make anyone feel inferior" or something similarly
>revolting. So that's when I decided to break my promise with my
>simply get along, and to play nice, and begin to seriously berate this
>I asked him, "what color is the pin?" and he said he didn't remember. I
>"Funny, I remember the color of my lapel pin", and he got a funny look on
My pin is yellow and black, by the way.
>face. I then produced a pen and paper, and asked him to draw a picture of
>Mensa logo, and assured him that I didn't care if it was imperfect. He
>refused, citing that he couldn't remember. Needless to say, it went down
>from there, and my poor gf wished she could crawl into a hole and die. I
>never invited back to any future parties. ;o) Eventually my arrogance,
>intelligence played a significant role in her dumping me for (surprisingly)
>rather low-brow unintellectual man. :o/ I never can figure out women.
Maybe it was your jackassedness, to invent a word which fits you well. I
know if I were a woman, I'd never want anything to do with you.
Actually, you remind me of a former friend of mine, as well. He was a very
unlikeable fellow; never bathed, made bizarre references to things he knew
nothing about and thought he did, and confronted everybody about everything,
even when he didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I was perfectly
fine with the guy; he was an unlikeable fellow, but we got along fine. Then
he tried to rape my sister, and I kinda lost interest in being friends with
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what next jackassed comments you come up
with; we're all having a great laugh.
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*