The truth, the whole truth

[Bry]

I'm not sure this helps, Eric, but I can tell you that the IT corridor just in California directly employs in excess of 1,250,000. The next closest, in terms of employees is Peking, China, with 400,000 employees (to say nothing of their innovations). The US companies have thoroughly monopolized the technology, and the sector is dominated by a very few very big corporations. Just look at Microsoft. Who the hell could compete with that juggernaut? You remember the whole case about anti-competitive business practices that almost led to Microsoft being devided? Funny how that got swept under the rug. In terms of internet users, Europe actually beats the US, sending all that yummy money stateside (and a not insignificant chunk of it to Bill Gates' pocket.)

 

[eric]

You mean Micro$oft. Yes I am well aware of them. The company I run is an IT firm and we are forced to work with them on a daily basis.

 

[Bry]

One of the guys I teach English to (yes, even with my spelling as bad as it is) is in charge of the computers for the main Spanish language news syndicate in the world. He gave me the rundown on how Microsoft for years made their software free, and they used it not because it was better but because it was free. The competition got left in the dust or eaten, and suddenly Microsoft started charging usury prices to let companies continue using their software. Funny how market domination works.

 

[Bry]

This just in regarding the status of the truth, the whole truth, as reported in US media, which in this thread has been accused of deliberately focusing on the negative news stories in Iraq, at the expense of all the pretty and uplifting ones which, unfortunately, are carefully guarded by the "liberal media". Link is supplied, along with some choice quotes.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20031023/en_bpiep/pressunderreportswoundediniraq

E&P reported in July that while deaths in combat are often tallied by newspapers, the many non-combat troop deaths in Iraq are virtually ignored. It turns out that newspaper readers have also been shortchanged in getting a sense of the number of troops injured, in and out of battle.

Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely. (The tally is current as of Oct. 20.) Of this number, 1,590 were wounded in hostile action, and 337 from other causes. About 20% of the injured in Iraq have suffered severe brain injuries, and as many as 70% "had the potential for resulting in brain injury," according to an Oct. 16 article in The Boston Globe.

Current injury statistics were easily obtained by E&P through U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon (news - web sites), so getting the numbers is no longer a problem. According to Lawrence F. Kaplan, author of an article on injured troops in the Oct. 13 issue of The New Republic, this information has only recently been readily accessible. "Pentagon officials have rebuked public affairs officers who release casualty figures, and, until recently, U.S. Central Command did not regularly publicize the injured tally either," Kaplan wrote.

 

[halation]

I'm a newbie here, and have just finished reading this thread. Just a quick comment before I go to lunch.... Jim you are a fool. It is so OBVIOUS that you are a racist with no bearing in reality. You are also a blind patriot, to which America can do no wrong. Wow. Just another one of the millions of mindless conservative morons who think politics and life are like a fvcking football game. Wake up man, it's NOT.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by halation
I'm a newbie here, and have just finished reading this thread. Just a quick comment before I go to lunch.... Jim you are a fool. It is so OBVIOUS that you are a racist with no bearing in reality. You are also a blind patriot, to which America can do no wrong. Wow. Just another one of the millions of mindless conservative morons who think politics and life are like a fvcking football game. Wake up man, it's NOT.

Am I supposed to care that you called me a racist? LOL

I've basically admitted as much in more than one thread, so your report isn't any type of revelation. If not liking people that murder, terrorize, steal, cheat & abuse makes me racist, so be it. You welcome these people with open arms and we'll see just who the idiot is.

When did I say America could do no wrong? You admittedly read just one thread out of hundreds and you label me in such a way?

Please educate yourself and then return, dolt.

 

[dijetlo]

>>Please educate yourself and then return, dolt.<<

You forgot to say

"Welcome to the Board".

Excerpts from IAWN
>>It appears likely that some combination of malnutrition, disease, inbreeding, lack of education, lack of mental stimulation, lack of familiarity with abstract reasoning and so forth can keep people from reaching their genetic potential for IQ. <<

Why do blacks americans score lower on average than caucasian americans? I would pay close attention to the education/stimulation/abstract reasoning riff. You (maybe it was Jeff) sited this guys book on another thread, so I assumed you wouldn't mind me sourcing the excerpt.
Keep in mind, he's is not arguing why AAs' score lower on IQ tests than CAs', he's trying to defend the difference between AAs and Africans in general, since his thesis is that the genetic inferiority of blacks is what keeps africa poor. The problem he's trying to wallpaper over is that AAs' score so much higher on his curve then the Africans, and his particular brand of voodo can't account for it, not enough "Cream" in the AAs' coffee, if you catch my meaning. Funny, he doesn't point to the same reasons when comparing the lagging AA scores when compared to CAs', wonder why? Hardly seems...fair, does it?

On the subject of your quotes, one was an electrical engineer, one was an historian. Your arguing DNA strands, find a geneticist who has located the correlation your putting forward (HGP is complete, it shouldn't be hard to do) and I'll give your thesis a second thought.
Not only do I think your science is very weak on this topic (reliance on tests which are admittedly prone to error and bias being the first in my list of objections) I must question your judgement in wholeheartedly adopting a position that is so far beyond the pale of scientific and social norms as to be ridiculed as ignorance.
On the subject of Blacks and Whites in America, we are two races tied together by misery, joy, love, hate, blood and history and we will continue along this road together as long as their is an America. I can only urge to rethink your position or at least expand the scientific base by which you try to understand this problem. Otherwise....
Best of luck with the Titanic.

 

[jimnyc]

You forgot to say

"Welcome to the Board"

Thats reserved for those who enter in a different manner.

It appears likely that some combination of malnutrition, disease, inbreeding, lack of education, lack of mental stimulation, lack of familiarity with abstract reasoning and so forth can keep people from reaching their genetic potential for IQ.

And what would you say is the main reason that black people face these hurdles? It certainly doesn't change the facts though. I never stipulated why I thought they had lower IQ's, just that in fact the majority do. And I do believe that a lot of what is holding them back from advancing is their very own will. I get tired of hearing it's because "whitey" is holding them back.

Not only do I think your science is very weak on this topic (reliance on tests which are admittedly prone to error and bias being the first in my list of objections) I must question your judgement in wholeheartedly adopting a position that is so far beyond the pale of scientific and social norms as to be ridiculed as ignorance.

I'm far from ignorant on the topic. Plenty of studies have been taken and not all are biased. Every study will have a margin for error, but every study I have seen supports the facts - none to the contrary - not one. These studies have been performed by government agencies, colleges, the military & professional scientists. Call me ignorant for taking the time to read and presenting the facts.

Best of luck with the Titanic.

That's in direct contradiction to the supporting facts, it isn't my ship thats sinking!

 

[halation]

Am I supposed to care that you called me a racist? LOL

I've basically admitted as much in more than one thread, so your report isn't any type of revelation. If not liking people that murder, terrorize, steal, cheat & abuse makes me racist, so be it. You welcome these people with open arms and we'll see just who the idiot is.

When did I say America could do no wrong? You admittedly read just one thread out of hundreds and you label me in such a way?

Please educate yourself and then return, dolt.>>

Thanks, I have an education, thank god it wasn't where you got yours.

You know you SHOULD be ashamed that you are a racist. Basically, it's admitting ignorance. You don't have any relavant facts. None of your facts prove that white people are "superior" to black people genetically or intellectually.

You say that you don't like people who "murder, steal, cheat, and abuse". Well who does. Were you implying that only black people do these things. Do you really believe that?? Whites have done more than their share of those things, often in the name of Christ (and they still do).

Maybe I do need to read more of you posts before I judge all aspects of your seemingly slimy personality, "dolt" (did you have to look that one up?)

 

[Amras]

Maybe I do need to read more of you posts before I judge all aspects of your seemingly slimy personality, "dolt" (did you have to look that one up?)

I did :hail: . It's doltish to appear on a board and flame right away. Hey I even learned a new adjective

 

[jimnyc]

Thanks, I have an education, thank god it wasn't where you got yours.

Did they teach you there that "God" gets capitalized? I notice they left out the teachings of "simple instructions". Your post is extremely confusing since you couldn't figure out how to use the quote function.

You know you SHOULD be ashamed that you are a racist. Basically, it's admitting ignorance. You don't have any relavant facts. None of your facts prove that white people are "superior" to black people genetically or intellectually.

I'm not ashamed at all, but thanks for looking out for my best interest!

I suppose every study ever taken showing whites intellectually superior wasn't relevant enough for you. Care to show some studies proving the others wrong?

If a black man states "black athletes are better than whites in nearly every sport", is that racist? I believe that to be for the most part true, just wondering if this is a racist statement or not.

You say that you don't like people who "murder, steal, cheat, and abuse". Well who does. Were you implying that only black people do these things. Do you really believe that?? Whites have done more than their share of those things, often in the name of Christ (and they still do).

No, I didn't imply that "only" black people do these things. But, in America they are much more guilty of all the above. Sorry again for stating the facts. I have just as much disgust for anyone who does the crime, black or white.

Maybe I do need to read more of you posts before I judge all aspects of your seemingly slimy personality, "dolt" (did you have to look that one up?)

I'm glad you made it easy on me, I only needed to read one of your posts to get a grasp on your pathetic personality.

And no, I didn't need to look it up, simpleton.

 

[dijetlo]

>>"Welcome to the Board"
Thats reserved for those who enter in a different manner.<<
The quality of mercy is not strained.

>>And what would you say is the main reason that black people face these hurdles?<<
Some of it is the culture of black america. I would be the first to admit that. A good example is that though 20% of the population is african american, you wont find many boards that have that level of black representation. The reason is that though the CA culture exhalts rationale reasoned debate, generaly, the AA culture does not. This tendancy might play into the greater cognitive skills demonstrated by the IQ test, wouldn't you think? To argue with me you must understand my argument, you are therefor training yourself in reasoning and critical thinking (as am I).
>>It certainly doesn't change the facts though. I never stipulated why I thought they had lower IQ's, just that in fact the majority do.<<
So you prepared to specify that the variance in the scores is a result of cultural factors and not genetics?
>>. I must question your judgement in wholeheartedly adopting a position that is so far beyond the pale of scientific and social norms as to be ridiculed as ignorance.<<
>>I'm far from ignorant on the topic... Call me ignorant for taking the time to read and presenting the facts.<<
Disingenious Jimmy, I was very careful not to call you ignorant (and you read these posts to carefully not to have seen that so I'm callin' you for excessive B.S. ).
Not only would it be rude, it would also be untrue. I'm questioning your choice in adopting the tennents of an unproven theory, a theory that has a several anomolies it can't consistently account for (which in other sciences is proof enough your theory is wrong.)
>> I get tired of hearing it's because "whitey" is holding them back.<<
I hear it less and less with every generation, it just doesn't have the "cred" it once did in the black community. Most of the black people I meet on a daily basis are no more interested in my race than I am in theirs.

>>That's in direct contradiction to the supporting facts, it isn't my ship thats sinking!<<
Hmmmm, I guess time will tell.

I love the part where the author states that their is a 76% convergence of the data with his theory. 76% convergence in any hard science means your wrong, try again, unless you can come up with a consistent theory to explain the 24% divergence. He fails that test and to my mind his theory slides gracelessly into the pit of sophistry from whence it came.

P.S.: I aint takin' no crap about my spellin' neither, so don't start. In the (sorta) words of Ben Franklin, any man who can't think of three ways to spell a word aint go no imagination.

 

[dijetlo]

>>int go no imagination.<<
and my grammatar is jus' fine too so shut your damn mouth.

 

[dijetlo]

>> Hey I even learned a new adjective <<

Proving wrong the legion of english teachers who told your parents you were unteachable?

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by halation

Maybe I do need to read more of you posts before I judge all aspects of your seemingly slimy personality, "dolt" (did you have to look that one up?)

Excellent idea. I'm new as well and have found that doing a little research and countering him on facts is more effective/entertaining/infomative than calling each other names. He does occasionaly admit he is wrong if you can overcome his argument with data and has been known to submit facts, most of which are surprisingly difficult to refute. On this thread, he's smoke, I'm still waiting to hear his "genetic/cultural" response (did you hear the "click when he stepped down on the landmine?)
Just a note, I don't know him, except on this board, but I think it highly unlikely he had to look up dolt.

Yikes!!! Another lib, heh guys?

 

[jimnyc]

This thread has went completely off topic. I'll answer your post here, but after that I think we should continue in the chat forum.

Some of it is the culture of black america. I would be the first to admit that. A good example is that though 20% of the population is african american, you wont find many boards that have that level of black representation. The reason is that though the CA culture exhalts rationale reasoned debate, generaly, the AA culture does not. This tendancy might play into the greater cognitive skills demonstrated by the IQ test, wouldn't you think? To argue with me you must understand my argument, you are therefor training yourself in reasoning and critical thinking (as am I).

I'll agree with this.

So you prepared to specify that the variance in the scores is a result of cultural factors and not genetics?

Although my original blanket generalization stated "whites are intellectually superior to blacks", I'll admit I was referring to life in the USA. I didn't state so (although I believe the "fact" applies worldwide), so I'll give in on your reasoning for the poor countries that have less opportunities. Short of leaving the entire country, they don't have many options to increase their education, in or out of the classroom. I don't think this applies in the USA, but you can argue that region by region, city by city.

Disingenious Jimmy, I was very careful not to call you ignorant (and you read these posts to carefully not to have seen that so I'm callin' you for excessive B.S. ).
Not only would it be rude, it would also be untrue. I'm questioning your choice in adopting the tennents of an unproven theory, a theory that has a several anomolies it can't consistently account for (which in other sciences is proof enough your theory is wrong.)

You may call it BS, but most of what I posted was factual information. As with any study, there leaves room for interpretation. I don't buy that the theory is wrong. In another thread it was discussed how people with less money (crappier living style) or more apt to resort to crime. Would you agree that crime-lower intelligence is largely interrelated? My stance is that blacks have lower IQ's and higher crime rates. It is my belief, that in the USA, the lower IQ's of blacks is more attributable to their lack of drive and desire, rather than "not given the ability to succeed". Too many excuses and not enough pursuit to advance. It's been shown that many blacks resort to criminal actions at early stages of life when faced with adversity and poverty. Whites in similar circumstances have a much lower rate of crime. *See perfect example in other thread in chat forum about W.Va. - where the majority of folks are white and they have the highest unemployment rate in the country, poor living conditions, and one of the lowest rates of crime*

I hear it less and less with every generation, it just doesn't have the "cred" it once did in the black community. Most of the black people I meet on a daily basis are no more interested in my race than I am in theirs.

I'll admit that the "blame on whitey" has decreased, it still happens far too often. I can't find the study right now, but look for how many blacks cry foul and file suit when rightfully get fired from their positions in the corporate world. Too many times discrimination is applied when it has no bearing whatsoever. I can't tell you how many people I've come across that have kept their black employees employed, regardless of their performance, simply out of fear of a lawsuit.

I love the part where the author states that their is a 76% convergence of the data with his theory. 76% convergence in any hard science means your wrong, try again, unless you can come up with a consistent theory to explain the 24% divergence. He fails that test and to my mind his theory slides gracelessly into the pit of sophistry from whence it came.

I won't argue with these findings, but I think they are best applied when comparing countries through different cultures. I don't think they apply when comparing whites/blacks in the USA with similar surroundings and opportunities. Your point has been taken though, and taken as valid.

P.S.: I aint takin' no crap about my spellin' neither, so don't start. In the (sorta) words of Ben Franklin, any man who can't think of three ways to spell a word aint go no imagination.

And spelling corrections are also reserved for different members, those who come here with their immediate flaming and "I am always right" attitude, none of which you have shown.

Excellent idea. I'm new as well and have found that doing a little research and countering him on facts is more effective/entertaining/infomative than calling each other names. He does occasionaly admit he is wrong if you can overcome his argument with data and has been known to submit facts, most of which are surprisingly difficult to refute. On this thread, he's smoke, I'm still waiting to hear his "genetic/cultural" response (did you hear the "click when he stepped down on the landmine?)
Just a note, I don't know him, except on this board, but I think it highly unlikely he had to look up dolt.

I'll flame with the best of them, but it's rare that I'll jump into that arena unprovoked. I'm not claiming to be the voice of reason, but I'm open to opposing arguments!

I tend to do my own research before posting so I don't put my foot in my mouth. If my research is flawed and I'm proved 100% wrong, I will admit so and give complete credit to the person pointing out my errors. I'll occasionally "shoot from the hip" and throw out highly opinionated responses, and I usually get called out on them!

And no, I didn't need to look up dolt, nor did I need to look at a thesaurus to know that simpleton is a synonym.

 

[jimnyc]

I am going to go ahead and lock this thread. This doesn't mean I am not willing to hear replies. Anyone can feel free to copy and paste into a new thread in the chat section if they like. (General USA or the regular chat section will be fine)

I've stopped other users from going off topic in other forums, and I should be held to those same rules.