From: William Clark on 31 Jan 2010 12:19
Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 5:16�pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
> > In article <gj69m5hj5cm58a7rtc5ap1qtqglnhpd...(a)4ax.com>,
> > �Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:36:10 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr
> > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > > >Africans are very genetically diverse. There is more genetic variation
> > > >amongst Africans than all other humans combined, by a lot.
> > > It's interesting that East Africa produces world class long distance
> > > runners, and West Africa produces world class sprinters. � Even when
> > > those people have lived in American countries for generations.
> > > I wonder what characteristics would be best for golfing.
> > I think you will find that it is because it is East Africa that is more
> > mountainous (at least where people live) so running at altitude trains
> > those slow twitch muscles and aerobic capacity. I don't think it has as
> > much to do with genetics, as it does with tradition.
> No such thing as natural selection in Africa I suppose. This thing
> with sickle cell disease and malaria, just a spurious correlation.
And this has what to do with athletic performance? I see, absolutely
From: assimilate on 31 Jan 2010 12:19
On 30-Jan-2010, "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:
> > Besides, all foreign countries are full of "ethnic" people. Which ones
> > are you saying pull down the US numbers? Can't be Italians - they live
> > longer, and so to Hispanics in Spain. I get it - must be those pesky
> > African-Americans, Tut, tut.
> I am talking about statistics and facts. I crunched a few numbers. You
> talking about racism. What kind of scientist does that?
It can make him feel better about himself compared to the rest of us
knuckledragging racist americans! :->
From: kenpitts on 31 Jan 2010 12:31
On Jan 20, 9:45 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote:
> On 2010-01-20 22:03:52 -0500, Moderate said:
> > "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote in message
> >> On 2010-01-20 14:14:29 -0500, dene said:
> >>> "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:00:19 -0800, dene wrote:
> >>>>> "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> Dene, the majority of voting Americans voted for Obama's agenda a
> >>>>>> year ago. Their disapproval now is not over how far-reaching his
> >>>>>> agenda has been. They voted for it. They voted for SWEEPING CHANGE.
> >>>>>> Their disapproval is over how little the Dems have been able to get
> >>>>>> done with the obstructionist right standing in their way at every
> >>>>>> step, and how watered-down the health care bill has become.
> >>>>> So you are among the small number of loons who do not think Obama is
> >>>>> left enough. No surprise. He's surrounded himself with your types
> >>>>> and they are completely out of touch with the pulse of America.
> >>>>> Yes....America voted for change, but not change that involves big
> >>>>> government, higher taxes, bailouts, and deficits. America is voting
> >>>>> for change once again and this time, it will be liberal Dems who get
> >>>>> the boot, starting with Reid.
> >>>> I think Randy is right about this. People did vote for sweeping change,
> >>>> especially for things like genuine healthcare reform. But the reality of
> >>>> Washington is that you cannot get something without giving something
> >>>> else away, and inevitably legislation becomes clogged with pork and
> >>>> give-aways to special interests. The current healthcare reform bill has
> >>>> been watered down to the extent that nobody likes it.
> >>>> The issue is not Obama. The issue is systemic corruption and a
> >>>> government more beholden to special interest groups than it is to
> >>>> voters.
> >>> It's also too much, too quick. Reasonable steps can be taken >> systematically
> >>> to reform insurance, thereby dropping premiums. It's the one thing the
> >>> government can do...even the playing field all at once. For example, no
> >>> pre-ex underwriting.
> >>> I think Obama knew in advance about the back room deals to get the Senate
> >>> votes. It's how they play the game in Chicago.
> >>> -Greg
> >> It 's also how legislation gets done in Washington. Always has been..
> >> Randy
> > Then what was 'hope and change?'
> It's what the majority voted for.
> The fact that the Grand Obstructionist Party has managed to stop the
> change agenda in its tracks is a poor testimony on the ability of
> Congressional Dems. Says very little about Obama.
> Randy- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
How do you explain Republican victories in Virginia, New Jersey and
From: William Clark on 31 Jan 2010 12:33
In article <7skin0FknlU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message
> On Jan 29, 2:56 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote:
> > "William Clark" <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
> > I suppose it has something to do with the ethic percentages of the two
> > countries. Life expectancies of different ethnic groups vary. The United
> > States has a higher percentage of ethnic people whose average life
> > expectancy is lower.
> > It is more likely genetics than irony.
> More diversity than anything else. There are structural social
> problems in the US though, like the nature of inner cities, urban
> nightmares, created by progressives, FWIW. Places like say France or
> say Sweden, or Germany, heavily discriminate against non French,
> Swedes, Germans, and one wonders if they include say Turks living in
> Germany in their data.
> That's what came to my mind. It wasn't race in as much as it was lifestyle.
> Married men live longer than single men. Black men have a tendancy to be
> single vs Hispanic men. Calculate the life expectancy of the American
> Indians, particularily among the men where alcoholism is a pervasive
> problem. Throwing these factors into the mix, it could account to why
> America's life expectancy is lower than other countries. We have the right
> to be homeless, addicts without any assurance that society will rescue from
> you from it. Whereas, other countries coddle and tax their citizens more.
And keep them alive longer.
From: William Clark on 31 Jan 2010 12:34
Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 5:23�pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com>
> > In article <MPG.25ce10a1523c71fb989...(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > �BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > > In article <clark-B79122.09584229012...(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> > > state.edu>, cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says...
> > > > In article <MPG.25ccb4457acbf6f3989...(a)news.giganews.com>,
> > > > �BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <bd2a7183-1bb3-45af-9786-e1c1ac0cb5c2
> > > > > @b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, frostback2...(a)att.net says...
> > > > > > The most interesting aspect of this is your great concern. IF you
> > > > > > take
> > > > > > the position that I have never published anything in the area of
> > > > > > materials science, you become, as a point of fact, a liar. It is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > just a matter of being misinformed, because my CV was published
> > > > > > online
> > > > > > and available for many years, for anyone to see.
> > > > > > What is more relevant is that your concern suggests that you are
> > > > > > unpublished, or publish little in the area, isn't it, and it
> > > > > > bothers
> > > > > > you because you think there is some sort of academic status
> > > > > > associated
> > > > > > with who employs you in this business, when in fact academic status
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > solely a function of your accomplishments.
> > > > > > Now as I claim zero status as a materials scientist, and I claim
> > > > > > none,
> > > > > > it becomes a problem for you that I have published in the area,
> > > > > > because you want to claim some sort of status here, when you, like
> > > > > > I,
> > > > > > have none!
> > > > > > In any event, the $5K bet is still open.
> > > > > I have a $1US that says Billy doesn't take your bet.
> > > > Damn right I am not. This is not an issue for "bets", this is about the
> > > > core of academic integrity. He is claiming to have attended meetings
> > > > and
> > > > published in a field where it is absolutely clear he has not. George
> > > > O'Leary lost his job for doing exactly the same thing, but I am sure
> > > > your wingnut double standards can find a way around that.
> > > If you are so cocksure you are right why not take the bet. You get $5K
> > > and you get to nail a college prof to the wall. "Dr." Phil Jones of
> > > UEA's CRU nailed himself without a bet.
> > I have provided him with the evidence for free. I am not not taking his
> > money.
> Make the bet then and don;t take my money if you win. Claiming you
> won't take my money by not taking the bet is evidence of cowardice.
Fine - you have no publications in materials science. That much is now
clear. You should be ashamed of yourself.