From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 16 19:49:40 PDT 1996
Article: 32740 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 17 Jun 1996 00:39:51 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4q29gn$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4q05tb$mfa@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4q05tb$mfa@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32740 alt.politics.nationalism.white:22985 alt.discrimination:48591 alt.revisionism:43943

mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:

[cut]

>	Although I am certain you know it, Finstein is a politically correct
>idiot even to the spelling of her name so as not to appear Jewish.

TROLL ALERT:  In a desperate, and I must say truly lame effort to offend 
and provoke an argument, the Giwer-thing tosses this lulu out, in which 
I am on the losing end whether Jewish or not.  But you know, this one 
doesn't make sense at all.  Wouldn't it be politically correct to flaunt 
being Jewish?  You know, show it with pride and all that?  Wouldn't it be 
politically incorrect to change the spelling of my name to hide it?  This
is actually rather amusing. 




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 16 21:16:11 PDT 1996
Article: 43946 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones
Date: 17 Jun 1996 00:45:39 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <4q29rj$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pt67e$b7e@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <31C39013.67CE@unb.ca> <4q09m3$a20@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4q09m3$a20@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com

mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Keith Morrison  wrote:

>>Matt Giwer wrote:
 
>>> Of interest is always those bones sent to the grinder.  In the process
>>> of the human body burning the two bones most likely to be left are the
>>> pelvis and the skull.  Yet in the few cases (for the partial cremation,
>>> charred advocates this is unfortunate) where bones are in fact
>>> mentioned, the skull is not mentioned.

>>I won't ask how many bones compose the skull and pelvis (because
>>I know he doesn't have a clue) but I will ask where this piece of
>>data comes from.

>	Gee, now just where do I start with this one?  There are numerous
>approaches to answer it.

Might I suggest you start with either an anatomy text, or a text on
skeletal anatomy.  Your answer below indicates you need a great deal
of help.

>	Lets try this.  

Very weak effort.

>Q:  How many bones compose the skull and pelvis?
>A:	The skull, two in an adult, counting the jaw, discounting the six
>small bones in the ear.  The pelvis, one.

>	What did I miss?

A bunch more bones, in both the skull and the pelvis.  Thanks for
playing, but you got an F.  

>	Or are you insisting I have a source of authority?  Try Grey's Anatomy.
>I am certain you can find a copy of that.

Since you are way off the mark in your answer, you should try a "source
of authority".

>	Or do you want to know why those are the two most likely to be left?

>	Look it up under forensics/fires.  

No, Mr. Giwer, why don't you explain this claim?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 16 21:20:01 PDT 1996
Article: 22994 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Whopper of the Week: Race is "Cultural"
Date: 17 Jun 1996 01:08:14 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <4q2b5u$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4peqju$5jc@sun4.bham.ac.uk> <4pi4no$119@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <4pn0l9$egl@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pp80t$k6n@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> <4ppv6a$9tb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4prsc7$en9@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4prsc7$en9@scotsman.ed.ac.uk
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:22994 talk.politics.european-union:3974 soc.culture.europe:45527

fofp@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) wrote:

>Laura Finsten (finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) wrote:

>: fofp@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) wrote:

>: >Laura Finsten (finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) wrote:

>: >: There is *no* credible evidence to
>: >: support racist arguments that genes directly determine society,
>: >: culture, morality and so on, by the way.  This is one significant
>: >: area in which racist arguments fall down.

>: >I'd just like to point out that while racists may co-opt such research
>: >with spurious claims that it supports their agenda, arguments that genes
>: >determine society are not, in and of themselves, racist.

>: No, they are just misguided and ill-informed reductionism.

>Let's take a simple case shall we: do you believe that genes are
>primarily responsible for humans adopting the social structure known as
>"the family" or is this "misguided and ill-informed reductionism"?

I would certainly agree that there may be a genetic basis to the
existence of family structures among humans.  However, I would not
agree that cross-cultural variation in family structures - from
the "nuclear family" that is widely regarded as the only "real" kind
of family in western society, to the extended families that were much
more common in the west until about the time of World War II, to
families founded on polygyny (one man, multiple wives) and polyandry
(one woman, multiple husbands) - is a direct product of genetic
variation.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 17 10:03:44 PDT 1996
Article: 23005 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Proof that Librulism stinks
Date: 17 Jun 1996 02:11:48 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 338
Message-ID: <4q2et4$os0@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <31BE2A32.430@cyberg8t.com> <4pmp4r$83b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C15E16.2056@cyberg8t.com> <4ps0n1$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C43426.2544@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C43426.2544@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23005 talk.politics.european-union:3981 soc.culture.europe:45531

Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>Laura Finsten wrote:
 
>> Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>> >Laura Finsten wrote:
 

[edit]

>> >Right, but that's not my point (because I'm not a White Supremacist). My point is
>> >the fact that people like you recognize that this phenomenon called "racism" is
>> >essentially equivalent to ethnicity yet refuse to treat our ethnicity like other's.
 
>> Well, I think that you are wrong.  You may say that the bottom line of your
>> ethnic category of "White" is not biological, and that no assumptions are made
>> about the inferiority or superiority of different "ethnic" groups.  But I just
>> plain don't see it, Mr. LeBouthillier.  
>
>Without going into a long dissertation of logic, let me say that one cannot see
>what is not there; one may only see what IS there.

>> And the reason I don't see it is because your "White ethnicity" is nothing more
>> than a fancy name for racism.  

>No, White ethnicity *IS* racism. White racism is White ethnicity.

Then look up the definition of racism in a good dictionary (I recommend the OED)
and stop pretending it means something other than it does.

>> It has no historical validity whatsoever.  

>Thomas Jefferson penned a law called the Immigration and Naturalization Act of
>1792 in which he said that only whites could become citizens of the United States.
>
>Anyways, what exactly do you mean by "historical validity?" How does one prove
>"historical validity?" What I'm talking about has existed throughout the history
>of the last several hundred (if not thousand) years.

For more than a thousand years, the Irish - one Celtic group - have been
perceived as an inherently inferior, unintelligent, unwashed, underclass of
subhumans.  It is actually very interesting to read selections from a variety
of texts describing the Irish from English and US WASP perspectives, beginning
about a thousand years ago and continuing through to the early part of this
century.  I sure don't see any long-standing common identity between the
English and Irish, Mr. LeBouthillier, and that spilled over into the US
in the form of a virulently anti-Irish sentiment in the decades following
the first major waves of Irish immigration in the mid-eighteenth century.

The same was true in the late nineteenth century when major Ukrainian
immigration to "fill in" western Canada began (not enough Brits interested
in freezing their tushes off in Saskatchewant, I guess).  Those Ukrainian
Slavs were not considered desirable, and they were only admitted when
no "better" choices were available.

A fairly considerable Icelandic immigration occurred in Manitoba in the
early part of this century.  These Nordic-Germanic folks were treated
to considerable heckling, ridicule, prejudicial treatment.  No great
sense of "white identity" with them on the part of the predominantly
Scots-English population (although I'm not sure how the Manitoba
francophones received them).

Then there is that little thing with the French-English/Scottish history
in Canada.  Common identity?  Certainly not according to Lucien Bouchard.

Oh, and how did all these Scots end up in Canada, anyway?  As I recall
my admittedly slender knowledge of this era in history, the enclosures
by which English lords forcibly threw Scots off their land to turn it
into sheep pasturage left them with no option but to emigrate or starve.
Do you think there was much common identity between those English
lords and the Scottish highlanders?  I have family in Scotland.  They
call the English "Sassanacks".  It isn't a polite name for them, either,
I understand. 

>> When in history have Celtic, Germanic and Slavic speakers been united in a sense
>> of common identity over and above any other identity, Mr. LeBouthillier?  

>Now. In the last several hundred years. In Rome? Isn't that what you pretend is
>at least one aspect of "Canadian" existence (or American)? Aren't you saying that
>the Celts, Germanics, Slaves and a host of other peoples have foregone their
>historical identities in favor of a "Canadian" or "American" identity (with a
>whole bunch of other people like the Chinese and Tutsis and Hutus and other
>stuff)? However, for some of us, being Canadian or American has never gone
>beyond being a national or ethnic identity composed of various European peoples
>(because that is how it was intended that it be).

>> It is an emergent phenomenon among those who wish to promote the false notion of
>> a "White nation" in order to rid themselves of those who are "non-White", not
>> because of culture or language, but because of "blood relations", because of
>> biology.

>Whether it is an "emergent" phenomenon or not, you recognize that it exists.
>As to the reason it is being done, you can ask any of them whether they are
>trying to protect the existence of their race or eliminate all other races.
>I think that with but a few exceptions, they [we racists] would all say that
>they end that they seek is the survival of their race. You are attributing
>ends to people which they do not themselves attribute to themselves.

Tell me about the language and culture that go with "white ethnicity",
Mr. LeBouthillier.  Tell me about the religion associated with it.

>I might just as easily say that the reason that you have a problem with this
>is because you want to eliminate the White race (even though you yourself might
>deny this). Who knows your (or my) motivations better than you (or I).

Well you do say, do you not, that you will fight for your "white nation"
and will secure a "white homeland" at whatever cost?  Am I incorrect in
assuming that those undesirables who refuse to leave will somehow be forced
out?  And those who resist may meet with extreme violence?

>Please, tell me, what is a "false notion" of a nation? How can a nation be "false?"
>We Whites are a nation. Whiteness is the underlying basis of the American nation.

But it was a lie, was it not, Mr. LeBouthillier?  The continent was not vacant
when Europeans landed on North America's shores.  And at the time of Jefferson's
declaration, those very Europeans had already imported how many millions of
African slaves?  The ideal was nothing but hot air, built on a lie.

>> >> Since these are essentially biological
>> >> arguments, the validity of the biological concept of "race" is indeed
>> >> highly relevent.
 
>> >My arguments aren't biological.
 
>> Except for the oh-so-important bottom line of "blood relations", Mr.
>> LeBouthillier.

>Right, but blood relations are "lineal" not "biological." To me, "biological"
>means justifying in terms of a biological framework (i.e. "all animals do it,
>why don't we?")

Oh, so adoptees whose "blood relations" are unknown can still qualify?

>> >> "Racial identity"?  See, this is where this gets real confusing.  If
>> >> "race" is a real biological category when it comes to humans, then it
>> >> ought to be objectively definable and unchanging over time.
 
>> >I don't really care if it is a "biological category." Anyways, although I'm
>> >not saying that this is the definition I support, statistical relations can
>> >be defined "objectively" and "unchanging over time." Since race rests on composite
>> >properties, it could probably only be defined statistically (although that wouldn't
>> >make it invalid).
 
>> No, perhaps you don't care whether race is a real biological category.  It
>> doesn't matter, because you have transformed ethnicity into one.  Changed the
>> label, so to speak.

>No, the "label" has historically meant what I mean by it. What little
>research I've done on the topic has shown me that "Ethnicity" didn't come into
>common parlance until after World War 2. Prior to that, there were "races" (i.e.
>the British race, the French race, the Black race, the Tutu race, the Jewish
>race etc.). However, as Mr. Mathis, one of our Jewish friends on this discussion
>group has stated:

>      Fact is, Mr. Hitler, is that there are many ways of being Jewish, and
>      many forms of Jewishness.  Ultimately, the best definition is tribal. 
>      You belong to this tribe called Judaism, which you can be born into if
>      you have matrilineal descent (as designated by Ezra), or you can convert
>      into.
 
>As we see, underlying Judaism is a "racial" aspect similar to what I'm talking
>about (matrilineal descent). There is a "racial" component to Judaism.

Well, there are good reasons why "race" is no longer used in common parlance the
way it was prior to World War II to refer to what we now call ethnic groups.
The main one is that it came to considered to be an essentially biological
category, while genetic research was demonstrating that the biological
differences between those sorts of groups are so minimal that the concept
of "biological races" did not apply.  Why was this significant?  In light
of the "unpleasantness" in Europe before and during World War II, the
dangers of using "race" to describe social groups took on an ominous
quality that it hadn't had before.  The Nazis justified their eliminationist
policies toward Jews based on their supposed biological distinctiveness.
Because Jews differed from Germans (tongue in cheek here, because these
categories were not mutually exclusive, at least until the Nuremberg laws)
biologically, the only way to get rid of the so-called threat they posed
to Germany was to eliminate them.  Even conversion to Catholicism could not
"cure" them of their Jewishness.  There are good historical as well as
scientific reasons why "race" and "ethnic group" are no longer synonyms.

>> >Oh, so you're admitting that this phenomenon you call "racism" is just a
>> >manifestation of ethnicity? Then why are you expecting that it be more
>> >consistent than ethnicity?
 
>> Not exactly, no.  I'm suggesting that the category called "blacks" in the
>> US and Canada has emerged as an ethnic group through the dialectic of
>> racial categorisation (which is falsely employed, because it lumps together
>> tremendous variation in ancestries) externally imposed and the search for
>> an identity in a society which by and large excludes them as a group.
>
>"Dialectic?" Do I sense a seed of Marxism (or at least Hegelianism)? What's
>your point? Even were that merely the case, what is your point? The fact is
>that people *DO* identify themselves that way and they have the right to do
>so. As such, they have a right to organize themselves as they see fit. Are
>you pretending to be some kind of overseer who can tell people which identities
>are "OK" and which aren't? If so, on what basis?

Oh brother, replace "dialectic" with "feedback" and you get the same idea,
or is "systems logic" Zionist commie subversion, too?  Good grief.

Hey, I never said people don't have a right to identify themselves any way
they want to.  But that is not the same thing as accepting that every group
that identifies itself as a group has a right to its own exclusive country,
Mr. LeBouthillier.  

>We Whites don't have to see blacks as members of our ethnic group. We have a
>right to define ourselves as we see fit. Even though you don't like, you are
>obligated to accept it.

Yup, but nobody is obligated to give you and every "self-identified" group
an exclusive territory to call its own country.

>Exactly what the cause of those ethnic groups and the dialectic process which
>formed it does not make it any less valid that it has occured. If you want
>to rewrite history and forget that it has happened, you're trying to do the
>impossible.

I have no desire to rewrite history, although I've noticed a proclivity to
do that in much of what you say.

>> Perhaps we do need a new phrase, but I believe that "ethnic nationalism"
>> historically has often had both the same basis and same effect as racism.

>Yeah? So? What's your point? Are you fool enough to think that you can stop
>those effects? Anyways, what exactly are you implying are those "same effects?"

Violence, "cleansing", that sort of stuff.

>One might just as well say that people like you have always had the same effect
>in trying to pursue your dream of a universal humanity: universal human death.
>Marxist and Communists have tried to suppress ethnicity for a century or so now
>and the result has always been the same: human death and suffering. The reason
>for that is your arrogant assumption that you know what is better for me than
>do I. Tell me Laura, do you think you know what is better for me than do I and
>therefore you can decide how I should conduct my affairs?

Good heavens no, Mr. LeBouthillier, I would never presume to think that I know
what is better for you, or to tell you how to conduct your affairs.  Unless your
affairs began to infringe on the fundamental rights of others, of course, and 
then it becomes other people's business.  Booting people off their land to
build your own country because they don't have the right "blood relations" is
a little broader than "what is better for me [you]".

I'm not trying to suppress anybody's ethnicity.  I celebrate my own occasionally
(although I hope nobody decides I'm a "race traitor" because I really don't 
like haggis and I'm not wild about kale, either).
 
>> >As to "you folks," I don't know with whom you're associating me. I've never
>> >changed my viewpoint with regard to the Irish: they're White.
 
>> No, you haven't.  But the Irish are an excellent example of how identities
>> are socially constructed, and how that process externally-applied labels
>> and categories rely on false constructions of "inherent nature", whose
>> bottom line is, of course, "blood relations".

>Let me state the truth: identities are socially constructed. *ALL* identities
>are socially constructed. In fact, psychologists have largely found that the
>"self" is a socially constructed entity, are you going to say we should do away
>with "selves?" Are you going to say that there is no "individual?"

Not at all.  But one hundred years ago, Irish had the same "lineal" connections
to other "White" folks that they have now, but English and Scottish Americans
and Brits weren't jumping up and down to embrace them as their brethren.  My
argument is that because ethnicity is so dynamic and historically fluid, it
is a lousy basis for state-building is this day and age.  How many "nations"
will want pieces of North America?

[small snip]

>> >> I would argue instead that externally imposed "racial identities" (that are *not*
>> >> meaningfuly, biologically) create ethnic identities like "African American",
>> >> "black", or "non-white".
 
>> >O.K. then don't "impose" identities on anyone. I'm White and that is the most
>> >important identity that I hold.
 
>> But in the process of so identifying yourself, you must necessarily identify
>> the "other", as well.

>So? What's your point. There is "us" and there is "them." You cannot erase that.

Sure.  But its not the 17th century anymore, and you can't throw out all the
occupants of some piece of North America and call it home.  Time's have changed
and that just ain't going to happen.  "Them" won't stand for it.

>In fact, as I understand anthropology, in-group identification is an innate
>characteristic of human existence (if not primate existence). In other words,
>biology cannot be undone by your wishes that it be otherwise. That is the problem
>which people like you have always faced since the origination of your kind of
>viewpoint (i.e. other Marxists): every communist movement has become a nationalist
>movement. Hah! Hah! You people have never been able to change the ultimate course
>of history because you base your ideas on a false conception of human nature.
>Marx was not a god. He could put forth his claptrap about "social justice" but
>he couldn't change the underlying nature of the animal: that it is tribal.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm a Marxist.  I don't know how Marx
would respond, because I'm not that familiar with his writings (smashing bore,
really).  But aren't you just saying that the concept of social justice for 
you only applies to people who share you lineal history (European heritage),
political views, and values?

But I am familiar with some anthropological literature, and from primatology
on through social anthropology, I gotta say that primates, including humans,
are essentially "social animals".  But it is a struggle, the constant tension
between pure self-interest, in immediate terms, and the interests of the
self served through the social group.  I'm not sure what you mean by opposing
"social" and "tribal" as you have done here, unless you're going back to the
"blood relations" thing again.  But human societies universally practice
adoption, and often of members of groups who are their adversaries.  Highly
social primates like chimps also have movement of new members into the groups
(important for gene flow)  

>You don't escape the "us" and "them" categorization. Obviously, for you, we racists
>are the "them." You don't hate us any less than you think we hate our opposition.

Hey, I never said I did.  But you folks aren't "them" for me in any signficant
or meaningful way.  
 
>> >> Of course, "blood relations" don't matter on an individual level, do
>> >> they?
 
>> >Of course they do. They're called "family." Extended beyond the family, they're
>> >called "race" (to include those people who one is related to by blood relations).
 
>> So tell me, Mr. LeBouthillier.  If someone had one Jewish grandparent and one
>> Irish Catholic grandparent on the paternal side, and their father was raised
>> as a Catholic, and a Scottish Catholic mother, could they be White?  

>Yes. To me.

>> Would their "tainted blood relations" outweight their cultural, linguistic and
>> religious upbringing?

>No, but if they are "White" then, to me, they see their Whiteness as a fundamental
>organizing principle of their ethnicity (not their Judaic heritage).

And if they decided to convert to Judaism?  




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 17 10:03:46 PDT 1996
Article: 23006 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Looking for an expert on Aryan culture
Date: 17 Jun 1996 02:18:18 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4q2f9a$os0@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pq60r$qpi@news3.cts.com> <4pqp5n$pu2@molokini.conterra.com> <4ps16m$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <4pvog2$a97@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4pvog2$a97@molokini.conterra.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23006 alt.politics.white-power:32751 alt.rush-limbaugh:104502 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:323045 soc.culture.african.american:119974

bob whitaker  wrote:

>    I find Finsten's and Whitey's lack of faith in my 
>Revelation most disturbing, but it is only to b e expected that 
>people who disagree with me would have serious character 
>failings.

>    Mr. Sterret, please allow me to remind you of what I said 
>about the donations.

Ah but Mr. Whitaker, everybody knows what those felines are like.
Before you know it, they've taken over the neighbourhood, forced
grocery store owners to devote entire sections to food prepared
especially for them, and even convinced people to establish
health care facilities devoted to their exclusive use.  Are you
sure you weren't under the influence of a kitty when you thought
you had that dream?  There isn't a cat in your house, is there?
I just find it difficult to believe that one of those nefarious
creatures would *not* be part of **FOG**.  They're all the same.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 17 10:08:38 PDT 1996
Article: 32751 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Looking for an expert on Aryan culture
Date: 17 Jun 1996 02:18:18 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4q2f9a$os0@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pq60r$qpi@news3.cts.com> <4pqp5n$pu2@molokini.conterra.com> <4ps16m$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <4pvog2$a97@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4pvog2$a97@molokini.conterra.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23006 alt.politics.white-power:32751 alt.rush-limbaugh:104502 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:323045 soc.culture.african.american:119974

bob whitaker  wrote:

>    I find Finsten's and Whitey's lack of faith in my 
>Revelation most disturbing, but it is only to b e expected that 
>people who disagree with me would have serious character 
>failings.

>    Mr. Sterret, please allow me to remind you of what I said 
>about the donations.

Ah but Mr. Whitaker, everybody knows what those felines are like.
Before you know it, they've taken over the neighbourhood, forced
grocery store owners to devote entire sections to food prepared
especially for them, and even convinced people to establish
health care facilities devoted to their exclusive use.  Are you
sure you weren't under the influence of a kitty when you thought
you had that dream?  There isn't a cat in your house, is there?
I just find it difficult to believe that one of those nefarious
creatures would *not* be part of **FOG**.  They're all the same.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 17 10:08:39 PDT 1996
Article: 32756 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!newsfeed.kdcol.net!news.ios.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Do racists support the right of blacks and Jews to free speech?
Date: 13 Jun 1996 14:41:45 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4pp9b9$n88@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <1996Jun4.040743.25992@wpg.ramp.net> <834087273snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <834163141.24121.0@teejay.demon.co.uk> <4pci95$jht@molokini.conterra.com> <834318739snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4pf8cp$s98@tribune.concentric.net>  <4pkmf1$2kn@tribune.concentric.net> <31BE7C37.666@ix.netcom.com> <4pn3f5$p55@tribune.concentric.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4pn3f5$p55@tribune.concentric.net

"Ronald C. Schoedel"  wrote:

[edit]

>This is the silliness of the liberals who should know better:  they think we
>want to rule over other races and dictate to them how to run their
>societies.  But that is in direct opposition to what we want, which is
>self-determination and self-rule, which totally precludes any telling of
>any other races what to do.

So, does this mean that you don't want to and won't "tell" those on your 
lengthy list of undesirables to get out of your "white national territory",
Mr. Schoedel?  That you won't tell them by what date they have to be gone?
That you would exercise no control over how they dispose of their property
before they depart?  That you won't tell those who chose to stay what
rights they do and don't have?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 17 11:56:12 PDT 1996
Article: 119974 of soc.culture.african.american
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Looking for an expert on Aryan culture
Date: 17 Jun 1996 02:18:18 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4q2f9a$os0@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pq60r$qpi@news3.cts.com> <4pqp5n$pu2@molokini.conterra.com> <4ps16m$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <4pvog2$a97@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4pvog2$a97@molokini.conterra.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23006 alt.politics.white-power:32751 alt.rush-limbaugh:104502 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:323045 soc.culture.african.american:119974

bob whitaker  wrote:

>    I find Finsten's and Whitey's lack of faith in my 
>Revelation most disturbing, but it is only to b e expected that 
>people who disagree with me would have serious character 
>failings.

>    Mr. Sterret, please allow me to remind you of what I said 
>about the donations.

Ah but Mr. Whitaker, everybody knows what those felines are like.
Before you know it, they've taken over the neighbourhood, forced
grocery store owners to devote entire sections to food prepared
especially for them, and even convinced people to establish
health care facilities devoted to their exclusive use.  Are you
sure you weren't under the influence of a kitty when you thought
you had that dream?  There isn't a cat in your house, is there?
I just find it difficult to believe that one of those nefarious
creatures would *not* be part of **FOG**.  They're all the same.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 17 14:05:58 PDT 1996
Article: 23043 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 17 Jun 1996 16:30:56 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 177
Message-ID: <4q4180$ggu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32811 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23043 alt.discrimination:48617

Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>Laura Finsten wrote:
 
>> Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
 
>> >Can you admit it?
 
>> I'll bite.

>Ouch.

Only metaphorically.

>> >Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
 
>> No one has a right to be racist, if by racist you mean (as do most people
>> who use this term) to jump to conclusions about individuals' qualities and
>> character based on the perceived "racial" group to which you assign them,
>> and to proceed to discriminate against them on those erroneous grounds.

>Of course I don't mean that. By racist I mean to identify their ethnicity by
>blood relations and to call that group a "race." Do Whites have the right to
>organize ourselves as an ethnic group and to call that group a race?

Depends on what "organising as an ethnic group" entails, naturally.
You can call yourselves the twenty-first century's Martians for all
anyone cares, but I do not understand why you insist on using "race"
to describe what you repeatedly claim is a group which is *not* based
primarily on biological relatedness, when contemporary usage gives
it exactly that meaning.

>> >Q: Is it justice to deny Whites their ethnic and racial rights?
 
>> Uh, who has "racial rights", and what "ethnic rights" are you referring
>> to?

>The right to self-identify with a group which one identifies as an ethnic
>grouping (in our parlance, a "race").

I have no problem with whatever label you want to attach to yourself.
It is the rest of it that becomes problematic.

>But you seem to make such a stink about attaching the word "race" to "rights."
>However, even the United Nations recognizes that races have the right to exist
>and that therefore, as a member of such groups, one may make claims on that
>basis (i.e. racial rights). Do Whites, as a "race," have those rights that are
>extended to all such classifications of humans?

The only stink I detect is a usage of "race" that seems to be designed, at 
least in part, to cleanse the concept of "racism" of its negative 
connotations.

Do you have the wording on that UN convention about "races hav[ing] the
right to exist"?  My head goes in circles with your conflation of
race and ethnicity.  I guess I shouldn't read that human biology, it
only confuses me about what "race" really means.

So races emerge and dissolve just like ethnic groups do?  Why use two
words to mean the same thing, Mr. LeBouthillier, especially when one of
them has a very different meaning in both common and scientific parlance?

In answer to your question, though, I truly do not think that the
UN conventions were intended to do what you suggest they should.  

>Second, "ethnic rights" means the right to belong to such a grouping and for
>groupings of such people to work toward their mutual self-interests in a way
>that does not violate others rights.

Well, throwing a whole bunch of people off your territory would have to
do that, though, wouldn't it?  Pity it isn't still the 17th century when
aboriginal peoples' rights were ignored.

>Do you recognize that any such rights extended to other "ethnic" or "racial"
>groupings in a general fashion ALSO apply to White groups? I know you have a
>problem with this question since you have refused to answer it since the last
>time I asked it. Let me ask you again, Laura:

>       Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
>       you do not also extend to Whites?

I wasn't intentionally avoiding your question, Mr. LeBouthillier, but I 
find your terminology convoluted and confusing, and at times am unsure 
what your questions are really asking.  I'll try to answer it now.

In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the rights
of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within nation-states
as requiring distinct protection.  Examples of such groups would include
the Australian Aborigines, and Native peoples of the western hemisphere. 

>> >Q: Do Whites have human rights too? (i.e. self-determination, ethnicity etc.)
 
>> Are you referring to the UN resolutions protecting the right to self-
>> determination of indigenous peoples contained within states? 

>First, since you are stating that such rights (which you acknowledge in
>this sentence) do NOT apply to Whites as well. Again, are you saying that
>you recognize and extend certain rights to non-Whites which you don't also
>extend to Whites? I have asked this question repeatedly and you have failed
>to answer it. Please answer my question.

Hey, I'm trying to figure out what your question is.  Of course "Whites"
have human rights.  The intention of the UN accords is to extend to every
human being some basic rights, and the inhabitants of all signatories to
those accords, at least in theory, have those rights.  On a more philosophical
level, I believe that there are fundamental rights that all humans must
have, with or without their government's signatures on a piece of paper.

The self-determination is a bit more problematic, though, because by this
you seem to mean that any group of people who choses to identify itself
as an ethnic group should have the right to its own territory, complete
with political autonomy and with the right to deny fundamental rights to
others.  That I do not accept.

The ethnicity thing is a non-issue, as I see it in this context.  Call
yourself whatever you like.

>Second, in my readings of such declarations, there is no mention of limitations
>on such things to ONLY "indigenous peoples contained within states." In some
>cases, such rights are included in what are called "The Universal Declaration
>of Human Rights." Are you saying that that declaration (among others such as
>the Universal Declaration of Cultural Rights (title?)) do not apply to Whites?

Well, I confess I still haven't read the UN declarations you mention.  I
did get my hands on a 1995 draft of the Inter-American Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but it doesn't apply here.

Having not read the documents in question, I really can't answer the question.
I'll try to get to my nearest library and look them up soon.  Lost my ID
card last week, though and I won't have a new one until later this week.

>> If not, I truly don't see what you are talking about here. 

>Are you merely pretending that you don't understand what I'm talking about or
>are you simply refusing to answer these questions (which I have repeatedly asked
>you in the past).

Nope, I'm not pretending.  I didn't know whether you were asking about
rights as codified by particular international declarations (and my
interpretation of them), or whether you were posing broader, more
philosophical questions.  And alas, I still haven't familiarised myself
with those UN documents.  I am interested in reading them, but it is
difficult to find time to read everything that interests me.

>> If you are, you seem to be ignoring the very different historical contexts of
>> those who are protected by such rights to self-determination.

>Again, are you saying that you are extending certain rights to non-Whites which
>you also don't extend to Whites?

Absolutely, in certain circumstances.

>> Tell me, Mr. LeBouthillier, do you think that any group that decides it is
>> an ethnicity should have the right to establish its own state?  

>Yes.

Wow.  What chaos would ensue.  How large does an "ethnic group" have to
be before the parent state has to give it a land grant?

>> For example, suppose that you succeeded in establishing a "White" state. 
>> How would you respond to a group who decided that they wanted their own 
>> "Scottish-Irish- Norwegian" state within it?

>It is their right to do so. No one has a right to rule over another against
>his will.

Sadly, in a democracy, no one every gets 100 percent of the vote, so one
might say that a lot of people are being ruled "against their will".  So
you would just keep carving up your White nation-state into smaller and
smaller pieces so that everybody could have their own cacicazgo, sort of
like a little fiefdom?  I find that difficult to believe, Mr. LeBouthillier,
since if I recall correctly you have said that you would use whatever force
was necessary in order to establish your "White" homeland.  It seems rather
inconsistent to give away so easily what you appear to willing to kill to
achieve.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 17 14:07:47 PDT 1996
Article: 32811 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 17 Jun 1996 16:30:56 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 177
Message-ID: <4q4180$ggu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32811 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23043 alt.discrimination:48617

Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>Laura Finsten wrote:
 
>> Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
 
>> >Can you admit it?
 
>> I'll bite.

>Ouch.

Only metaphorically.

>> >Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
 
>> No one has a right to be racist, if by racist you mean (as do most people
>> who use this term) to jump to conclusions about individuals' qualities and
>> character based on the perceived "racial" group to which you assign them,
>> and to proceed to discriminate against them on those erroneous grounds.

>Of course I don't mean that. By racist I mean to identify their ethnicity by
>blood relations and to call that group a "race." Do Whites have the right to
>organize ourselves as an ethnic group and to call that group a race?

Depends on what "organising as an ethnic group" entails, naturally.
You can call yourselves the twenty-first century's Martians for all
anyone cares, but I do not understand why you insist on using "race"
to describe what you repeatedly claim is a group which is *not* based
primarily on biological relatedness, when contemporary usage gives
it exactly that meaning.

>> >Q: Is it justice to deny Whites their ethnic and racial rights?
 
>> Uh, who has "racial rights", and what "ethnic rights" are you referring
>> to?

>The right to self-identify with a group which one identifies as an ethnic
>grouping (in our parlance, a "race").

I have no problem with whatever label you want to attach to yourself.
It is the rest of it that becomes problematic.

>But you seem to make such a stink about attaching the word "race" to "rights."
>However, even the United Nations recognizes that races have the right to exist
>and that therefore, as a member of such groups, one may make claims on that
>basis (i.e. racial rights). Do Whites, as a "race," have those rights that are
>extended to all such classifications of humans?

The only stink I detect is a usage of "race" that seems to be designed, at 
least in part, to cleanse the concept of "racism" of its negative 
connotations.

Do you have the wording on that UN convention about "races hav[ing] the
right to exist"?  My head goes in circles with your conflation of
race and ethnicity.  I guess I shouldn't read that human biology, it
only confuses me about what "race" really means.

So races emerge and dissolve just like ethnic groups do?  Why use two
words to mean the same thing, Mr. LeBouthillier, especially when one of
them has a very different meaning in both common and scientific parlance?

In answer to your question, though, I truly do not think that the
UN conventions were intended to do what you suggest they should.  

>Second, "ethnic rights" means the right to belong to such a grouping and for
>groupings of such people to work toward their mutual self-interests in a way
>that does not violate others rights.

Well, throwing a whole bunch of people off your territory would have to
do that, though, wouldn't it?  Pity it isn't still the 17th century when
aboriginal peoples' rights were ignored.

>Do you recognize that any such rights extended to other "ethnic" or "racial"
>groupings in a general fashion ALSO apply to White groups? I know you have a
>problem with this question since you have refused to answer it since the last
>time I asked it. Let me ask you again, Laura:

>       Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
>       you do not also extend to Whites?

I wasn't intentionally avoiding your question, Mr. LeBouthillier, but I 
find your terminology convoluted and confusing, and at times am unsure 
what your questions are really asking.  I'll try to answer it now.

In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the rights
of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within nation-states
as requiring distinct protection.  Examples of such groups would include
the Australian Aborigines, and Native peoples of the western hemisphere. 

>> >Q: Do Whites have human rights too? (i.e. self-determination, ethnicity etc.)
 
>> Are you referring to the UN resolutions protecting the right to self-
>> determination of indigenous peoples contained within states? 

>First, since you are stating that such rights (which you acknowledge in
>this sentence) do NOT apply to Whites as well. Again, are you saying that
>you recognize and extend certain rights to non-Whites which you don't also
>extend to Whites? I have asked this question repeatedly and you have failed
>to answer it. Please answer my question.

Hey, I'm trying to figure out what your question is.  Of course "Whites"
have human rights.  The intention of the UN accords is to extend to every
human being some basic rights, and the inhabitants of all signatories to
those accords, at least in theory, have those rights.  On a more philosophical
level, I believe that there are fundamental rights that all humans must
have, with or without their government's signatures on a piece of paper.

The self-determination is a bit more problematic, though, because by this
you seem to mean that any group of people who choses to identify itself
as an ethnic group should have the right to its own territory, complete
with political autonomy and with the right to deny fundamental rights to
others.  That I do not accept.

The ethnicity thing is a non-issue, as I see it in this context.  Call
yourself whatever you like.

>Second, in my readings of such declarations, there is no mention of limitations
>on such things to ONLY "indigenous peoples contained within states." In some
>cases, such rights are included in what are called "The Universal Declaration
>of Human Rights." Are you saying that that declaration (among others such as
>the Universal Declaration of Cultural Rights (title?)) do not apply to Whites?

Well, I confess I still haven't read the UN declarations you mention.  I
did get my hands on a 1995 draft of the Inter-American Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but it doesn't apply here.

Having not read the documents in question, I really can't answer the question.
I'll try to get to my nearest library and look them up soon.  Lost my ID
card last week, though and I won't have a new one until later this week.

>> If not, I truly don't see what you are talking about here. 

>Are you merely pretending that you don't understand what I'm talking about or
>are you simply refusing to answer these questions (which I have repeatedly asked
>you in the past).

Nope, I'm not pretending.  I didn't know whether you were asking about
rights as codified by particular international declarations (and my
interpretation of them), or whether you were posing broader, more
philosophical questions.  And alas, I still haven't familiarised myself
with those UN documents.  I am interested in reading them, but it is
difficult to find time to read everything that interests me.

>> If you are, you seem to be ignoring the very different historical contexts of
>> those who are protected by such rights to self-determination.

>Again, are you saying that you are extending certain rights to non-Whites which
>you also don't extend to Whites?

Absolutely, in certain circumstances.

>> Tell me, Mr. LeBouthillier, do you think that any group that decides it is
>> an ethnicity should have the right to establish its own state?  

>Yes.

Wow.  What chaos would ensue.  How large does an "ethnic group" have to
be before the parent state has to give it a land grant?

>> For example, suppose that you succeeded in establishing a "White" state. 
>> How would you respond to a group who decided that they wanted their own 
>> "Scottish-Irish- Norwegian" state within it?

>It is their right to do so. No one has a right to rule over another against
>his will.

Sadly, in a democracy, no one every gets 100 percent of the vote, so one
might say that a lot of people are being ruled "against their will".  So
you would just keep carving up your White nation-state into smaller and
smaller pieces so that everybody could have their own cacicazgo, sort of
like a little fiefdom?  I find that difficult to believe, Mr. LeBouthillier,
since if I recall correctly you have said that you would use whatever force
was necessary in order to establish your "White" homeland.  It seems rather
inconsistent to give away so easily what you appear to willing to kill to
achieve.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 17 14:07:49 PDT 1996
Article: 32812 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM!  AN AWFUL DAY FOR CAESAR AND HIS CLONES!
Date: 17 Jun 1996 16:37:16 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4q41js$ggu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pq2qt$a2g@molokini.conterra.com> <4ps5jq$cp4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <4pv79i$r7q@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4pv79i$r7q@molokini.conterra.com

bob whitaker  wrote:

[deletia...]

>      The day you publicly denounce your clone Caesar's 
>totalitarianism I will be impressedby your dedication to 
>freedom of speech.  You do lots of theorizing, but remain a 
>good clone in debate.

Let's see if I can get your standard on this straight, Mr.
Whitaker.  People who don't denounce Caesar are all clones.
And yet when you jump in all buddy-buddy with the Nazi
Oberschneezwergpimpfenführer Griswold and someone suggests
that you are a Nazi, too, they are smearing your good name!

I'll tell you something, Mr. Whitaker, I don't even read
Caesar's posts.  I didn't read a single post on the Stalin/
antisemitism thread.  Now how the hell am I supposed to 
denounce something I know nothing about?  Oh, I forgot,
that is the "right" way.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 17 15:09:13 PDT 1996
Article: 48617 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 17 Jun 1996 16:30:56 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 177
Message-ID: <4q4180$ggu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32811 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23043 alt.discrimination:48617

Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>Laura Finsten wrote:
 
>> Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
 
>> >Can you admit it?
 
>> I'll bite.

>Ouch.

Only metaphorically.

>> >Q: Do Whites have a right to be racist?
 
>> No one has a right to be racist, if by racist you mean (as do most people
>> who use this term) to jump to conclusions about individuals' qualities and
>> character based on the perceived "racial" group to which you assign them,
>> and to proceed to discriminate against them on those erroneous grounds.

>Of course I don't mean that. By racist I mean to identify their ethnicity by
>blood relations and to call that group a "race." Do Whites have the right to
>organize ourselves as an ethnic group and to call that group a race?

Depends on what "organising as an ethnic group" entails, naturally.
You can call yourselves the twenty-first century's Martians for all
anyone cares, but I do not understand why you insist on using "race"
to describe what you repeatedly claim is a group which is *not* based
primarily on biological relatedness, when contemporary usage gives
it exactly that meaning.

>> >Q: Is it justice to deny Whites their ethnic and racial rights?
 
>> Uh, who has "racial rights", and what "ethnic rights" are you referring
>> to?

>The right to self-identify with a group which one identifies as an ethnic
>grouping (in our parlance, a "race").

I have no problem with whatever label you want to attach to yourself.
It is the rest of it that becomes problematic.

>But you seem to make such a stink about attaching the word "race" to "rights."
>However, even the United Nations recognizes that races have the right to exist
>and that therefore, as a member of such groups, one may make claims on that
>basis (i.e. racial rights). Do Whites, as a "race," have those rights that are
>extended to all such classifications of humans?

The only stink I detect is a usage of "race" that seems to be designed, at 
least in part, to cleanse the concept of "racism" of its negative 
connotations.

Do you have the wording on that UN convention about "races hav[ing] the
right to exist"?  My head goes in circles with your conflation of
race and ethnicity.  I guess I shouldn't read that human biology, it
only confuses me about what "race" really means.

So races emerge and dissolve just like ethnic groups do?  Why use two
words to mean the same thing, Mr. LeBouthillier, especially when one of
them has a very different meaning in both common and scientific parlance?

In answer to your question, though, I truly do not think that the
UN conventions were intended to do what you suggest they should.  

>Second, "ethnic rights" means the right to belong to such a grouping and for
>groupings of such people to work toward their mutual self-interests in a way
>that does not violate others rights.

Well, throwing a whole bunch of people off your territory would have to
do that, though, wouldn't it?  Pity it isn't still the 17th century when
aboriginal peoples' rights were ignored.

>Do you recognize that any such rights extended to other "ethnic" or "racial"
>groupings in a general fashion ALSO apply to White groups? I know you have a
>problem with this question since you have refused to answer it since the last
>time I asked it. Let me ask you again, Laura:

>       Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
>       you do not also extend to Whites?

I wasn't intentionally avoiding your question, Mr. LeBouthillier, but I 
find your terminology convoluted and confusing, and at times am unsure 
what your questions are really asking.  I'll try to answer it now.

In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the rights
of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within nation-states
as requiring distinct protection.  Examples of such groups would include
the Australian Aborigines, and Native peoples of the western hemisphere. 

>> >Q: Do Whites have human rights too? (i.e. self-determination, ethnicity etc.)
 
>> Are you referring to the UN resolutions protecting the right to self-
>> determination of indigenous peoples contained within states? 

>First, since you are stating that such rights (which you acknowledge in
>this sentence) do NOT apply to Whites as well. Again, are you saying that
>you recognize and extend certain rights to non-Whites which you don't also
>extend to Whites? I have asked this question repeatedly and you have failed
>to answer it. Please answer my question.

Hey, I'm trying to figure out what your question is.  Of course "Whites"
have human rights.  The intention of the UN accords is to extend to every
human being some basic rights, and the inhabitants of all signatories to
those accords, at least in theory, have those rights.  On a more philosophical
level, I believe that there are fundamental rights that all humans must
have, with or without their government's signatures on a piece of paper.

The self-determination is a bit more problematic, though, because by this
you seem to mean that any group of people who choses to identify itself
as an ethnic group should have the right to its own territory, complete
with political autonomy and with the right to deny fundamental rights to
others.  That I do not accept.

The ethnicity thing is a non-issue, as I see it in this context.  Call
yourself whatever you like.

>Second, in my readings of such declarations, there is no mention of limitations
>on such things to ONLY "indigenous peoples contained within states." In some
>cases, such rights are included in what are called "The Universal Declaration
>of Human Rights." Are you saying that that declaration (among others such as
>the Universal Declaration of Cultural Rights (title?)) do not apply to Whites?

Well, I confess I still haven't read the UN declarations you mention.  I
did get my hands on a 1995 draft of the Inter-American Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but it doesn't apply here.

Having not read the documents in question, I really can't answer the question.
I'll try to get to my nearest library and look them up soon.  Lost my ID
card last week, though and I won't have a new one until later this week.

>> If not, I truly don't see what you are talking about here. 

>Are you merely pretending that you don't understand what I'm talking about or
>are you simply refusing to answer these questions (which I have repeatedly asked
>you in the past).

Nope, I'm not pretending.  I didn't know whether you were asking about
rights as codified by particular international declarations (and my
interpretation of them), or whether you were posing broader, more
philosophical questions.  And alas, I still haven't familiarised myself
with those UN documents.  I am interested in reading them, but it is
difficult to find time to read everything that interests me.

>> If you are, you seem to be ignoring the very different historical contexts of
>> those who are protected by such rights to self-determination.

>Again, are you saying that you are extending certain rights to non-Whites which
>you also don't extend to Whites?

Absolutely, in certain circumstances.

>> Tell me, Mr. LeBouthillier, do you think that any group that decides it is
>> an ethnicity should have the right to establish its own state?  

>Yes.

Wow.  What chaos would ensue.  How large does an "ethnic group" have to
be before the parent state has to give it a land grant?

>> For example, suppose that you succeeded in establishing a "White" state. 
>> How would you respond to a group who decided that they wanted their own 
>> "Scottish-Irish- Norwegian" state within it?

>It is their right to do so. No one has a right to rule over another against
>his will.

Sadly, in a democracy, no one every gets 100 percent of the vote, so one
might say that a lot of people are being ruled "against their will".  So
you would just keep carving up your White nation-state into smaller and
smaller pieces so that everybody could have their own cacicazgo, sort of
like a little fiefdom?  I find that difficult to believe, Mr. LeBouthillier,
since if I recall correctly you have said that you would use whatever force
was necessary in order to establish your "White" homeland.  It seems rather
inconsistent to give away so easily what you appear to willing to kill to
achieve.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 17 23:37:17 PDT 1996
Article: 32857 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,soc.culture.usa,alt.discrimination,alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Racial Feelings Are Natural and Good
Date: 17 Jun 1996 16:52:46 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 3
Message-ID: <4q42gu$ggu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4obk59$foa@news.sas.ab.ca> <4obuo3$cuv@tribune.concentric.net> <833274779snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <31ABF28D.72E3@ix.netcom.com> <4oh6dp$smh@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ohref$331@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>  <31 
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:tsar.432.000A1496@linex.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32857 soc.culture.usa:85455 alt.discrimination:48638 alt.revolution.counter:6251

Thanks.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Tue Jun 18 10:16:18 PDT 1996
Article: 44190 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 17 Jun 1996 17:26:59 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4q44h3$jo9@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4q296a$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4q3nuv$fff@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4q3nuv$fff@molokini.conterra.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32896 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23109 alt.discrimination:48675 alt.revisionism:44190

bob whitaker  wrote:

>     Could you please also post your replies to me?  I have a 
>lousy service, and I am missing some of them.

You want me to email you all my posts???  Give you more
ammunition to call me a clone with?  Are you serious?
You want *more* of my clonish PC drivel, Mr. Whitaker?  
Gosh, and I thought I was a wart on a.p.n.w.
I'll try to remember to e-mail them to you, if you can't
get them from Dejanews (I go there for copies of my own
posts quite often).




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Tue Jun 18 10:16:21 PDT 1996
Article: 44211 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!fish.phl.pond.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!tezcat.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones
Date: 17 Jun 1996 14:27:33 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <4q3q0l$cbu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pt67e$b7e@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <31C39013.67CE@unb.ca> <4q09m3$a20@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <4q29rj$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4q381m$s1l@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4q381m$s1l@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com

mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Laura Finsten  wrote:

>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>Keith Morrison  wrote:

>>>>Matt Giwer wrote:
 
>>>>> Of interest is always those bones sent to the grinder.  In the process
>>>>> of the human body burning the two bones most likely to be left are the
>>>>> pelvis and the skull.  Yet in the few cases (for the partial cremation,
>>>>> charred advocates this is unfortunate) where bones are in fact
>>>>> mentioned, the skull is not mentioned.

>>>>I won't ask how many bones compose the skull and pelvis (because
>>>>I know he doesn't have a clue) but I will ask where this piece of
>>>>data comes from.

>>>	Gee, now just where do I start with this one?  There are numerous
>>>approaches to answer it.

>>Might I suggest you start with either an anatomy text, or a text on
>>skeletal anatomy.  Your answer below indicates you need a great deal
>>of help.

>	I have.

Really?  Which one?  

[cut]

>>>Q:  How many bones compose the skull and pelvis?
>>>A:	The skull, two in an adult, counting the jaw, discounting the six
>>>small bones in the ear.  The pelvis, one.

>>>	What did I miss?

>>A bunch more bones, in both the skull and the pelvis.  Thanks for
>>playing, but you got an F.  

>	I mentioned the pelvic bone.  How many bones do you find in the pelvic
>bone?

The pelvis is not a bone.  The pelvis consists of a number of bones.
Go back to your book and look it up.  

>	Please name the other bones in the skull.  Perhaps you should give the
>book a read some day.  

No, you name the bones in the skull.  What book should I read, Mr.
Giwer?  I've got two skeletal anatomy texts sitting right here beside
my computer.

>>>	Or are you insisting I have a source of authority?  Try Grey's Anatomy.
>>>I am certain you can find a copy of that.

>>Since you are way off the mark in your answer, you should try a "source
>>of authority".

>	DEMONSTRATE that I am "way off" some time before you die.

No, look it up in a book and find out for yourself.  You're always
telling other people to do their own homework.  I don't need to look
it up in a book.  I know the answer.  You don't.  Look it up.  Is
skeletal anatomy real "science" with true truths, Mr. Giwer?  You
oughta be able to wrap your 163 IQ around it if you make a little
effort.  

>>>	Or do you want to know why those are the two most likely to be left?

>>>	Look it up under forensics/fires.  

>>No, Mr. Giwer, why don't you explain this claim?

>	I did.  That is the way it is.  I can not change that.  You can not
>change that.

Uh, no, you did not explain it.  You can change your failure to 
explain this claim, though, if you are willing to do something other
than troll.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Tue Jun 18 12:11:19 PDT 1996
Article: 48638 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,soc.culture.usa,alt.discrimination,alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Racial Feelings Are Natural and Good
Date: 17 Jun 1996 16:52:46 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 3
Message-ID: <4q42gu$ggu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4obk59$foa@news.sas.ab.ca> <4obuo3$cuv@tribune.concentric.net> <833274779snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <31ABF28D.72E3@ix.netcom.com> <4oh6dp$smh@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ohref$331@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>  <31 
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:tsar.432.000A1496@linex.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:32857 soc.culture.usa:85455 alt.discrimination:48638 alt.revolution.counter:6251

Thanks.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Tue Jun 18 12:11:20 PDT 1996
Article: 48666 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.current-events.usa,alt.discrimination,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics
Subject: Re: How the Boasian egalitarians captured American anthropolgy
Date: 17 Jun 1996 18:30:52 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <4q488s$lsd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <31bf6240.3740880@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <4pq6jb$9un@orb.direct.ca> <4prv1v$2qb@nntp-1.io.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4prv1v$2qb@nntp-1.io.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.activism:54940 alt.current-events.usa:17023 alt.discrimination:48666 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:323499 alt.politics.clinton:247182 alt.politics.correct:109864 alt.politics.libertarian:175876 alt.politics.reform:76210 alt.politics.usa.misc:90444

carlosq@io.com (carlosq) wrote:
>Cthulhu (patrickc@Direct.CA) wrote:> In article <31bf6240.3740880@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Nuenke@sprynet.com (Matt Nuenke) wrote:

>> You will never post any evidence for your claim that blacks are genetically 
>> stupid.

>**That isn't the point: the point is that the neo-Marxist Politically 
>Correct storm-troopers in academia have foreclosed discussion of the 
>genetic basis for intelligence. Why do you and your kind want to evade 
>the question? Hmmmmmmm? A little ideological twitch, perhaps?

This is simply untrue.  There is all kinds of literature on heritability
and intelligence.
 
>> When people point that out, you bring up communism to create > guilt-by-
>association. 

>**He was saying that it's Marxist tactics to stamp out discussion by 
>screaming about "equality", as though that were a biological fact rather 
>than a political doctrine. Stalinists tried to stamp out the study of 
>genetics in the USSR, as I recall. How little things change!

Well, that isn't the way I read his post.  I didn't think that Nuenke
was talking about tactics at all, but instead about underlying ideology.
And on that ground, he's full of hot air.  Who's trying to stamp out
the study of genetics?  The Human Genome Project is alive and well,
the Human Genome Diversity Project is getting off the ground, and
people have been studying human population genetics quite earnestly
for several decades now.

>> Stop wasting bandwidth please.

>**He isn't. You just don't like what he's saying. And you are an enemy of 
>the First Amendment, like so many in the academic wasteland. 

The usual anti-intellectual diatribe.



From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Tue Jun 18 14:45:42 PDT 1996
Article: 247182 of alt.politics.clinton
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.current-events.usa,alt.discrimination,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics
Subject: Re: How the Boasian egalitarians captured American anthropolgy
Date: 17 Jun 1996 18:30:52 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <4q488s$lsd@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <31bf6240.3740880@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <4pq6jb$9un@orb.direct.ca> <4prv1v$2qb@nntp-1.io.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4prv1v$2qb@nntp-1.io.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.activism:54940 alt.current-events.usa:17023 alt.discrimination:48666 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:323499 alt.politics.clinton:247182 alt.politics.correct:109864 alt.politics.libertarian:175876 alt.politics.reform:76210 alt.politics.usa.misc:90444

carlosq@io.com (carlosq) wrote:
>Cthulhu (patrickc@Direct.CA) wrote:> In article <31bf6240.3740880@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Nuenke@sprynet.com (Matt Nuenke) wrote:

>> You will never post any evidence for your claim that blacks are genetically 
>> stupid.

>**That isn't the point: the point is that the neo-Marxist Politically 
>Correct storm-troopers in academia have foreclosed discussion of the 
>genetic basis for intelligence. Why do you and your kind want to evade 
>the question? Hmmmmmmm? A little ideological twitch, perhaps?

This is simply untrue.  There is all kinds of literature on heritability
and intelligence.
 
>> When people point that out, you bring up communism to create > guilt-by-
>association. 

>**He was saying that it's Marxist tactics to stamp out discussion by 
>screaming about "equality", as though that were a biological fact rather 
>than a political doctrine. Stalinists tried to stamp out the study of 
>genetics in the USSR, as I recall. How little things change!

Well, that isn't the way I read his post.  I didn't think that Nuenke
was talking about tactics at all, but instead about underlying ideology.
And on that ground, he's full of hot air.  Who's trying to stamp out
the study of genetics?  The Human Genome Project is alive and well,
the Human Genome Diversity Project is getting off the ground, and
people have been studying human population genetics quite earnestly
for several decades now.

>> Stop wasting bandwidth please.

>**He isn't. You just don't like what he's saying. And you are an enemy of 
>the First Amendment, like so many in the academic wasteland. 

The usual anti-intellectual diatribe.



From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Tue Jun 18 23:01:40 PDT 1996
Article: 32992 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news1.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM!  AN AWFUL DAY FOR CAESAR AND HIS CLONES!
Date: 17 Jun 1996 16:42:06 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <4q41su$ggu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pq2qt$a2g@molokini.conterra.com> <4ps5jq$cp4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pvm5m$90n@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4pvm5m$90n@molokini.conterra.com

bob whitaker  wrote:
>Laura Finsten  wrote:
>>bob whitaker  wrote:

>>>    Yesterday a Federal court threw out the US Congress' 
>>>attempt to censor the internet.  Caesar and the rest of you who 
>>>want Hate Laws and censorship of racist thought have received a 
>>>blow.  Internet Free America is still in business!

>>You really did work in Washington, didn't you.  You are very
>>adept, although perhaps a little too transparent, in all those
>>great political skills like lying, twisting the truth,
>>misrepresenting what people say, and generalising about a
>>whole bunch of people on the basis of the remarks or one
>>or two.  Did you design negative ads for a Republican
>>campaign or something, Mr. Whitaker?  

>   As you say, the Democrats never, never lie.

I said no such thing, Mr.Whitaker.  I don't follow US domestic
politics that closely any more.  The rhetoric on all sides is
too hollow and vacuous.  It has the same quality as primetime
network telly, not worth the time and too painful to watch.


[cut]

>>>     Some clones like Lambert want to dig up info and ruin 
>>>people professionally and financially for being racists, Caesar 

>As I said, I was quoting Lambert, who said specifically that 
>he opposed laws against racist speech, but he wanted all 
>racists ruined professionally.   Caesar states flatly he is 
>not for free speech.  Anything hitler did is OK to do for the 
>other side.

Your reading comprehension has slipped, Mr. Whitaker.  Craig
Lambert said no such thing.  Document it, why don't you -
go to Dejanews and do a search to find his exact words where
you claim he said this.  Or would documenting your allegation
be "sneaking around"?

>    In case you need reminding, Adolf was not an advocate of 
>free speech.

No need to remind me about that one.  Next time you start
palling up to Griswold, though, you might think about that.


[cut]




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Tue Jun 18 23:01:41 PDT 1996
Article: 32995 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!fish.phl.pond.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Do racists support the right of blacks and Jews to free speech?
Date: 17 Jun 1996 16:49:21 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <4q42ah$ggu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <1996Jun4.040743.25992@wpg.ramp.net> <834087273snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <834163141.24121.0@teejay.demon.co.uk> <4pci95$jht@molokini.conterra.com> <834318739snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4pf8cp$s98@tribune.concentric.net>  <4pkmf1$2kn@tribune.concentric.net> <31BE7C37.666@ix.netcom.com> <4pn3f5$p55@tribune.concentric.net> <4pp9b9$n88@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqoro$pu2@molokini.conterra.com> <4ps4p9$cp4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4q1bi1$bkk@liberator.concentric.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4q1bi1$bkk@liberator.concentric.net

"Ronald C. Schoedel"  wrote:

[cut]

>To restate your diatribe, er, question: <want to and won't "tell" those on your lengthy list of undesirables to get 
>out of your "white national territory", Mr. Schoedel?  That you won't tell 
>them by what date they have to be gone? That you would exercise no control 
>over how they dispose of their property before they depart?  That you won't 
>tell those who chose to stay what rights they do and don't have?>>

>It depends on where a White nation-state is developed, for one.  Perhaps by
>the time it becomes a White state there will be no one else there.

Do you mean that some major hunk of North America will just become empty,
Mr. Schoedel?  That seems highly unlikely.  Or do you mean that when people
find out that they're likely to killed if they resist forced deportation
once your state is declared, they will likely flee?

>Disposal of property would most likely be one's own decision, as far as I
>can see, unless it is property that rightfully belongs to someone else.

Gee, what kind fair price could a seller hope for if their choices are
stay and wait for a good price and die, or get out now while you can?

>As for telling people what rights they have and don't have, that is the
>whole purpose of government in the first place!

My what an articulate one you are.  You've got the vacuous bafflegab of
a politician down pretty well.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 19 00:09:51 PDT 1996
Article: 44403 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!fish.phl.pond.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No wonder we can't find the bodies
Date: 18 Jun 1996 13:00:56 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4q69a8$pq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pq203$8bh@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <31c411e7.144782@news.pacificnet.net> <4q1p5u$1oo@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <31C5E9F0.18AE@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C5E9F0.18AE@unb.ca

Keith Morrison  wrote:

[cut]

>For those who might have missed it, do read that thread.  Mr
>Giwer pulls a gaff worthy of tom Moran at his height.  He told
>me to check out Grey's Anatomy to verify his answer.  So I
> did.  Twenty-two bones in the skull and seven in the pelvis,
>not counting the six small bones of the ears.


Keith, the ears are not part of the pelvis.  Although perhaps
troll anatomy differs significantly from human anatomy in that
area??


>"Look, Dad!  Ain't that the biggest trapped troll you ever saw?!"




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 19 12:11:38 PDT 1996
Article: 23275 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 18 Jun 1996 21:08:35 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 4
Message-ID: <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33150 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23275 alt.discrimination:48772

Mr. LeBouthillier, I've got a bunch of UN Human Rights 
documents now.  Want to talk rights?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 19 12:11:40 PDT 1996
Article: 23276 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.reed.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!nntp.neu.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!sgigate.sgi.com!mr.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 17 Jun 1996 15:25:01 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4q3tcd$dc4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ps39i$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33152 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23276 alt.discrimination:48774

Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>Whitey wrote:

>> According to the American Heritage Dictionary the definition of
>> "racism" is as follows ;" n. The notion that one's own ethnic stock is
>> superior." If Webster's has a different definition, then you may feel
>> free to contribute it. Otherwise, consider yourself corrected.

>Dictionaries show usage and that is all. That they don't include our usage
>doesn't make our definition wrong. As some of us use it, "racism" is an
>"-ism" (look that up in your dictionary) based on race. It may or may not
>include the idea of superiority.

What is the purpose of taking a commonly understood word and using it
to mean the virtual opposite of its commonly understood meaning?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 19 12:17:29 PDT 1996
Article: 33137 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Do racists support the right of blacks and Jews to free speech?
Date: 18 Jun 1996 15:53:30 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 4
Message-ID: <4q6jdq$476@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <1996Jun4.040743.25992@wpg.ramp.net> <834087273snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <834163141.24121.0@teejay.demon.co.uk> <4pci95$jht@molokini.conterra.com> <834318739snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4pf8cp$s98@tribune.concentric.net>  <4pkmf1$2kn@tribune.concentric.net> <31BE7C37.666@ix.netcom.com> <4pn3f5$p55@tribune.concentric.net> <4pp9b9$n88@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqoro$pu2@molokini.conterra.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:qwerty-1806960012000001@pinc108.pinc.com

I really hate it when I see my name on a post that doesn't contain
a single word I have written.  Please watch snipping and attributions!




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 19 12:17:31 PDT 1996
Article: 33150 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 18 Jun 1996 21:08:35 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 4
Message-ID: <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33150 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23275 alt.discrimination:48772

Mr. LeBouthillier, I've got a bunch of UN Human Rights 
documents now.  Want to talk rights?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 19 12:17:32 PDT 1996
Article: 33152 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.reed.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!nntp.neu.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!sgigate.sgi.com!mr.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 17 Jun 1996 15:25:01 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4q3tcd$dc4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ps39i$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33152 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23276 alt.discrimination:48774

Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>Whitey wrote:

>> According to the American Heritage Dictionary the definition of
>> "racism" is as follows ;" n. The notion that one's own ethnic stock is
>> superior." If Webster's has a different definition, then you may feel
>> free to contribute it. Otherwise, consider yourself corrected.

>Dictionaries show usage and that is all. That they don't include our usage
>doesn't make our definition wrong. As some of us use it, "racism" is an
>"-ism" (look that up in your dictionary) based on race. It may or may not
>include the idea of superiority.

What is the purpose of taking a commonly understood word and using it
to mean the virtual opposite of its commonly understood meaning?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 19 13:59:59 PDT 1996
Article: 44629 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 19 Jun 1996 17:44:38 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 432
Message-ID: <4q9ea6$fn0@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4q296a$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4q7blt$j81@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4q7blt$j81@newsource.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33188 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23296 alt.discrimination:48791 alt.revisionism:44629

p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
wrote:

In article <4q296a$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten wrote 
p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

[snip]

Mr. Stone's earlier question, to Ken McVay:

     1.  If Miss Finsten answers questions why has she always avoided/dodged mine?

I interjected:

     Ah, Mr. Stone.  Back telling more lies about me, I see.  It is odd that
     you didn't see it, but I posted a lengthy reply to the last thingy I saw
     from you itemising physical and cultural "traits" of the "white" race.
     Never saw a response to it from you.  My post asked a bunch of questions,
     but you didn't answer them, Mr. Stone.  Are you avoiding or dodging the
     questions I posed to you?  Having newsfeed problems?  Perhaps you did
     respond, but I didn't see the response? 

You replied:

     No I did not see your reply to mine on my itemising the physical and
     cultural traits of the white race.

Tell you what, Mr. Stone, I'll repost my reply so you can read it.

Mr. Stone's earlier questions to Ken McVay again:

     1a. Using Finsten's argument on equality, do you consider me to be equal
     to Miss Finsten?

I interjected:

     Who on earth cares?  You are the only person who thinks this even
     merits being called a question.  Cut the ridiculous whine.  Give it
     up, Mr. Stone.

You replied:

     Because Finsten, you cared enough to try and tackle the question.  If you
     think it is just a whine, then you should be able to easily answer it 
     rather than dodge it like you normally do.

As I recall, Mr. Stone, the context in which I semi-responded to your pitiful whine
was a discussion of the differences between principles of equality and sameness or
identicalness.  As I recall, I said that you were no doubt taller than I, that I was
no doubt more educated than you.  In other words, that obviously we are not
identiical.  If we lived in the same country however (and mercifully we do not),
we would be equal under the law.  Under international human rights accords, we
are equal.  We have (or ought to) equal rights.  I was attempting to make the point
that, contrary to what you were arguing, equality does not mean identical-ness.
That seems to have escaped you, though.

Another of your questions:

     1b. According to anthropological classification the Portuguese are
     Caucasian and the Ethiopian is Negro.  However both are half breeds 
     white/black mixes.  Could you please explain the difference in 
     classification?

I responded:
 
     This will be the fourth or fifth time I ask you to give me a credible
     source which describes the Portuguese and Ethiopians as "half breed
     white/black mixes".  Got that, Mr. Stone?  Have you seen this?  You
     ask a question that doesn't make sense, I ask you for clarification
     or substantiation, and you disappear.  Then a week or so later you
     come back and whine that I'm "dodging your oh-so-penetrating questions",
     as if I had said nothing in response to your idiotic garbage.

Your reply:
 
     Actually Cavalli-Sforza makes that assertion in the book you don't like.
     He even makes the comment that some Anthrolopologist classify the
     Ethiopians as Caucasian because of the mixture.  BTW, the key word is
     SOME and not ALL or MOST as you would like to make it so.

What book would that be, Mr. Stone?  I think very highly of L.L. Cavalli-Sforza's
work.  Could you cite his exact words, and provide a complete reference (book
title and page number)?  Frankly, I am very skeptical of your attribution of this
statement, at least as you have phrased and intrepreted it, to Cavalli-Sforza.  In
the book "The Great Human Diasporas", his PC maps don't separate Portugal
out as distinctive genetically in any way.  In the first map, Portugal fades right
into Spain, southern France, and a band north of the Balkans continuing eastward
all the way to the Caucasus mountains.

I have never used an unqualified "all" to describe the views of anthropologists,
Mr. Stone, and challenge you to demonstrate where I have.  I do recognise
that there is diversity of opinion.  I also recognise the difference between informed
opinion and what you offer up.

My earlier reply continued:

     In fact, I'll even repost part of one of these "dialogues" from
     Dejanews, posted to alt.politics.white-power on 17 Apr 1996 (gosh,
     that was TWO MONTHS AGO!!!):
 
     Mr. Stone whimpers at a perceived slight:

You now interject:
 
    If you are going to be insulting you'd better make sure you can do better
    than that, it is similar to your extremely feeble joke you tried to 
     make about being a broken 186 chip.

It wasn't intended to be an insult, but rather a description of your tone as I 
perceive it in your written words.

     In the earlier post taken from Dejanews you had complained:

     Nor will she answer why there is different racial classification between
     a half white/black Portuguese and a half white/black Ethiopian.

     I had responded:
 
     Who, besides you, says that Portuguese are "half white/black", or
     that Ethiopians are "half white/black", Mr. Stone?  Have you seen
     my other posts about the misunderstandings you seem to harbour 
     about Old World population history that would lead you to ask such
     an absurd question?  Or are you going to turn this into another
     of those absurd spiels about my dodging your questions?  You pose
     an idiotic and unanswerable question.    

Now you reply:

     The Portuguese are too trivial a case to cite anybody.  A standard history
     book of the Portuguese Naval power era would suffice in that regard but
     then I'm talking to a "true red" liberal aren't I?

Well isn't this fascinating.  After whining on and off for months about my
supposed failure to address your "question" about Portuguese genetic history,
you now decide that the "Portuguese are too trivial a case to cite anybody".
Uh huh.  Talk about a nonanswer.

Your reply continues:

     Therefore please read a history book on Portugal.  Please be careful how
     you interpret it as well, your interpretation of authors to date is
     somewhat poor, ie., I don't trust you in being able to comprehend such a
     book.

Gee, Mr. Stone.  If my reading comprehension is so poor, why don't you just
explain to me how the history of Portugal's era of oceanic navigation and colonial
expansion has anything to do with the question that *you* raised about the
genetic history of the Portuguese?

Your reply continues:

     I assume by your feeble comment on Old World populations is concerning
     Italy with your extreme ignorance of it?

Incomprehensible.

Your reply continues:

     It is curious that you mention "idiotic and unanswerable question."  ROFL.
     Its only idiotic because you can't answer it, liberals have two tactics.
     1. Ignore or dodge the question or 2. belittle it and "...idiotic..." is
     purely that.

I don't need to belittle you, Mr. Stone.  You succeed quite remarkably all on your
lonesome everytime you post.

Another of your earlier questions:

     1c. According to Miss Finsten, races are purely a social phenomena and
     is most definitely not biological.  Could you please explain on social
     grounds only how of the 800 skulls found in predynastic Egypt, a third 
     could be Negro?

I responded:

     From a post I wrote in response to you (and which you never responded
     to, as I recall), dated 1996/01/03:
 
     [My comments about racial identification on the basis of skeletal remains:]
 
      Douglas H. Ubelaker, "Human Skeletal Remains", p.118:  "...racial
     affiliation is difficult to assess."  Now clearly, Ubelaker means
     on the basis of skeletons, but this is what craniometry does.  It
     measures and assesses bone structure and morphological variation.
     Ubelaker goes on to say that "Individuals classified SOCIALLY
     [emphasis added] as members of a particular "race" vary greatly in
     physical appearance."

Your response now is:

     If this his true intention rather than an out of context quote then like
     you, he has his head up his arse.

It is not quoted out of context.  Check the book yourself.  I'm sure Dr. Ubelaker
would be as impressed by you as you are by him.  The difference, however, is that
he is an internationally recognised expert in human skeletal biology.

Your response continues:

     "Individuals classified SOCIALLY as members of a particular "race" vary
     greatly in physical appearance."

     You quoted it, I assume you meant it backs up your position, but it 
     doesn't.  Please feel free to point out how it faults my argument that
     racial difference could be ascertained biologically if only modern
     physical anthropologists got their head out of their arses.

Mr. Stone, let us try one more time since you seem to be having difficulty
with the concepts of variation and typology.  You don't like Ubelaker?  Try
D.Gentry Steele and Claud A. Bramblett "The Anatomy and Biology of the
Human Skeleton".  Texas A&M University Press.

p.58  "Assessment of biological affinity [this is what you would call "race",
Mr. Stone] is another significant component of forensic anthropology, but
one that is fraught with difficulties.  One major problem is that there are
even fewer traits distinctive of specific geographical populations than there are
traits indicative of gender."  Steele and Bramblett go on to discuss a range
of morphological traits that are generally used, and I will cite one example
to demonstrate to you that these are *relative* rather than *absolute* distinctions.

Again from p.58  "American whites are commonly characterized as having a 
skull with a lower forehead that slants toward the bregma, a brain case with length
and width being more nearly equal, a narrow interorbital breadth, a narrow nasal
aperture with a sharply defined interior nasal margin, and a relatively broad face
exhibiting minimal alveolar prognathism."  Note the use of terms like "lower",
"relatively broad", and so on.

Why the use of these qualified terms?  Because these are descriptions of categories
that embody a great deal of variation.  Steele and Bramblett go on to say that "It
cannot be emphasized enough, however, that these trait lists are *stereotypical*, and
*few, if any,* skulls fit these descriptions in all characteristics." (ibid, p.59; 
emphasis
mine).

You continued with:

     If their is craniometrical difference then it can't be SOCIALLY explained.
     Genetics determine the difference and their lies biology and not 
     sociology.

No, you are absolutely right.  However, the point is that the categories themselves
do not demonstrate the monolithic internal similarities you seem to think that they
do.  Nor do the categories, however they are defined, demonstrate sharp and
consistent differences in either characteristics or in constellations of characteristics,
as you seem to think that they do.

My earlier reposting continued:

     Ubelaker goes on to discuss broad cranial characteristics of the
     only "racial groups" that there seems to be any degree of
     consensus on: mongoloids, negroids, and caucasoids.  The morphological
     features he mentions are projection of the malar bones, circularity
     of the orbits, interorbital distances, width of the nasal aperture
     and palate.  It is a pretty limited set of features.

Your response now is:

     Which of course must be only SOCIAL.  You're a riot Miss Finsten.  I'd
     love to do anthropology under you.

So pleased to entertain.  Read the paragraph above that begins "No, you are
absolutely right..."  Is it beginning to sink in yet, Mr. Stone?

     High cheek bones of Asians must be SOCIAL mustn't they?  Genetics are
     completely irrelevant in determining how one looks (inside and out) 
     aren't they?

This is not what I am saying.  High cheek bones are not an absolute.  What 
constitutes "high" for a cheekbone is a metric trait that shows a great deal of
variation within the larger group of people we call "Asiatics".  And what
qualifies as "high cheek bones" are not limited to this group, either.  Get it?

Your current response continues:

     Of course having Black skin is another SOCIAL event isn't it?

How black is black, Mr. Stone?  Can you give me Munsell numbers to
identify your different racial groups?

Your current "response" continues:

     Surely if something is social rather than biological then it can be 
     changed via thought process then couldn't it?  In effect, all those 
     Negroes living in poverty in the States and blame it one Whitey have no
     such excuse, afterall, if it's only social difference, they could will
     themselves to look like White Europeans couldn't they? 

Are you saying that poverty is genetic, Mr. Stone?  Or I am misunderstanding
you as fully as you have misunderstood me?

More of your earlier questions to Ken McVay:

     7. Could we please also have a review of these 300 books you've supposedly
     read?  You show an extreme ineptness for someone so 'schooled.'

I interjected:

     I can't resist.  Mr. Stone, you claim to "wield" a BSc, and yet you
     thought that "white" humans have something like 88 genes?  You should
     not be called anyone "inept" or "unschooled". 

Your response now:

     Citation please.  Please ascertain when and where I said "white" humans
     have something like 88 genes.  I have stated the Cavalli-Sforza based
     his PC Maps (for Europeans) on 88 +- 0.1 genes and I did have an argument
     with a Jew over its meaning.  He actually read the book I quoted unlike you.

Well, yes, Mr. Judd was fortunate enough to have it available in a nearby library.
I've been waiting several months for one of the libraries ours has interlending
agreements with to cough up - it's such an expensive book, perhaps none of them
wants to lend it at a distance.  I am looking forward to reading it, though, if I 
can ever get my hands on it.

Here's a citation I came up with from a Dejanews search I did earlier today:



Subject:      Re: Debunking Afrocentrism (was Re: Far smaller brain sizes...)
From:         p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Date:         1996/02/08
Message-Id:   <4fctak$me@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References:   <1996Jan30.221633.1@ucsvax> <31125B76.180D@chelsea.ios.com> 
<4f3mj6$tdi@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4f5e2n$4v6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> 
<4f5prq$v4c@
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Newsgroups:   alt.politics.white-Power,soc.culture.african.american


>Laura Finsten  wrote:
>>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

[I have edited irrelevant material for brevity only]

>>And I really
>>would like references to the page numbers in Cavalli-Sforza et al., or
>>better yet some direct quotations, to support your pile of doo-doo about
>>blacks having fewer genes than whites, and about blacks have less
>>developed brains that whites.
>>
First off Cavalli-Sforza doesn't mention Black's brains (or at the least
the book I'm referring too).

The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and
Piazzi (1994).

African Genes, pp. 169
Average number of genes: 47.6 +- 21.9

European Genes, pp. 269
Average number of genes: 88 +- 0.1



My question asks you for direct quotations to support an earlier allegation (whopper,
might be a better word) that "blacks hav[e] fewer genes than whites".  And you 
responded with page numbers and supposed (but not) "average number[s] of
genes".  I read this as a clear statement that you misinterpreted Cavalli-Sforza et al.
as saying that "whites" have only about 88 genes, and "blacks" have even fewer than
that already ridiculously low number. (The best present estimates are around 100,000.)
Do you interpret this citation containing your own words differently, Mr. Stone?

Your current "response" continues:

     I find it even more amusing that you claim to be a professor.  Obviously
     they don't want anybody that thinks at your University.  Initially I
     would of presumed that you slept your way there, but I doubt any man or
     woman would want to risk it with you.  Did the University you attend feel
     they needed more women of the staff or something?  Someone of your 
     calibre wouldn't even be fit for housekeeping

Your ad hominem drivel has no bearing on the quality of your arguments or of mine,
Mr. Stone.  At a loss for words on the substantive matters?

     BTW Miss Finsten, I'm trying to make you a household name, most people I
     met and talk about racial topics love hearing your name alongside your
     incompetence.  McVay was fun, but nothing so far has compared to you as
     a conversation piece.  

Oooooooh, I'm really intimidated now.

[edit]

Your response continues:

     Lets review, you refuse to answer the question on equality.  You claim
     ignorance over the racial admixture of the Portuguese and Ethiopians which
     someone with a professorship in anthropology shouldn't have.  Thereby you
     dodge the question by trying to move the topic in another direction.  You
     still haven't explained SOCIALLY how of 800 skulls found in predynastic
     Egypt, a third were Negro, instead you quote a man who you think backs up
     your argument but doesn't.  Therefore you are dodging once more.  And no
     I never saw your half-baked responses before today.

Well, let me try my own summary.  You don't understand the difference between equality of 
rights under the law and according to international accords, but instead think that unless
two people are absolutely identical (something that does not even happen with identical
twins), they are necessarily unequal.

You confuse the scientific term "genetic admixture" with the colloquial (and inaccurate) 
insult "half-breed", demonstrating that you know next to nothing about genetics, and even 
less about human population history.  You don't seem to be able to grasp the arbitrary 
nature of classification, or the fact that human skeletal morphology varies tremendously, 
within and across whatever groupings (classifications) we use.  You also seem oblivous to 
the fact that the various morphological traits that are used by skeletal biologists do not 
consistently co-vary but many instead vary independently of one another.

You continue:

     Lastly, there is your lousy excuse for a reply on PC Maps.  According to
     you C-S made his (2D) maps based on completely arbitrary scales, ie.,
     random.  In should be remembered that it wasn't on one "bar" but TWO.  In
     effect just spraying paint on a piece of canvas and then trying to do
     genetic analyze.  BTW, I'm delibrately exaggerating the point so you 
     hopefully realize your completely irrational interpretation.

Still trying to figure out those PC maps, Mr. Stone?  I must correct you here on 
several points.  First, according to *Cavalli-Sforza*, not me, the scales used to 
create the divisions into eight categories in the PC maps are arbitrary.  In "The 
Great Human Diasporas", which I believe has the same maps as the ones you are 
talking about, the legends on the maps all have the following comment at the end 
of the captions:  "The scale of 1 to 8 is arbitrary".  See p.149 (Fig. 6.10), p.154
(Fig.6.11), p.155 (Fig.6.12), p.156 (Fig.6.13) and p.157 (Fig.157).  If you 
don't believe me, Mr. Stone, take the book out of the library and look at the 
captions for these figures.

Second, arbitrary does *not* mean random, at least not in statistical language.  
It means that the researchers had to decide where to draw the dividing line
between each of the eight categories - break a continuum of variation into groups - 
not that they pulled numbers or lines out of hat.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 19 14:18:59 PDT 1996
Article: 48772 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 18 Jun 1996 21:08:35 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 4
Message-ID: <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33150 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23275 alt.discrimination:48772

Mr. LeBouthillier, I've got a bunch of UN Human Rights 
documents now.  Want to talk rights?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 19 14:19:00 PDT 1996
Article: 48774 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.reed.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!nntp.neu.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!sgigate.sgi.com!mr.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 17 Jun 1996 15:25:01 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4q3tcd$dc4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ps39i$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33152 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23276 alt.discrimination:48774

Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>Whitey wrote:

>> According to the American Heritage Dictionary the definition of
>> "racism" is as follows ;" n. The notion that one's own ethnic stock is
>> superior." If Webster's has a different definition, then you may feel
>> free to contribute it. Otherwise, consider yourself corrected.

>Dictionaries show usage and that is all. That they don't include our usage
>doesn't make our definition wrong. As some of us use it, "racism" is an
>"-ism" (look that up in your dictionary) based on race. It may or may not
>include the idea of superiority.

What is the purpose of taking a commonly understood word and using it
to mean the virtual opposite of its commonly understood meaning?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 19 17:32:55 PDT 1996
Article: 393769 of talk.politics.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-l
Subject: Re: Knut Hamsun's Body
Date: 19 Jun 1996 20:43:15 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4q9op3$mcn@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4ouvhq$9th@crl.crl.com> <4ovvsu$o1@jade.tab.com> <4p1ooo$rgk@tepe.tezcat.com> <4p4ltu$th0@news.missouri.edu> <31B7EEFA.6517@ix.netcom.com> <4p98c5$cje@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <4pabbv$hvk@tribune.concentric.net> <4pirvt$dt3@nnrp1.news.primene <4pk9tt$plm@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <31BDD201.16BB@ix.netcom.com> <4plup5$65@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <31BEA7C0.D9D@ix.netcom.com> <4pndt0$mel@mochi.lava.net> <4ppmpd$1dm@molokini.conterra.com> <4ppvlr$9tb@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqoku$pu2@molokini.conterra.com> <31c7f432.89254964@news.concentric.net> <4q9d4g$kub@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
To: bwhit@conterra.com
X-URL: news:4q9d4g$kub@molokini.conterra.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca talk.politics.misc:393769 talk.politics.guns:273227 alt.politics.white-power:33222 alt.politics.usa.republican:219187 alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich:62169 alt.politics.usa.misc:90787 alt.politics.usa.constitution:70132 alt.politics.usa.congress:45097 alt.politics.reform:76534

bob whitaker  wrote:

>"Modern anthropologists have provedn that races are equal in 
>all inherited characterisitics."  That crazy sttatement was 
>pretty standard into the 1960's, refering to Boaz theory that 
>Neanderthal turned into what he called "modern man".  Anyone 
>who challenged that was routinly told he was trying to kill six 
>million Jews and fired.

Where is that "quotation" from, Mr. Whitaker?  In what publication
did Boas theorise that modern humans are directly descended from
Neanderthals?  And would you cite some examples of literature,
newspaper articles, anything to document your claim that anyone
who challenged Boas' "theory" of human evolution was
"routin[e]ly told he way trying to kill six million Jews and 
fired"?

>  Now it's "modern genticists have proven that all races are 
>equal in all intherited characterisitcs>' eh?

I sure wish you include the specific parts of posts you are
responding to, because this is not what I recall Mr. Lambert
saying.  Can you explain why now virtually nobody argues that
modern humans are directly descended from Neanderthals, Mr.
Whitaker, if the politics and epistemology of anthropology
have always been dominated by commie Joooos like Boas and 
his students?
   
>   Ain't progress wonderful?

Do you know anything about the genetic research Craig is
talking about, Mr. Whitaker?

>   Arguing 3with Communists before audiences, it was always 
>hard to believe that these were the same folks who were 
>shooting people who tried to escape their system down in cold 
>blood.

I sure hope you're not saying that anthropologists were
shooting people.  You're not saying that, are you, Mr.
Whitaker?  Have you taken your medicine yet today?

>    You said in passing that your aim was to ruin all racists 
>personally and financially.  I've seen you people do that. Hard 
>to believe this painfully reasonable person here is the same 
>type who does that, but he is.   I've seen your nasty side in 
>action, Bo, so don't give me this crap.

Are you saying that Carleton Coon was ruined professionally
by his support for Carleton Putnam's antisegregationist book,
"Race and Reason"?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 20 07:23:06 PDT 1996
Article: 44780 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 19 Jun 1996 17:46:49 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <4q9ee9$fn0@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4q05tb$mfa@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <31c7f697.89867242@news.concentric.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31c7f697.89867242@news.concentric.net
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33329 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23373 alt.discrimination:48834 alt.revisionism:44780

Craig, Matt Giwer is a demented troller who does nothing much
but try to provoke angry responses from people.  This sort of
nonsense is a good example.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 20 07:47:35 PDT 1996
Article: 33304 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM!  AN AWFUL DAY FOR CAESAR AND HIS CLONES!
Date: 19 Jun 1996 21:40:53 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4q9s55$od4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pq2qt$a2g@molokini.conterra.com> <4ps5jq$cp4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pvm5m$90n@molokini.conterra.com> <31c7f5e5.89689963@news.concentric.net> <4q9dq6$lmg@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
To: bwhit@conterra.com
X-URL: news:4q9dq6$lmg@molokini.conterra.com

bob whitaker  wrote:

>   Well, I'm glad to see you're speaking for your clone Finsten 
>and not pretending you're individuals.  That's on illusion out 
>of the way

Hmmm, I thought I had responded to that one, but I don't see it
on my newsserver.  I thank Craig for pointing out your 
misinterpretation of what I wrote, Mr. Whitaker.  

Glad to see you are consistent - that is, still dealing only
in ad hominems and never in substance.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 20 10:18:19 PDT 1996
Article: 33362 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: newsgroups going nowhere
Date: 20 Jun 1996 13:37:36 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4qbk70$17j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References:  <31BFB1DB.46FE@scott.net> <4pq22v$m5g@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4pqmia$o7l@molokini.conterra.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:anonymous-1806962153130001@news.anet-stl.com

anonymous@newamericans.com (White Wolf) wrote:
>Right.
>
>I've killed eb, finstein, jgbrown, and about six others. The noise level
>is much better now. They are just mind sucks.



We must be doing something right.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 20 13:32:28 PDT 1996
Article: 33392 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: What's white?
Date: 20 Jun 1996 16:31:25 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <4qbuct$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4q7mo1$11f@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4q9148$63b@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qb6j6$8c7@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4qb8m4$8td@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qb8m4$8td@freenet-news.carleton.ca

bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:

>Laura Finsten (finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) writes:
>> bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:
 
>>>Funny how you liberal turds will blur the definition of white to include
>>>Hispanics from Mexico, Puerto Rico and wherever the hell else they come
>>>from.  But it's not really surprising, since most of you assholes get
>>>frothy over alleging that Turks are white.
 
>> Herr Oberpooperpimpfenundfartenführer, is that "white" or "White"?
>> Seems to have been some confusion on this the last time it came
>> up, with you claiming that some folks were "white" but not "White".
>> Maybe you could redefine these terms for us?
 
>No confusion here, citizen.  That your miniscule intelligence quotients
>can't grasp the difference between complexion and loyalty to one's race is
>not my problem, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Thanks for refreshing my memory, Unterschnivellenundweinenführer Griswold.
Now I remember.  It is one of those terrific things where a person can
be "white" but "not White", but they can't be "White" and "not white".
It has something to do with earwax chemistry and variation in radiowave
lengths and frequencies and the earwax's ability to filter out the
radiowaves, depending on pH, doesn't it?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 20 13:32:30 PDT 1996
Article: 33393 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: nz.politics,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Liberals and brain sizes
Date: 20 Jun 1996 16:38:51 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <4qbuqr$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4q7mon$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.141544@cantva> <4q84ks$2cj@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.202656@cantva> <4qae5m$t72@newsource. <1996Jun20.155037@cantva> <4qb9ot$1ce@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qb9ot$1ce@newsource.ihug.co.nz

p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

[major cut]

>"Morris's Human Anatomy" was/is regarded as an authority, therefore Mr
>Larsell must also be an authority.  With the advent of political stupidity
>of today, I wouldn't know how much of an authority the book holds *today*.  

Would you kindly provide the full reference for this book, Mr. Stone?
Year and place of original publication, publisher, ISBN if available?
 
[cut]

>The book would be authoritive to a number of disciplines including
>human anatomy (which should of been obvious in the first place).

But oddly enough, it is not owned by my university library, which
has a very large, internationally recognised medical school.  Is it
a little out-of-date, perhaps?


By the way, perhaps you are interpreting the billboard (or whatever)
literally, when it was intended to be more metaphoric?  Perhaps it
was equating racism with small-mindedness (rather than small brains)?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 20 15:04:09 PDT 1996
Article: 33413 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!nntp.primenet.com!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Liberal reasoning!
Date: 20 Jun 1996 16:43:03 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <4qbv2n$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qb7k5$8jv@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qb7k5$8jv@freenet-news.carleton.ca

bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:

>Language = race.  

>Isn't that nice and simple?  Exactly what one would expect from a pinhead!

>Thanks for not letting us down, liberals!


Actually, Herr Oberschneezwergundweinerschnitzellenführer,
this is rather interesting.  Arthur LeBouthillier (his name
for some reason I find even harder to type than your formal
titles) thinks that race=ethnicity, and it is impossible to
deny a very close connection between ethnicity and language.
I wonder what Mr. LeBouthillier would have to say about this?



From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 20 19:37:08 PDT 1996
Article: 23421 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Whopper of the Week: Race is "Cultural"
Date: 20 Jun 1996 18:43:55 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4qc65b$i32@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <4pddj4$4uc@news.usaor.net> <4pk5ci$o7c@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pme9c$kjj@news.usaor.net> <4ps1f3$bm9@news1.ucsd.edu> <31C426C2.4A19@cyberg8t.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:holman-2808560151260001@eng18.pc.helsinki.fi
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23421 talk.politics.european-union:4096 soc.culture.europe:45630

holman@katk.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>In article <31C426C2.4A19@cyberg8t.com>, Arthur LeBouthillier
> wrote:

>> Fregano, if I recall properly, you're a Sociology major at UCSD. You know the
>> answer. The answer is called "ethnicity." One may have several ethnicities
>> some of which one sees as more primary than others. Therefore, one may see
>> himself as both French (Gallic) as well as White (Aryan) and the two do not
>> conflict. I am both Gallic and Aryan.

>Impossible and contradictory. Don't you know that "Wogs start at Calais"?
>The French, like the Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, and especially
>Romanians are by definition 'Wogs' and thus non-Aryan.

Ouch!  But this is an interesting idea, isn't.  If in Mr. LeBouthillier's
conceptual world, race=ethnicity, and "[o]ne may have several ethnicities 
some of which one sees as more primary than others", then individuals
can be multiracial!!!  So how could anybody then argue against what white
power rangers call "miscegenation"?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 20 19:39:26 PDT 1996
Article: 33426 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Race and the PhD Priesthood
Date: 20 Jun 1996 20:07:30 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <4qcb22$jtf@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qagli$h8d@molokini.conterra.com> <4qbs5o$he9@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qbs5o$he9@molokini.conterra.com

bob whitaker  wrote:

>bob whitaker  wrote:

>>    When I was on Capitol Hill, I was on the House Education 
>>and Labor Committee staff.  Once i was talking to a black 
>>school official who had criticized a busing program.  He 
>>mentioned he had been called a Nazi and a Klansman, so I 
>>chuckled.  He said something like, "You know, the humor wears 
>>off when you realize they're serious."
>>     Long before he coauthored *The Bell Curve*, Richard 
>>Herrnstein was a heretic at Harvard.   I mentioned him in my 
>>first book and sent him a copy.  He wrote back, sounding 
>>exactly like someone in enemy territory.   Herrnstein was 
>>Jewish,a nd he could have beena  Lambert-type good Jewish boy, 
>>but with a mind like his, it was out of the question.
>>      I watched and complained while Herrnstein and Hans 
>>Eysenck, whose Jewish family left Nazi Germany in 1936, were 
>>seriously called Nazis by people with Jewish names and people 
>>with names like Lambert and whatever Caesar's real name 
>>probably is, and the humor was not there becaues they were 
>>perfectly serious.
>>      But the screams for mysnchings emanating from the likes 
>>of Caesar and Lambert, and passively supported by the other 
>>clones, are the end of the process.  They are what happens 
>>after heretical research gets done.   We all read what happens 
>>when research turns out wrong,and comes yup with a conclusion 
>>the PhD priesthood does not want.

I think I missed something somewhere along the way.  Could you
please present quotations from Craig Lambert's posts to 
document your claim, Mr.Whitaker?  You may have been a clear
and incisive analytical thinker at one time, but all I see
is maundering innuendo.

There are extensive discussions of The Bell Curve ongoing on
alt.discrimination and rec.arts.books.  I haven't been very
involved in them because I'm not up on IQ testing and
psychometrics.  But my clear impression from following some
of the debate, and from reading TBC and many reviews of it,
and from reading some of J.P. Rushton's work (although I
have yet to plough through his book) and critiques of it is
as follows:  (1) controversial research is being done,
(2) the academic community largely is standing by the rights
of people to conduct their research, (3) the negative criticisms
for the most part focus on problematic data, weak analyses,
and oversimplistic interpretive models.  These are the
sorts of criticisms that I see levelled at "uncontroversial"
research all the time, Mr. Whitaker.
   
>>      The fact is that research taht might lead to heretical 
>>conclusions is never purposely undertaken.  The competitiion 
>>for research money is fierce,a nd nobody, but noboy, goes intot 
>>aht competition to reach conclusions the Lambers and Caesars 
>>and theiur Thought Police would disapprove.  The proof is in 
>>the pudding.  Look at the projects whose conclusions are 
>>leading the clones to scream for a lynching.  None of them were 
>>ver aimed at such a goal., The competition for funds guarantees 
>>that heresy will not be unerdtaken.

Who is screaming for a lynching, Mr. Whitaker?  Are you as
paranoid and bitter as you sound?  Your only response to
criticism of your arguments and the arguments of your
ideological brethren here is this kind of tirade.  Have you
ever, in your adult life, made an argument based on substance
and reason?  Care to give it a try?  You might like it!!

>>      Not entirely by accident, the research tends to confirm 
>>what the PhD priesthood wanted confirmed.  It used, for 
>>example, to confirm that govenrment owndership made things 
>>efficient.  That got too silly, and nobody gets paid to look up 
>>records like that.

>    I am replying to this to continue it, since the clones want 
>to pretend this criticism of their Holy Mommy Professor didn't 
>happen.


This is your second reference to the "Mommy Professor".  I'm
beginning to think that you have a particular bone to pick 
with women scholars.  
>




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 08:09:45 PDT 1996
Article: 45074 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 20 Jun 1996 16:19:37 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <4qbtmp$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4q05tb$mfa@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <31c7f697.89867242@news.concentric.net> <4q9ee9$fn0@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qamft$gtn@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qamft$gtn@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33528 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23473 alt.discrimination:48891 alt.revisionism:45074

mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>Laura Finsten  wrote:

>>Craig, Matt Giwer is a demented troller who does nothing much
>>but try to provoke angry responses from people.  This sort of
>>nonsense is a good example.

>	You must be as fat as Ostrov.

See what I mean, Craig?  Can you imagine the mentality of
someone who gets his jollies this way?  The guy's supposed
to be in his 50s.  Maybe he got his IQ and age mixed up.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 08:09:47 PDT 1996
Article: 45086 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.corpcomm.net!newstand.syr.edu!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 21 Jun 1996 13:18:54 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 298
Message-ID: <4qe7fu$cme@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4qboo3$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qcc53$bel@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qcc53$bel@newsource.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33539 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23477 alt.discrimination:48892 alt.revisionism:45086

p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>In article <4qboo3$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:

>>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>>>In article <4q296a$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:

>>>>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

Mr. Stone asked:

     1b. According to anthropological classification the Portuguese are
     Caucasian and the Ethiopian is Negro.  However both are half breeds 
     white/black mixes.  Could you please explain the difference in 
     classification?

I replied:

     This will be the fourth or fifth time I ask you to give me a credible
     source which describes the Portuguese and Ethiopians as "half breed
     white/black mixes".  Got that, Mr. Stone?  Have you seen this?  You
     ask a question that doesn't make sense, I ask you for clarification
     or substantiation, and you disappear.  Then a week or so later you
     come back and whine that I'm "dodging your oh-so-penetrating questions",
     as if I had said nothing in response to your idiotic garbage.

Mr. Stone responded:

     Actually Cavalli-Sforza makes that assertion in the book you don't like.
     He even makes the comment that some Anthrolopologist classify the
     Ethiopians as Caucasian because of the mixture.  BTW, the key word is
     SOME and not ALL or MOST as you would like to make it so.


>>Life is truly amazing.  I wrote a lengthy response to Mr. Stone
>>yesterday, saying (among other things) that I doubted his attribution
>>of this "classification" to Cavalli-Sforza was accurate.  I asked for
>>a specific reference, which he didn't supply, but the only Cavalli-
>>Sforza publication I have ever seen Mr. Stone refer to is "The History
>>and Geography of Human Genes", a massive book (it turns out) that he
>>mentions later in his post (snipped) but which my local library does 
>>not have.  But low and behold, it arrived this morning by interlibrary 
>>loan.  It looks like an amazing book, and I'm hoping that Santa might 
>>see fit....  Na, better save up my book credits! 

>I hardly think that it is a massive book.  Some of computer science texts
>rival it.  Though if you and Judd think that it is a massive book, well
>it might indicate the level of research you ar prepared to go to.

Ah, well perhaps I am unduly impressed by a 518 page, 8.5x11" page format
analysis and presentation.  This, of course, is not a textbook but a piece 
of scientific research.  It represents a massive undertaking, but of course
you would use my admiration for this an excuse to exude yet more ad 
hominem drivel.

>>What do Cavalli-Sforza and his coauthors say about the Portuguese in
>>"The History and Geography of Human Genes"?  Well, "Portuguese" is
>>listed three times in the index.  (The book is more than 500 pages 
>>long, so I have only been able to read fragments of it so far.)

>Actually I'm unaware that he classifies the Portuguese as mixed, at least
>in that book.  He does however mention Ethiopians.

Then why did you imply in your words quoted above that Cavalli-Sforza
classified the Portuguese in such a manner, Mr. Stone?  Were you suggesting
that he has done so in another book?  If so, which one do you think that
might have been?

I am well aware that the book discusses Ethiopians.  It has an extremely
long chapter on Africa, with detailed discussions of populations on
that continent.  

>The Portuguese is from their own history.  They mixed with their Black
>slaves.  A direct quotation has been made from the Encyclopedia 
>Brittanica (1940) which stated what the Portuguese did, it even went on
>to state that it was the cause of their downfall (miscegenation). However,
>it seems no matter how many times I tell you won't listen.

How would you like to repost that direct quotation from a 56 year old
encyclopaedia, Mr. Stone?  Just because I don't believe you, doesn't mean
that I don't listen, Mr. Stone.  I read pretty much everything you post,
and usually very carefully.

Are you suggesting that a 56 year old encyclopaedia, written before any
work in human population genetics had been undertaken, is a better
indicator of the relationships between human populations than the
data and analyses presented by these three specialists in this area
of human biology, Mr. Stone?

>>p.268  In the context of an analysis of genetic distance among various
>>populations of Europe, C-S et al. identify 7 genetic groups, one of
>>which is "Southwestern Europeans (Spaniards, Portuguese, and Italians)".

>>Actually this entire section is really interesting, and I wonder what
>>Mr. Stone, Herr Griswold, and Mr. LeBouthillier would have to say about
>>it.  After the outliers are eliminated (and, interestingly enough, among
>>these outliers are Icelanders and Finns), Celtic peoples are the most
>>peripheral, genetically, of the seven groups.  In other words, Southwestern
>>Europeans, including the Portuguese, are more closely related, genetically,
>>to Germanic populations than are Celtic people.  Fascinating, no?  I wonder
>>what that means about "White" "blood relations"?

>I believe the only group you can say are closest to the Portuguese are 
>the Irelanders Miss Finsten.  Please state where Scotland is situated.  In
>case you are unaware the Southern French heavily mixed with the Moors.

Well, Mr. Stone, that is *not* what Cavalli-Sforza et al.'s analysis 
suggests.  I guess you didn't look at the tables of genetic distances
among European populations very closely.  I would like to remind you
that this is not *my* conclusion but theirs, based on their data.  Are
you suggesting that their data are faulty?  That they have calculated
genetic distances erroneously?  That they have misinterpreted the
results of their statistical analyses?

Their conclusions are unequivocal - "Celtic [populations] (Scots *and*
Irish)" (p.268, my emphasis) are the most peripheral of the seven
population groupings their analysis identifies.  This is followed by
eastern Europeans (Russians, Hungarians, Poles).  Southwestern
Europeans, including the Portuguese, follow these two groups.

I know where Scotland is situated, Mr. Stone.  I have family in Scotland,
and I've visited there.  In what way is your geography quiz relevant to
this discussion?

On the matter of the French, it seems your grasp of the book whose data
you claimed supports your arguments has let you down yet again.  If
France has so much of that nasty Moorish admixture, Mr. Stone (don't
tell Mr. LeBouthillier, about that, though), one would expect them
to be fairly distant, in genetic relatedness, from Germanic populations,
no?  Well, surprise surprise.  If you look at the table and discussion
on p.268 - the same one that tells us that Celtic peoples are more
distant, genetically, from Germanics than are Portuguese - you will
see that C-S et al's data indicate that the French are the cluster
*most* closely related to the Germanic group.

Wrong again, Mr. Stone, it seems.

>Even in the case of Ireland, they aren't that close.

>>p.270  Is a table of genetic distances.

>>p.286  Here the Portuguese are mentioned in the context of a more detailed
>>analysis and interpretation of genetic data from the Iberian peninsula. In
>>an effort to explain the distributions of genes across the peninsula, C-S
>>and his coauthors write: "The three main Romance languages of Latin origin
>>spoken in the Iberian peninsula are Galician in the northwest, from which
>>the Portuguese language took its origin; Castilian, originally from the
>>north-central area, from which the Spanish language took its origin; and
>>Catalan, in the northeast.  They all came from the north and spread to the
>>south...  The center of origin of Catalan may superficially seem to 
>>correspond with the second peak of the second component [synthetic gene
>>maps], but is actually not in the Pyrenees.  In addition, the lowest
>>values of the second PC do not correspond to the areas where the Moorish
>>influence was strongest, which are in the *south and east*." (emphasis
>>mine)

>>Source:  L.Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza
>>             1994  The History and Geography of Human Genes.
>>                   Princeton University Press.  Princeton, N.J.
>>                   ISBN  0-691--8750-4


>>So, Mr. Stone, it appears that you have not understood what Cavalli-
>>Sforza and his coauthors have to say about the Portuguese.  I'm kind
>>of busy right now and don't have time to read the sections on
>>Ethiopia and Ethiopians (lots more listings in the index), but I'll
>>get back to you on that. 

>			*sigh*

Such a trial, isn't it Mr. Stone, trying to grasp the true truths of science.

>What is this the fourth or fifth time?

I do believe that I have lost count, but you are repetitive, I'll grant
you that.

>I have been saying consistently that the only thing that interests me in
>that book are the facts. His interpretations and his opinions I don't hold
>as *gospel*.

Then read the facts, Mr. Stone.  Their facts do not support your argument.
The genetic distances are calculated on the basis of gene frequencies.
The genetic distances don't support your arguments.  Now which facts do
you like, and which ones do you reject, and why?

>Do you BTW still hold to your silly interpretation of PC Maps?

You seem to have missed my other response on this thread, where I mentioned
the PC maps again.  I'll reproduce it for you below.

>Lastly, the book is out of my frequented library until June 26.  If you
>still have the book at that time, I'd *love* to debate it :->

-------------------------------------------------

Repost of part of my earlier response to PStone on this thread.  Oh, and
Mr. Stone, in case you didn't see this, I also am reposting the part where
I used your own words to demonstrate that you thought that "white" humans
have only 88 genes (instead of about 100,000).

I interjected:

     I can't resist.  Mr. Stone, you claim to "wield" a BSc, and yet you
     thought that "white" humans have something like 88 genes?  You should
     not be called anyone "inept" or "unschooled". 

Your response now:

     Citation please.  Please ascertain when and where I said "white" humans
     have something like 88 genes.  I have stated the Cavalli-Sforza based
     his PC Maps (for Europeans) on 88 +- 0.1 genes and I did have an argument
     with a Jew over its meaning.  He actually read the book I quoted unlike you.

Well, yes, Mr. Judd was fortunate enough to have it available in a nearby library.
I've been waiting several months for one of the libraries ours has interlending
agreements with to cough up - it's such an expensive book, perhaps none of them
wants to lend it at a distance.  I am looking forward to reading it, though, if I can
ever get my hands on it.

Here's a citation I came up with from a Dejanews search I did earlier today:



Subject:      Re: Debunking Afrocentrism (was Re: Far smaller brain sizes...)
From:         p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
Date:         1996/02/08
Message-Id:   <4fctak$me@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
References:   <1996Jan30.221633.1@ucsvax> <31125B76.180D@chelsea.ios.com> 
<4f3mj6$tdi@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4f5e2n$4v6@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> 
<4f5prq$v4c@
Organization: Order of Alchemists
Newsgroups:   alt.politics.white-Power,soc.culture.african.american

In article <4f5prq$v4c@hearst.cac.psu.edu>, Tuthmosis III   says:

>Laura Finsten  wrote:
>>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

[I have edited irrelevant material for brevity only]

>>And I really
>>would like references to the page numbers in Cavalli-Sforza et al., or
>>better yet some direct quotations, to support your pile of doo-doo about
>>blacks having fewer genes than whites, and about blacks have less
>>developed brains that whites.
>>
First off Cavalli-Sforza doesn't mention Black's brains (or at the least
the book I'm referring too).

The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and
Piazzi (1994).

African Genes, pp. 169
Average number of genes: 47.6 +- 21.9

European Genes, pp. 269
Average number of genes: 88 +- 0.1



My question asks you for direct quotations to support an earlier allegation (whopper,
might be a better word) that "blacks hav[e] fewer genes than whites".  And you 
responded with page numbers and supposed (but not) "average number[s] of
genes".  I read this as a clear statement that you misinterpreted Cavalli-Sforza et al.
as saying that "whites" have only about 88 genes, and "blacks" have even fewer than
that already ridiculously low number. (The best present estimates are around 100,000.)
Do you interpret this citation containing your own words differently, Mr. Stone?

[cut out the insults and innuendo, once was enough for that crap]

[more editing for brevity]
You continue:

     Lastly, there is your lousy excuse for a reply on PC Maps.  According to
     you C-S made his (2D) maps based on completely arbitrary scales, ie.,
     random.  In should be remembered that it wasn't on one "bar" but TWO.  In
     effect just spraying paint on a piece of canvas and then trying to do
     genetic analyze.  BTW, I'm delibrately exaggerating the point so you 
     hopefully realize your completely irrational interpretation.

Still trying to figure out those PC maps, Mr. Stone?  I must correct you here on several
points.  First, according to *Cavalli-Sforza*, not me, the scales used to create the divisions
into eight categories in the PC maps are arbitrary.  In "The Great Human Diasporas",
which I believe has the same maps as the ones you are talking about, the legends on the
maps all have the following comment at the end of the captions:  "The scale of 1 to 8 is
arbitrary".  See p.149 (Fig. 6.10), p.154 (Fig.6.11), p.155 (Fig.6.12), p.156 (Fig.6.13)
and p.157 (Fig.157).  If you disbelieve me, Mr. Stone, take the book out of the library
and look at the captions for these figures.

Second, arbitrary does *not* mean random, at least not in statistical language.  It means
that the researchers had to decide where to draw the dividing line between each of the eight 
categories - break a continuum of variation into groups - not that they pulled numbers or 
lines out of hat.







From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 08:56:39 PDT 1996
Article: 23472 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 20 Jun 1996 16:12:23 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <4qbt97$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4ps39i$504@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>  <31C4A10F.4823@cyberg8t.com> <4q3tcd$dc4@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C87E21.1037@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C87E21.1037@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33527 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23472 alt.discrimination:48890

Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>Laura Finsten wrote:

>> What is the purpose of taking a commonly understood word and using
>> it to mean the virtual opposite of its commonly understood meaning?

>First, common definition are only useful when dealing with things in
>a common manner. I'm using things in a specific context and therefore
>my meanings are specific. I've defined my terms.

Yes, you have defined your terms, but in doing so as you have, you
make dialogue with you rather difficult.  I use the word "racist" to 
mean the opposite of what you do (and most people understand
its meaning in the same way that I do).  As a consequence, you can
and often do, intentionally I think, misinterpret and misrepresent
what I and others say.  Is this part of your game, Mr. LeBouthillier?
To use semantic play to push those who disagree with you to either
adopt your peculiar definitions, or be left talking in circles since
you seem to change your interpretation to suit your ends?  

>Second, the current common definition is wrong. It is the product of
>half a century of political finagling by those who seek to destroy
>the White race. One of the ways they are doing that is by defining
>words in a way that does not serve our interests. Many dictionaries
>prior to World War 2 defined racism as I use it.

How does the current, commonly understood definition of "racism"
contribute to an (imagined) effort to destroy the "White race",
Mr. LeBouthillier?  How does defining "racism" as a belief that 
human abilities are determined by "race", and/or that any "race"
is superior to others fail to serve your interests?   

>Therefore, I am
>at least merely using an older (if not more precise) aspect of the
>word. At the very least, I am using it in a particular cultural
>connotation.

>Third, a particular "-ism" can include many different "sub-isms."
>There is no general "nationalism" but only particular nationalisms.
>Sure, there are similarities but no one follows the general idea
>but only their particular nationalisms. Therefore, to speak broadly
>in terms of "nationalism" requires careful qualification. In the
>same way, "racism" contains many different "sub-isms." My particular
>racism is different from many others but is consistent in many
>other ways.

What utter nonsense.  You are making a false distinction between
a general concept and particular operationalisations or expressions
in different settings.  This is tantamount to saying that there
is no history, there are only histories.

>Fourth, I might ask the same of people like you. Why do you take
>a word which has a particular meaning and use it to mean the
>complete opposite. Racism is the promotion of one's race, just
>as Communism is the promotion of (perhaps) a communal society,
>nationalism is the promotion of one's nation, Catholicism is the
>promotion of Catholic Christianity, Marxism is the promotion of
>Marx's ideas etc. Racism is the promotion of one's race. End of
>discussion.

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but my reading of the meanings
and derivation of the suffix "-ism" in the Oxford Concise Dictionary
suggests to me that you are totally off base.  One meaning of -ism
is as you suggest.  But a more apt one in this case, in my opinion,
is "of typical conduct or condition, denoting classes or qualities".
Examples given are heroism, barbarism, and diamagnetism.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 10:56:50 PDT 1996
Article: 48900 of alt.discrimination
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!netnews.fast.net!news.fast.net!news.pgh.net!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 21 Jun 1996 15:28:37 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4qef35$fq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com> <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33574 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23495 alt.discrimination:48900

I'm actually responding to your reply, Mr. LeBouthillier,
but for some reason it isn't appearing on my server right
now.  Cranky computer, I guess.

I'm willing to engage in a discussion of "natural rights",
but as I'm sure you've gathered, I don't have much of a
grounding in philosophy (except in philosophy of science).
Would this be the sort of rights that are described in 
international accords as "inherent rights"?  Could you
recommend some reading material?  I'm always willing to
learn, although I gather that I lack the exalted level
of intellect required.

I think you said something about "before government".
More clarification of concepts please - do you mean
"before states"?  Before modern European states?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 12:07:15 PDT 1996
Article: 23495 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!netnews.fast.net!news.fast.net!news.pgh.net!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 21 Jun 1996 15:28:37 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4qef35$fq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com> <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33574 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23495 alt.discrimination:48900

I'm actually responding to your reply, Mr. LeBouthillier,
but for some reason it isn't appearing on my server right
now.  Cranky computer, I guess.

I'm willing to engage in a discussion of "natural rights",
but as I'm sure you've gathered, I don't have much of a
grounding in philosophy (except in philosophy of science).
Would this be the sort of rights that are described in 
international accords as "inherent rights"?  Could you
recommend some reading material?  I'm always willing to
learn, although I gather that I lack the exalted level
of intellect required.

I think you said something about "before government".
More clarification of concepts please - do you mean
"before states"?  Before modern European states?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 12:10:17 PDT 1996
Article: 33565 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!realtime.net!news.mindspring.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.uoregon.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: A song for "Bucky Griswold"
Date: 21 Jun 1996 14:55:10 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4qed4e$fq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:holman-2006961515470001@f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi

holman@katk.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:

>You don't like Negroes, you don't like Jews,
>  If there's anyone you do like, it sure is news!
>You don't like Hispanics, or folks of darker hue,
>  Well, damnit, Mr, Griswold, we don't like you!

Muy bien dicho (¿cantado?), Eugénio!






From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 12:10:18 PDT 1996
Article: 33566 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!realtime.net!news.mindspring.com!newspump.sol.net!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.uoregon.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Pro-Whites: Don't Get Suckered By Pseudo-Intellectuals
Date: 21 Jun 1996 14:53:24 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <4qed14$fq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qc1gf$l4o@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
To: bwhit@conterra.com
X-URL: news:4qc1gf$l4o@molokini.conterra.com

bob whitaker  wrote:

[cut some crap]

>       Why, Finsten asked, did she now admits was the pure 
>horseshit that Franz Boas preached, that Neanderthal begat 
>Modern Man 35,000 years ago who begat us all, get 
>dsiscreditted?

Mr. Whitaker,  you asked me to do you the courtesy of emailing
to you my posts, since your server was not reliable.  I agreed
to do that.  I am now asking you to do me the courtesy of
including my words in posts where you are going to address
them.  This is especially important if you are not willing to
make the effort to write in coherent English.  Or is it
your intent to make it difficult enough for me to respond that
I won't bother? 

As I recall, I asked you for the reference in which Boas
said this.  I have not read any work of his in which he
addressed hominid evolution (which is not to say that he
didn't, but it certainly was not one of the major themes of
his writing).

Franz Boas died in 1942.  The state of knowledge about hominid
evolution was very different 54 years ago than it is today.
In addition to changes in thinking about theoretical issues,
there has been a tremendous increase in the number of
hominid fossil specimens since that time.  An entire range
of new early hominid species has been identified since Boas
died.  All of this, of course, also applies to Coon's writing
about human evolution, too.  More data, better methods, a
better appreciation of variation within populations, etc.

I didn't say it (if I have your "it" accurately translated
>from  the gibberish above) was "pure horseshit".  At the
time, a direct connection between Neanderthals and European
populations was certainly implied by the existing fossil
evidence.  A lot of people didn't like this idea, by the
way, arguing that Neanderthals were far too "primitive"
to be the progenitors of Europeans.  

>     She say the fact that this horseshit got called horseshit 
>must prove Mommy Professors are doing it right.  Not at all.   
>In fact, you could still get "six million Jews" screamed at you 
>and a Lambert could ruin your career all the way into the 
>1970's!   The Finstens of the world were still saying that 
>"modern anthropologists" had proven all the races equal.

You know, I really haven't a clue what you are raving about.
I seriously think that you need help.  I have never said that
"'modern anthropologists' had proven all the races equal".
This is *not* the same thing as saying that race as a biological
category has not proven useful for understanding human variation,
genetic (especially) or morphological.  But you sound far too
close to mental collapse to even make an effort to understand
the difference.

>      No, that crap was quashed from outside the academy, and 
>Carlton Coon and Carlton Putnam were, in their very different 
>realms, the leaers in crushing it.  This, I guess, is why 
>Finsten is mixing the two up. I knew them both, and their 
>careers did not cross.  Calton Putnam founded Delta Airlines 
>and was a popualrizer.  Coon was a Harward and University of 
>Pennsylvania and Smithsonian Insitute, etc., intellectuals, 
>holy PhD and a Mommy Professor himself, thoughone who dedicated 
>himself to Evil, of course.

I'm not mixing up Coon and Putnam, Mr. Whitaker.  I've read
works by both (Putnam's "Race and Reason").  Their "careers"
may not have crossed, but it was Coon's vocal support of
Putnam's "Race and Reason" and that led to his (Coon's) 
resignation as president of the American Association of 
Physical Anthropologists.

[remainder of rant deleted]




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 12:10:19 PDT 1996
Article: 33574 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!netnews.fast.net!news.fast.net!news.pgh.net!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 21 Jun 1996 15:28:37 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4qef35$fq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com> <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33574 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23495 alt.discrimination:48900

I'm actually responding to your reply, Mr. LeBouthillier,
but for some reason it isn't appearing on my server right
now.  Cranky computer, I guess.

I'm willing to engage in a discussion of "natural rights",
but as I'm sure you've gathered, I don't have much of a
grounding in philosophy (except in philosophy of science).
Would this be the sort of rights that are described in 
international accords as "inherent rights"?  Could you
recommend some reading material?  I'm always willing to
learn, although I gather that I lack the exalted level
of intellect required.

I think you said something about "before government".
More clarification of concepts please - do you mean
"before states"?  Before modern European states?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 13:07:12 PDT 1996
Article: 45156 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!hookup!news.umbc.edu!cs.umd.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
Date: 17 Jun 1996 14:16:00 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4q3pb0$cbu@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4q05tb$mfa@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <4q29gn$lbg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4q38k9$7v1@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4q38k9$7v1@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33598 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23502 alt.discrimination:48906 alt.revisionism:45156

mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>Laura Finsten  wrote:

>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:

[cut]

>>>	Although I am certain you know it, Finstein is a politically correct
>>>idiot even to the spelling of her name so as not to appear Jewish.

>>TROLL ALERT:  In a desperate, and I must say truly lame effort to offend 
>>and provoke an argument, the Giwer-thing tosses this lulu out, in which 
>>I am on the losing end whether Jewish or not.  But you know, this one 
>>doesn't make sense at all.  Wouldn't it be politically correct to flaunt 
>>being Jewish?  You know, show it with pride and all that?  Wouldn't it be 
>>politically incorrect to change the spelling of my name to hide it?  This
>>is actually rather amusing. 

>	You did flaunt it.  Why did you think you did not?


Uh, flaunt what, Mr. Giwer?  How do you presume to know what surname I
was born with, and what religion and/or ethnic group I belong to?  Are
you merely trolling for an argument (and on this topic, the idea is
laughable), or are you confusing me with someone else?  

[mysterious addendum cult]




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 20:22:06 PDT 1996
Article: 45193 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!caen!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dem bones walk again
Date: 21 Jun 1996 12:09:17 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4qe3dd$bnr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qadjd$5vg@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qadjd$5vg@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com

By age 35, what degree of closure is there in the lambdoidal, coronal and
sagittal sutures of the cranium, on average?  Which elements of the pelvis 
fuse, normally, and by what age does this happen, on average?

The answers are true truths of science, Mr. Giwer, allegedly your
specialty.  




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 23:04:35 PDT 1996
Article: 45214 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.fyionline.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Lets get this straight
Date: 21 Jun 1996 12:25:24 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <4qe4bk$bnr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qb27c$oql@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qb27c$oql@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:45214 alt.politics.white-power:33669

mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>	I reserve the right to respond to any post that in any manner mentions
>me in any manner.

Or not.  Why haven't you responded to the question I posted some days
ago, Mr. Giwer?  I'll repeat it for you here:  By age 35, what degree
of closure is there in the lambdoidal, coronal and sagittal sutures
of the human cranium, on average?  Which elements of the pelvis
fuse, normally, and why what age, on average?


>	I will continue to do so until this crap stops.

This isn't crap, Mr. Giwer.  It is a true truth of science.  Since
you claim be a scientific wizard, answering this should be easy for
you.  Once you've done that, perhaps we can have a meaningful
discussion of the effects of cremation on the human skeleton.  

>	That is not a problem with me in the least.  This can become a spam
>conference as I control it (as has been publically acknowledged) or it
>will get down to cases on my terms.

Here the concern is with bones, not spam.  

>	There is nothing in between.

Well, that's the issue, isn't it?  What is between those skeletal
elements?  When is it replaced by solid bone, if it is at all?  

>	I hope you folks come to understand this.

Hope you can find the answers.  





From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 21 23:08:00 PDT 1996
Article: 23525 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!gatech!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.be.innet.net!INbe.net!news.nl.innet.net!INnl.net!hunter.premier.net!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Whopper of the Week: Race is "Cultural"
Date: 21 Jun 1996 21:52:50 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <4qf5ji$611@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <4pddj4$4uc@news.usaor.net> <4pk5ci$o7c@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pme9c$kjj@news.usaor.net> <4ps1f3$bm9@news1.ucsd.edu> <31C426C2.4A19@cyberg8t.com>  <4qc65b$i32@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C9F30B.146B@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31C9F30B.146B@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23525 talk.politics.european-union:4118 soc.culture.europe:45658

Sorry about the long headers, but I downloaded this to reply, because
I didn't have internet access, and thought I should leave the headers
intact.

From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: 
alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,s
oc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Whopper of the Week: Race is "Cultural"
Date: Thu, 20 
Jun 1996 17:55:39 -0700
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: 
<31C9F30B.146B@cyberg8t.com>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> 
<4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <4pddj4$4uc@news.usaor.net> 
<4pk5ci$o7c@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pme9c$kjj@news.usaor.net> 
<4ps1f3$bm9@news1.ucsd.edu> <31C426C2.4A19@cyberg8t.com> 
 <4qc65b$i32@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>


Laura Finsten wrote:

>> Ouch!  But this is an interesting idea, isn't.  If in Mr. LeBouthillier's
>> conceptual world, race=ethnicity, and "[o]ne may have several ethnicities
>> some of which one sees as more primary than others", then individuals
>> can be multiracial!!!  So how could anybody then argue against what white
>> power rangers call "miscegenation"?

Arthur LeBouthillier responded:

>This is typical of liberal thinking. They think that everything must be
>deemed of equal value when that is obviously not true. First, one may
>deem that certain heritages are "good" while others are bad. Second,
>one may deem some better than others. Is this so hard for you to imagine?

I don't know about "they", but I certainly do not think that everything must
be deemed of equal value.

I was attempting to make the point that there is a contradiction in your
thinking about "national identity".  It is very convenient for you to equate 
"blood lines" (biology) and "ethnicity" for some purposes, and you do this 
without batting an eye.  It is a way for you to identify yourself and restrict 
the group to which you owe your primary allegiance in a way that suits your 
racist agenda.  My use of "racist" here should work for both of us in this 
context, since it conveys my intended meaning whether one understands it to 
have the commonly understood meaning or the newspeak one you prefer.

The contradiction emerges when you apply *your* criteria for *self*-identification
to others.  You say that people may have many ethnicities, but they will assign
different priorities to them.  I can certainly understand that, being one of those
whose heritage is all over the place.  No problem.  But in another thread, you
responded to a question from me in a way that suggested that if a person whose
"blood relations" included a Jewish grandparent, they could be "White".  I still
haven't seen your answer to my followup, which asked if they could still be "White"
if they converted to Judaism.  In other words, if they began to practice the Jewish
religion.  If they chose also to recognise that "additional ethnicity", in your
language, I think.  Am I wrong that your answer would be no, they could not be 
"White"?

If your answer is yes, though, substitute "black" or "African" for Jewish  "blood 
relations" and leave out the part about religion.  How does this one work for you?  
Does your theory of ethnicity still enable a person to have multiple ethnicities and 
recognise them, albeit to different degrees?  Or does *your* definition of *their* 
heritage become paramount?  Does the externally imposed identification of "other" 
override the individual's self-identification?  Have you decided that for some people,
their different ethnicities must be mutually exclusive, or that they are incapable of
determining for themselves which ones to grant highest priority?


>However, the ridiculousness of your viewpoint is obvious when one regards
>all other ethnic groups. Does every ethnic group deem every other group
>to be equally valuable as their own? No.

I don't think that this is really relevant to the point I was trying, but failed,
to make, so I won't respond to it.

>Do you really have such a problem thinking or are you merely trying to
>be funny?

Well, Mr. LeBouthillier, I found your argument amusing (no insult intended), 
and I did attempt to respond in an ironic vein.  But I can't seem to win for 
losing on the humour front, so maybe I should just go back to humourless mode.  
I apologise for expressing myself so poorly and will endeavor to  bring my 
argumentation up to your standards.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sat Jun 22 10:46:43 PDT 1996
Article: 33721 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Lets get this straight
Date: 22 Jun 1996 15:58:16 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4qh56o$11d@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qb27c$oql@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <4qe4bk$bnr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qg7nh$68s@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qg7nh$68s@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:45294 alt.politics.white-power:33721

mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Laura Finsten  wrote:

>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>>>	I reserve the right to respond to any post that in any manner mentions
>>>me in any manner.

>>Or not.  Why haven't you responded to the question I posted some days
>>ago, Mr. Giwer?  I'll repeat it for you here:  By age 35, what degree
>>of closure is there in the lambdoidal, coronal and sagittal sutures
>>of the human cranium, on average?  Which elements of the pelvis
>>fuse, normally, and why what age, on average?

>	Because you have refused to explain what form of crazy glue Hamlet used
>to reconstruct the skull for his soliloquy of course.   

>	Keep at it fat broad.  You are earning yourself points in Shoah.  

Neither Hamlet nor your ad hominem remarks are relevant to the question.
The broad subject area is the effect of cremation on the human skeleton.
You have alleged that because the cranium consists of a single bone
not including the lower jaw and, although not stated I assume not
including the face?), and the pelvis also consists of a single bone,
these very large bones would be intact after cremation.

I ask the question again:  By age 35, what degree of closure (or fusion,
if you prefer) is there in the lambdoidal, coronal and sagittal
sutures of the cranial vault, on average?  I'll give you a little hint: 
these are the major sutures of the skull.  Which elements of the pelvis 
fuse, normally, and by what age, on average?

Once you have answered these questions, we might move on to a 
discussion of cortical bone density for these and other bones of the
human skeleton and the effects of fire on bone, more generally.

A simple series of related questions, posed to the science-wizard
himself, who seems not to be interested in (or know?) these very
pertinent true truths.  




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sat Jun 22 13:53:24 PDT 1996
Article: 45294 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Lets get this straight
Date: 22 Jun 1996 15:58:16 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4qh56o$11d@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qb27c$oql@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <4qe4bk$bnr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qg7nh$68s@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qg7nh$68s@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:45294 alt.politics.white-power:33721

mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Laura Finsten  wrote:

>>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>>>	I reserve the right to respond to any post that in any manner mentions
>>>me in any manner.

>>Or not.  Why haven't you responded to the question I posted some days
>>ago, Mr. Giwer?  I'll repeat it for you here:  By age 35, what degree
>>of closure is there in the lambdoidal, coronal and sagittal sutures
>>of the human cranium, on average?  Which elements of the pelvis
>>fuse, normally, and why what age, on average?

>	Because you have refused to explain what form of crazy glue Hamlet used
>to reconstruct the skull for his soliloquy of course.   

>	Keep at it fat broad.  You are earning yourself points in Shoah.  

Neither Hamlet nor your ad hominem remarks are relevant to the question.
The broad subject area is the effect of cremation on the human skeleton.
You have alleged that because the cranium consists of a single bone
not including the lower jaw and, although not stated I assume not
including the face?), and the pelvis also consists of a single bone,
these very large bones would be intact after cremation.

I ask the question again:  By age 35, what degree of closure (or fusion,
if you prefer) is there in the lambdoidal, coronal and sagittal
sutures of the cranial vault, on average?  I'll give you a little hint: 
these are the major sutures of the skull.  Which elements of the pelvis 
fuse, normally, and by what age, on average?

Once you have answered these questions, we might move on to a 
discussion of cortical bone density for these and other bones of the
human skeleton and the effects of fire on bone, more generally.

A simple series of related questions, posed to the science-wizard
himself, who seems not to be interested in (or know?) these very
pertinent true truths.  




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 23 08:12:54 PDT 1996
Article: 45432 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Who's Fat and Who ain't
Date: 21 Jun 1996 12:47:43 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <4qe5lf$cme@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qd60h$396e@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qd60h$396e@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>I'm sorry about this, but there is a certain member of this newsgroup who
>has been implying that certain female members of this newsgroup are fat. 
>Now, normally, that kind of troll (I refuse to specify who I mean) would be
>ignored.  But since that person is the incarnation of historical and other
>accuracy, I can only say that 'fess up time has come.  Members of this
>newsgroup are hereby ordered to post the following information (men
>included, since there is a chance some of them are fat too):

Age (real or imputed)     29???  

Height                    6'???

Weight                    125??? (don't ask if its lbs or kgs, though)

Body build                No, it was making me look too muscular

Hair color                I don't colour my hair

Eye color                 I don't wear eye make-up

Number of bones in skull (ear-bones excluded)   will have to get back to
Number of bones in pelvis (ear-bones excluded)  you on these ones in a
                                                couple of decades

Favorite color of silica gel     well of course, blue, for silica gel
																														as for everything else

IQ (to the nearest 100)		  I only know my hat-size, is that an acceptable
																													substitute?  Rushton thinks so.

Highest level of education obtained   I don't need no stinkin' edgecashun

Highest level of education claimed    Why claim what you don't need?
    
Employment history (real or imagined) Yeah, I imagine employment.


>The winner gets an 8x12 glossy of a _Lord of the Rings_ character (can you
>guess which one?).

Hey, Gord, what are the criteria for judging, anyway?

>P.S. This is not spam material.  It is also not steak, hamburger or chicken.

Tofu?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 23 08:12:55 PDT 1996
Article: 45513 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!news.mid.net!newsfeeder.gi.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!worldlinx.com!freenet-news.carleton.ca!cunews!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: wpg.politics,alt.politics.white-power,alt.anything,can.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.ernst-zundel,alt.revisionism,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,can.general
Subject: Re: McOyVay's childish games (http://www.alaska.net/~schoedel)
Date: 21 Jun 1996 22:10:41 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 11
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4qf6l1$611@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4nus3o$flg@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <1996May31.223855.24833@wpg.ramp.net> <4ood7g$ffp@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4p3t13$5em@news.ios.com> <4p4kda$ffd@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4p511o$f0j@lal.interserv.net> <4prgia$2oh@news.ios.com> <4psu6n$2t6@liberator.concentric.net> <4ptqbr$hsq@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4pvqn3$pbp@orb.direct.ca> <4q03kr$fh1@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <4q1ajl$bkk@liberator.concentric.net> <4q1kig$i89@orb.direct.ca> <4q4o6u$dqv@boris.eden.com> <4q50gl$jpc@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <4q7die$f53@orb.direct.ca> <4q7qb2$3e8@atlas.uniserve.com> <31CB1631.4091@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31CB1631.4091@unb.ca
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33805 can.politics:53790 talk.politics.misc:395534 alt.fan.ernst-zundel:1531 alt.revisionism:45513 alt.censorship:86318 comp.org.eff.talk:66490 can.general:81045

Keith Morrison  wrote:

[cut]

>  By the way, he keeps screaming at random times about his
>"rigii" being stuck.  Do you know what a "rigii" is?

Man, I'm glad somebody finally asked.  I've been wondering
for months.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 23 11:17:51 PDT 1996
Article: 45432 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Who's Fat and Who ain't
Date: 21 Jun 1996 12:47:43 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <4qe5lf$cme@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qd60h$396e@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qd60h$396e@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

>I'm sorry about this, but there is a certain member of this newsgroup who
>has been implying that certain female members of this newsgroup are fat. 
>Now, normally, that kind of troll (I refuse to specify who I mean) would be
>ignored.  But since that person is the incarnation of historical and other
>accuracy, I can only say that 'fess up time has come.  Members of this
>newsgroup are hereby ordered to post the following information (men
>included, since there is a chance some of them are fat too):

Age (real or imputed)     29???  

Height                    6'???

Weight                    125??? (don't ask if its lbs or kgs, though)

Body build                No, it was making me look too muscular

Hair color                I don't colour my hair

Eye color                 I don't wear eye make-up

Number of bones in skull (ear-bones excluded)   will have to get back to
Number of bones in pelvis (ear-bones excluded)  you on these ones in a
                                                couple of decades

Favorite color of silica gel     well of course, blue, for silica gel
																														as for everything else

IQ (to the nearest 100)		  I only know my hat-size, is that an acceptable
																													substitute?  Rushton thinks so.

Highest level of education obtained   I don't need no stinkin' edgecashun

Highest level of education claimed    Why claim what you don't need?
    
Employment history (real or imagined) Yeah, I imagine employment.


>The winner gets an 8x12 glossy of a _Lord of the Rings_ character (can you
>guess which one?).

Hey, Gord, what are the criteria for judging, anyway?

>P.S. This is not spam material.  It is also not steak, hamburger or chicken.

Tofu?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 23 11:52:02 PDT 1996
Article: 23577 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 22 Jun 1996 17:21:12 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <4qha28$11d@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com> <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qef35$fq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31CBF2E3.332B@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31CBF2E3.332B@cyberg8t.com

Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>Laura Finsten wrote:
 
>> I'm actually responding to your reply, Mr. LeBouthillier,
>> but for some reason it isn't appearing on my server right
>> now.  Cranky computer, I guess.

>That's fine. I too have computer problems sometimes.

>> I'm willing to engage in a discussion of "natural rights",
>> but as I'm sure you've gathered, I don't have much of a
>> grounding in philosophy (except in philosophy of science).
>> Would this be the sort of rights that are described in
>> international accords as "inherent rights"?  Could you
>> recommend some reading material?  I'm always willing to
>> learn, although I gather that I lack the exalted level
>> of intellect required.

>That's fine. I won't pretend I'm an expert on the issue of rights. I've read
>some of the classical works and since they have been a major issue for leftists,
>I have spent some time coming to understand them.

>We don't have to make this a hostile discussion. Let's agree to work together
>to come to some understanding on what rights are. On that basis, whatever
>cooperation we engage in may only be temporary.

I agree that this does not have to be a hostile discussion.  We may also
find ourselves able to see where our ideas diverge and explore the reasons
for that divergence.

>First, some of the basic works on natural rights are:

>           Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
>           John Locke, Two treatises on Government (Title?)
>           Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract.

>Additionally, there are other sources which are good for basic ideas of
>what rights are such as Blacks Law dictionary. As you read these, you'll
>see that there are some basic agreements about what rights are although
>there are disagreements. The above three works are not easy reading. They
>are often in obscure older English and so difficult to understand at times.
>However, they're a good original source on many of the ideas related to
>rights, natural rights, law and society. Finally, even Thomas Jefferson
>puts forth ideas on law, rights and the nature of government to which we
>can look.

I can get Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau from the library, and they have
Black's Law dictionary, although it is noncirculating, but that's OK.
I'll try get started over the weekend, but I still have to plough
through a huge genetics book I have for only another week on interlibrary
loan.  I recall from a philosophy course I took that it can be fairly
tough sledding at times, but I'll give it a whirl.

>I am flexible and will seriously consider works that you offer (assuming I
>can either find them or obtain copies of the resources themselves). In some
>cases, I will simply take your word. However, in all cases, we must look for
>the underlying bias in the author's viewpoint and consider that certain
>conclusions and statements are indicative of that bias. All of the authors
>above had biases and intentions in their writings. Hobbes wanted to justify
>monarchy. Locke wanted to justify non-monarchic governments and Rousseau,
>well, he wanted to justify the social contract and deligitimize France as it
>was.

I have a friend who does philosophy of law, so I will ask him to recommend
some reading.  And several who do legal anthropology and indigenous rights,
so they might have some interesting recommendations.  I also know someone
who is into international justice and human rights who might be able to
suggest some material.  Anything that you can't get and I can't get to you,
we'll scrap from the list (unless you're willing to trust me to cite
accurately - I always do, but I can understand your reluctance to take my
word).

>Finally, in the next few days I will look for what I think are other important
>references that will be important to this understanding. If necessary, I will
>be willing to mail you copies of pages from references should I have them and
>for which you're unable to obtain copies.

Fine,  I can do the same.

>> I think you said something about "before government".
>> More clarification of concepts please - do you mean
>> "before states"?  Before modern European states?

>Well, I guess by "before government" I mean, "inherent." By "before government"
>I mean that governments are not the source of rights but their supposed protectors.
>Although, I'm not naive-enough to say that governments do not violate rights
>and that they may not be justified in doing so, there are some things that an
>individual is just in claiming a government may not do.

So these would be rights that accrue irrespective of government (in theory, of
course)?

>Additionally, one must recognize that the natural rights viewpoint is merely
>a theory about the relationships between people. Just because Rousseau or
>some other socio-political author stated it doesn't make it so. They are not
>Gods and they don't have divine insight. However, I am willing to consider
>that their ideas are very important on these issues.

Sure.  So it might also be interesting to read some social theorists on
the issue of rights, as well.

>Additionally, it is my preference that the discussion be centered only on
>alt.politics.nationalism.white because I do respect the wishes of others
>not to have our discussions overflow to other places. After this message
>I will methodically delete cross-postings to other newsgroups. I find it
>acceptable that you may bring in others who may help you or us in this
>discussion although I may purposely ignore people whom I don't feel are
>naturally part of this discussion or not serious enough. As I see it, this
>discussion is primarily between you and I, although if you ask that I
>consider someone else's ideas, I will do so. I am also willing to change
>certain of my own ideas to suit whatever evidence may exist (within certain
>limits which we can discuss in the future).

I have no problem with limiting the discussion to apnw.  I often forget to
look at the list of groups things are posted to (sloppy netiquette, I'm
afraid), and I have set this reply for posting to that group only.  I never
bring other people into discussions, Mr. LeBouthillier.  I have talked about
things with friends to clarify my thinking on some matters under discussion
>from  time to time, and emailed to (and been emailed by) other participants
in discussions, but I have never solicited the participation of another person
in a thread and am not about to start.  But if someone makes what you or I think 
is a valid and relevant point, I don't think that it would make sense to ignore it.
We'll just have to see what happens, no, and see if we can, when necessary,
agree to disagree where we must and still be able to discuss things.

>What do you think? It is my opinion that newsgroups are poor discussion
>places but can be made into useful places of discussion forums by the
>discipline of the participants.

I'm willing to give it a try.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 23 11:58:01 PDT 1996
Article: 33838 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.reed.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!nntp.neu.edu!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!uhog.mit.edu!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: nz.politics,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Liberals and brain sizes
Date: 21 Jun 1996 14:07:00 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <4qeaa4$cme@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4q7mon$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.141544@cantva> <4q84ks$2cj@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.202656@cantva> <4qae5m$t72@newsource. <4qbuqr$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qcsn8$igt@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qcsn8$igt@newsource.ihug.co.nz

p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:
>In article <4qbuqr$7ip@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten  says:

>>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

>>>"Morris's Human Anatomy" was/is regarded as an authority, therefore Mr
>>>Larsell must also be an authority.  With the advent of political stupidity
>>>of today, I wouldn't know how much of an authority the book holds *today*.  

>>Would you kindly provide the full reference for this book, Mr. Stone?
>>Year and place of original publication, publisher, ISBN if available?

>Not available at the present.  If I see it again I will get you that
>information.

>>>The book would be authoritive to a number of disciplines including
>>>human anatomy (which should of been obvious in the first place).

>>But oddly enough, it is not owned by my university library, which
>>has a very large, internationally recognised medical school.  Is it
>>a little out-of-date, perhaps?

>Perhaps.  However, as you so kindly pointed out your library doesn't
>have "History and Geography of Human Genetics" either, so it is hardly
>surprising.

Yes, this is true (although they have ordered it, at my request).  But
the medical school here truly is internationally reknowned, and has
a huge budget for things like book purchases, so I find it difficult
to imagine that they would not have a central work in a subject basic
to the study of medicine.

>>By the way, perhaps you are interpreting the billboard (or whatever)
>>literally, when it was intended to be more metaphoric?  Perhaps it
>>was equating racism with small-mindedness (rather than small brains)?


>This is actually quite good Miss Finsten.  It's a pity you can't make
>equivalent comments more regularly.

>There is one fundamental flaw however.  The advertisements used small 
>brains (drastically smaller) for racists.  While you can say small-
>mindedness, these ads were directed at the common mass, for people about
>as intelligent as Peter Metcalfe, who find it difficult to think too
>often and prefer to let other people think for them.  'Monkey see, monkey
>do'

Surely you are not suggesting that "the common mass" is incapable
of thinking metaphorically, Mr. Stone.  You don't think much of
my intellect, and yet this was my interpretation of the description
I read.

>Small-mindedness was very good though :-)




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 23 18:24:43 PDT 1996
Article: 33866 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!nntp.coast.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.british
Subject: Re: Asian Invasion of England!
Date: 21 Jun 1996 22:09:02 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4qf6hu$611@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <199606072032.NAA18225@INFINITY.C2.ORG> <19960614.035114.618187.NETNEWS@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU>  <4qefq2$f0u@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qefq2$f0u@molokini.conterra.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33866 alt.politics.british:44350

bob whitaker  wrote:

>Now grow out of calling all 
>Ameicans "Yanks", but you never will.

I prefer "gringos", myself.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 23 18:24:44 PDT 1996
Article: 33868 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: newsgroups going nowhere
Date: 21 Jun 1996 22:05:47 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4qf6br$611@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References:  <31BFB1DB.46FE@scott.net> <4pq22v$m5g@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4pqmia$o7l@molokini.conterra.com>  <4qbk70$17j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qee9j$doa@molokini.conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qee9j$doa@molokini.conterra.com

bob whitaker  wrote:

>I'm glad Kowalewski and Fenstin and the rst have given up the 
>prestense of not being clones.   Kowalensky, like most libs, 
>was giving me some kind of stuff about  how she was not one of 
>the standard ones, as was Finsten.  Now I see Kowalewski is 
>going the straight tired old hippy route with some song about 
>all mankind or something she's quoting there, and Feinsten says 
>"We" wihtout the old bullshit.

"We" referred to the collection of individuals named by the animal
for inclusion in his killfile.  I'm lazy, I didn't want to 
retype all the names.  I thought I might misspell them, or
something like that, Mr. Whitaker, and I sure wouldn't want to
do that.

>I've been here, done this, and you are just part of an old and 
>long paradeof mindless clones I've seen go by.

I'm surprised you've "seen" anything.  I don't think you've
comprehended much.

>    If you read stuff from the 60's, their idea of a 
>stimulating intellectual exercise was a debate about howmany 
>bureaucrats it took to make industry efficient. Lib memory has 
>locked about those things.

Is "lib memory" genetic, too, Mr. Whitaker?

>   Now Fenstin tells me how brave they are to debate *The Bell 
>Cureve* and whether some people are born smarter thanotehrs.

I truly am astonished at how misrepresentation and/or complete
incomprehension of what you read, Mr. Whitaker.  Do you have
the same comprehension and/or representation problems with
writings whose slant appeals to you?
  
>Hell, when forced some of her Mommy Professsors will even 
>debate whether ther is such a thing as race or not.

But you won't, will you, Mr. Whitaker.  You don't want to
know about the current genetic research, do you, because
you can't deal with how it upsets your worldview.  You
sound like a maudlin fool with a half-fried brain.

Not e-mailed.  Show some courtesy in return by posting
the text you are criticising and I'll do it.
>    Meanwhile, the rest of us are here on Planet Earth, and we 
>don't get paid to take that kind of theocratic nonsense 
>seriously. 
>




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 23 19:30:14 PDT 1996
Article: 45619 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones
Date: 23 Jun 1996 23:55:15 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4qklh3$ijo@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pt67e$b7e@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <31C39013.67CE@unb.ca> <4q09m3$a20@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <31C5E87F.7786@unb.ca> <4q517c$glj@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <31C88756.50D2@unb.ca> <4qb2s6$oql@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <31CB1D05.5F71@unb.ca> <4qhnlp$6eb@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qhnlp$6eb@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com

mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:

[cut]

>	Add one more distortion if you like.  The fact remains that the pelvis
>and the skull are the bones most like to survive any form of cremation
>and the skull is never mentioned by those so-called eyewitnesses.  

[cut]

Let me ask the question yet another time:  By age 35, on average, what
degree of fusion (or closure) exists in the lambdoidal, sagittal and
coronal sutures of the human cranium, on average?  Why can't Mr.
Science answer this simple question, a true truth of human skeletal
anatomy, and a question that is key to evaluating the claim he makes
above?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 23 19:30:15 PDT 1996
Article: 45620 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: a surprise
Date: 23 Jun 1996 23:59:26 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <4qklou$ijo@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qdqfe$i3f@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4qil84$f8o@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> <31CD8B4E.48C2@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31CD8B4E.48C2@unb.ca

Keith Morrison  wrote:
>Richard Schultz wrote:
 
>> Prince Myshkin (mgiwer@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
 
>> : The only thing they have not made pubic [sic] yet is the strategy session
>> : they indulged in.
 
>> Hey! This is a family newsgroup!

>No no no, he was talking about the bones in the pelvis,
>weren't you, Mr Giwer?

>By the way, figure out how many there are yet?

Or which ones normally fuse, and by what the fusions are complete, on average?
And whether this differs for men and women?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 24 17:39:32 PDT 1996
Article: 45754 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!sunqbc.risq.net!uniserve!n2van.istar!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!clio.trends.ca!worldlinx.com!freenet-news.carleton.ca!cunews!nott!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,alt.skinheads,can.politics
Subject: Re: Griswold's basis for judging blacks (was: Are the media inaccurate?)
Date: 24 Jun 1996 19:20:52 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4qmpqk$n5o@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pl6aj$cj5@news.usaor.net> <834579868snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4ponth$isa@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <31c7f3a8.89116126@news.concentric.net> <4qd1qp$f7@freenet-news.carleton.ca>  <4qh60i$1nb@basement.replay.com>  <4qkvlm$qas@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qkvlm$qas@freenet-news.carleton.ca
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33962 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23696 alt.revisionism:45754 alt.skinheads:29442 can.politics:53993

bn946@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Les Griswold) wrote:

>Jeffrey G. Brown (jeff_brown@pol.com) writes:

[cut]

 
>> Can you specify (by newspaper title, date, edition, section, and page) any
>> newspaper article which supports the contention that the majority of
>> blacks _do_ "go haywire"?

>Translation:  he's got me here.  If I pulled my head out of my ass, I'd
>see reality.  So I'll just use the standard liberal tactic of playing dumb
>(easy for us).

Translation:  No, but I can sure throw insults around, and that'll show 'em.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Mon Jun 24 22:50:18 PDT 1996
Article: 33977 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!world1.bawave.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Finsten and arguments about anthropology
Date: 24 Jun 1996 14:10:22 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 416
Message-ID: <4qm7ke$80p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qk9vo$8s1@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qk9vo$8s1@newsource.ihug.co.nz
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:33977 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23703

p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

To readers who are sick of the long-winded wrangling between
Mr. Stone and I, I apologise.

>First I'd like to make an apology to Laura Finsten.  She has retracted 
>her statement that racial difference is purely social.  My argument over 
>this aspect with Scott Erb is now defunct.    BTW, I am extremely 
>impressed by Laura Finsten's admission.  It should be noted to viewers 
>that Laura has only once retracted from a claim of hers, albeit extremely 
>ungracefully, before.  That was her use of craniometry being defunct, and 
>then changing it to cephalic index when her argument was crushed.

Mr. Stone, I think that you are apologising under what might loosely be
called false pretenses, although these arise from your misreading of what
I have written, rather than from any deception on my part.

I have not retracted my statement that "racial difference is purely social",
as you phrase it.  I don't believe that I have ever said this.  I have 
previously said that the *categories* that are commonly called "races" are 
not biologically coherent groups that would qualify as "biological races" 
as the term is used more generally in biology, and that these groups are 
indeed social creations.  I have said several times that your "understanding" 
of Portuguese and Ethiopian population histories and genetic variation 
demonstrates one of the best expressions I have seen to demonstrate that the
so-called racial categories "black" and "white" are social rather than 
biological.  But I have never denied that the human species is variable.

I would also like to remind you that I challenged you, more than once if I 
recall correctly, to demonstrate through citation where I said that craniometry 
was defunct.  You still have not done so.  And I have no doubt that you won't, 
because you can't.  You can't, because I never said it.

>This discovery was made when I decided to look at the Niskor Web under 
>Laura Finsten's files to see her counter-argument of me itemising the 
>White race (thread: "What is the White race anyway?").  Alas, I noticed 
>that even McVay's mighty Usenet hunting software missed it as well 
>(sarcasm included).  Therefore, either Finsten is lying or it was failed 
>to be received by my site (which isn't a surprise) or McVay's site (which 
>theoritically should be a surprise).  Whatever the outcome, this supposed 
>defuncting of the categorising I gave has never turned up.

Perhaps you could try Dejanews?  Alta Vista?  Or if you clarify which of your
lengthy posts of traits and characteristics you are referring to, I might even 
have my reply on disk.  Because of your penchant for misrepresenting and/or 
misunder-standing my posts, I've taken to saving copies of them when I remember 
to.  Are you referring to the recent list that included such things as hirsuteness, 
lactose tolerance, and sea-faring?  If so, I can repost my response to that.  I'd 
like to discuss it in greater depth with you, Mr. Stone, because I am really unsure 
about how you would operationalise such a list of qualities to define a group of 
people.  I wondered, for example, what you would do with the 15-20 percent (I think, I'd 
have to verify that figure) of Finns who are lactose intolerant, or people who 
get seasick.  But we can deal with that if you will confirm for me that this is the 
reply you appear to be alleging was never written.

>With this in mind, perhaps she'd like to tell us her her new definition 
>of race, with the biological aspect to it or is it still muddling her head?

As I have stated repeatedly, race is not a useful biological classification for
the human species.  I have never altered my position on this.

>On the subject of skull shapes.  I assume that she now believes that the 
>difference is now biological and that of 800 skulls found in pre-Dynastic 
>Egypt, a third could be classified as Negro (according to her new 
>opinions).  

The point I have been trying to make, and which you still don't seem
to grasp, is that it is possible to put any sort of objects, whether they are
skulls or jelly beans, into classes or categories.  Whether those categories 
have any "real meaning", however, is another matter entirely.

>Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the so-called big disproof of the cephalic 
>index came from Boas & Co.   In which it is stated that (in America) the 
>children born of immigrants there skulls varied away from their parents.  
>I believe he recorded a 2% variation.  Some flaws; were the skull shapes 
>identical in both parents  of the children examined?  Also, it is 
>recorded that various environmental causes (like famines) can change a 
>skull shape by 2%, this is used as part of the disproof BTW.  Basically, 
>what I am saying is, does this 2% change happen every generation?  I 
>believe you'll find it incorrect, as the skull shape of White Americans 
>is still categorised as broad-browed long-head.  There has been enough 
>generations in America by now to have radically changed the skull shapes 
>of White Americans.  Unfortunately it hasn't happened.  That 2% variation 
>is all there is and that can, as admitted by Boas, be strictly 
>environmental.  In effect, White Americans aren't getting the skull 
>shapes of the (original) North American Indians as we would expect, if 
>this hypothesis was correct.

I did not rely on Boas' or his students' work on the cranial index in my explanation
for why it is not longer used by most physical anthropologists.  However, I will
say that your comment indicates a flawed understanding of what constitutes "the
environment" in the context of this argument.  Physical setting - things like
climate and so - may have some bearing, but more critical to human growth and
development are environmental factors like diet and nutrition during
fetal development as well as during post-natal maturation.  These, of course,
would in no way be comparable to the pre-European situation.

The fundamental flaws of the cranial index are methodological ones:  

(1)  Because it is arithmetically devised from two measures, it masks a great deal 
of variation in actual skull shape and form.  The cranial (or cephalic) index is 
calculated by dividing the maximum cranial breadth by the the maximum cranial length 
and multiplying the resulting number by 100.But there are no defensible reasons to 
accept the idea, basic to the cranial (or cephalic) index, that these two measures 
are the only, or even the most, important ones for describing variations in cranial 
form.

(2)  Because the index values themselves are continuously distributed, that is they 
range from about 70 to 85 or more, without any "natural breaks", the process of dividing 
the resulting index values into a couple of categories involves drawing *arbitrary* lines 
at points along this continuum.  These dividing lines have no inherent or *natural* 
meaning.  There is no "natural break" or "natural division" between a cranial index 
value of 74.9 and one of 75.0.  

Given the way the index is calculated, such a miniscule difference might easily result 
>from  measuring error or "interobserver differences".  And yet the cranial index would put 
two individuals with these measurements into two different cranial type categories.  
Putting aside for the moment the methodological weaknesses with the cranial index, this 
strikes me as pretty darn skaky grounds upon which to making a determination that 
individual A, whose cranial index is 74.9 is "white", while individual B, with an index 
value of 75.0 is not.

>She has also misquoted me in affirmation of stating that Europeans have 
>only 88 +-0.1 genes.   Alas, while it seemed I did state so in that 
>particular reply, she should be reminded that I was carrying through from 
>earlier arguments, something that she failed to notice.  I did not, at 
>any time, believe or say that Europeans were restricted to 88 +-0.1 
>genes.  Sorry Miss Finsten, you are going to have to do better than that.

Might I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "misquote" in a dictionary,
Mr. Stone, and that you then retract this unfounded charge?  Those words of yours
did not meet your exalted standards for evidence?  As it happens, I can indeed do better.
Or at least add a quotation from the post of yours that preceded the one I have already
cited.  How is this, Mr. Stone?  Once more, from Dejanews, dated 1996/02/05:


  Subject:      Re: What is the White aryan definition of race?
  From:         p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
  Date:         1996/02/05
  Message-Id:   <4f4odk$25@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
  References:   <4ertfk$5g3@cville-Srv.wam.umd.edu>
  Organization: Order of Alchemists
  Newsgroups:  alt.society.anarchy, alt.politics.nationalism.white, alt.skinhead, 
                         rec.music.white-Power

  In article <4ertfk$5g3@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, Bill White  
       says:

  [Introduction snipped]

  >     If one were to have the genetic information of two people, one
  >White Aryan and one the non-White Aryan of your choice, how would you
  >tell the two apart, including:
  >What specific areas or aspects of the genes would be significant?

  The book by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza "The History and Geography of
  Human Genes", goes through the differences between Caucasion and Half
  Caucasion (of Western Asia).  It doesn't use the word Aryan.

  >What would the differences be?

  The book is contains extensive tables.

  >What is the relation between that section of the genome and both the physical  
  >and mental development of the individual?

  Skin colour would be the obvious.  Since these mulattos have miscegenated
  with the Negro and Mongoloid (in some cases), one would expect a range of
  varied results from hybridisation.  With the Negro combination, a less
  developed brain.  The White genes would give them a sense of civilisation,
  but lack the ability to develop high civilisation.  In effect only being
  able to continue (albiet poorly) the civilisation created by White Aryans.
  According to the aforementioned book, Europeans have the most genes 88 +-
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  0.1 %, The Mongloids 65.1 +- 6.2 and the Negroes (African) 47.6+-21.9. The
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  African varies so greatly due to the number of different races existing
  there.  The Pygmies for example, have less genes than most other Negroes.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  These non-White "Aryans" have less genes.  These half Caucasiods have less
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  genes than Caucasiods.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  [remainder irrelevant here and deleted for brevity]


I have taken the liberty of underscoring the sentences from this post that most 
clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic genetics.  Is that good 
enough for you, Mr. Stone?  Context is all, they say, and I stand by my 
interpretation of your meaning in the context of this sequence of posts.  

>She also has supposedly flawed me over PC Maps in "History and Geography 
>of Human Genetics".  She quotes Cavilla-Sforza's opinions or 
>interpretations as fact when figure 5.5.2 on p.269 spells out something 
>quite different from C-S' writing.  As I'd like to point out, England, 
>Scotland, Germany and so forth are closely clustered together.  Iceland, 
>the supposed outlier is not to far distant and is isolated from other 
>nations.  Only Ireland lies closest to the mulatto nations, however, she 
>has stated that the Celtic nations are closest to the Iberian 
>populations.  One of my arguments of old, has been stating that many 
>members of the Southern Ireland are mixed, thus, the discrepancies over 
>them occur.  Southern France mixed with the Moors, despite what Laura 
>Finsten's opinions state otherwise.  Assuming she classifies the French 
>as Celtic.

Ah Mr. Stone, you give me far too much credit.  I have merely endeavoured to
bring the flaws in your interpretation of various books you have cited, and in
some concepts you employ, to your attention.  They are all yours, and I take
no credit for "flaw[ing] you".

Are you implying that Cavalli-Sforza et al. do not know how to interpret their
data, and that you understand their calculations of genetic distances and the
results of the PC analyses better than they, Mr. Stone?

As to your interpretation of Figure 5.5.2, what do you make of the apparent
fact that the Spanish and Czechoslovaks are "closely" clustered, proximity of
Austrians and Portuguese, or the close locations of Italian, Hungarian and
Russian populations?  As I understand it, the authors' conclusion that Icelanders
constitute "outliers" is derived from a consideration of all the different analyses
taken together, rather than picking on one that, superficially, points to a 
conclusion that fits their preconceptions.

I did not state that the Celtic populations were closest to the Iberian populations,
Mr. Stone.  I quoted Cavalli-Sforza et al. as saying that in terms of genetic
distance measures, the Celtic groups (Scots and Irish) were most distant from
the Germanic groups, more distant than southwestern Europeans.  You really
do need to work on your reading comprehension.  You might also recall that I
quoted the same authors as saying that their genetic distance measures indicate
that the French are most closely related to Germanic peoples.

You still haven't answered my question about what data of Cavalli-Sforza et al. 
you like and what data and which analyses you reject, and why, Mr. Stone.


>She has repeatedly asked me for proof of the Portuguese being mixed (she 
>isn't much of an anthropologist then).  I have told her to read a history 
>book on the subject, something she has refused to do (afraid of facts 
>perhaps?).  BTW I wasn't the man that quoted the Encyclopedia Brittanica 
>(1940) and she was around when it was quoted...perhaps the dodge mode is 
>too deeply engrained into pysche?  However, since I have failed to exhort 
>her in reading a history book on Portugal, perhaps she'd be so kind in 
>explaining their extremely swarthy complexion?  She should remember that 
>in Henry the Navigator's time they were a fair-skinned race, also, there 
>are pockets of the aristocracy (as in Spain) that are still fair-skinned.

Well, this is most interesting.  I am beginning to wonder if Canadian and New
Zealand English have diverged to the point where mutual understanding and
communication are no longer possible.  What I have repeatedly asked you for
was documentation of your claim that the Portuguese are "black/white half
breeds".  Interesting that you claim that I am dodging.  In the post to which I 
responded, and to which you are now replying, *you* referred to the Encyclopaedia 
Britannica 1940 edition as the source for this claim.  Since you deleted all that 
text, I reproduce your words here, thanks once again to Dejanews:

  Subject:      Re: Ken McVay: Not Addressing the Question
  From:         p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros)
  Date:         1996/06/20
  Message-Id:   <4qcc53$bel@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
  References:   <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-News.carleton.ca>  
   <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> 
   <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-News.carleton.ca <4
  Organization: Order of Alchemists
  Newsgroups:   alt.politics.white-Power, alt.politics.nationalism.white, 
alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism

[some editing for brevity, this is getting ridiculous]

>>>p_stone@alchemy.co.nz (Ourobouros) wrote:

  Mr. Stone asked:

     1b. According to anthropological classification the Portuguese are
     Caucasian and the Ethiopian is Negro.  However both are half breeds
     white/black mixes.  Could you please explain the difference in
     classification?

  I replied:

     This will be the fourth or fifth time I ask you to give me a credible
     source which describes the Portuguese and Ethiopians as "half breed
     white/black mixes".  Got that, Mr. Stone?  Have you seen this?  You
     ask a question that doesn't make sense, I ask you for clarification
     or substantiation, and you disappear.  Then a week or so later you
     come back and whine that I'm "dodging your oh-so-penetrating questions",
     as if I had said nothing in response to your idiotic garbage.

  Mr. Stone responded:

     Actually Cavalli-Sforza makes that assertion in the book you don't like.
     He even makes the comment that some Anthrolopologist classify the
     Ethiopians as Caucasian because of the mixture.  BTW, the key word is
     SOME and not ALL or MOST as you would like to make it so.

[my comments and Mr. Stone's sniping here cut]

  >What do Cavalli-Sforza and his coauthors say about the Portuguese in
  >"The History and Geography of Human Genes"?  Well, "Portuguese" is
  >listed three times in the index.  (The book is more than 500 pages
  >long, so I have only been able to read fragments of it so far.)

  Actually I'm unaware that he classifies the Portuguese as mixed, at least
  in that book.  He does however mention Ethiopians.

  The Portuguese is from their own history.  They mixed with their Black
  slaves.  A direct quotation has been made from the Encyclopedia
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Brittanica (1940) which stated what the Portuguese did, it even went on
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  to state that it was the cause of their downfall (miscegenation). However,
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  it seems no matter how many times I tell you won't listen.



You may not have directly quoted the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1940 edition
but you have provided it as your source for this claim.  Do you deny that this
is so, Mr. Stone?

Yes, you keep telling me to read a history book.  I don't have time to read a history
of Portugal, Mr. Stone.  I have asked you to provide a succinct summary with
citations to corroborate your assertion that the Portuguese are a "half black/half
white mix" and you have repeatedly refused to do so.  You make the assertion, the
onus is on you to demonstrate its veracity when challenged.

>She has also complained of me using ad hominen attacks in reference to 
>said book.  May I remind her that she gave us a needless adjective 
>(massive) in describing the book.   That in so doing she was inviting 
>scorn.

I'm not as thin-skinned as you would perhaps like, Mr. Stone.  I have not
complained about your repeated ad hominem attacks, but rather have consistently
pointed out that they are irrelevant to either the substance or quality of my
arguments.  And that you use them as a substitute for argument.  Quibbling 
over the adjective I used to describe the size (and weight, that sucker nearly broke my 
arm lugging it from the library) of a book does not in itself constitute ad hominem 
"argument", as you suggest here.  Your insinuation that I am unwilling to do any
research comes closer to the mark.  And I'm sure you remember well the others
that constitute classic examples.  Your implication is that I am incompetent and/or
lazy.  However, I note that each time I have checked sources you have claimed 
support your arguments, I have demonstrated that you have either lied about what
the source said or you have misunderstood or misrepresented the material you
claim to have read.

>On a more positive note:  She has admitted (finally) that genetics play a 
>bearing on the type of society created.  Her example was of polygamy and 
>polyandry.

Pardon me?  I have made no such "admission".  My mention of polygamy and
polyandry was in the context of a discussion about the universality of the
family as the fundamental unit of human social organisation.  My point was that
while we might talk about a universal unit called "the family", its form and
structure varies tremendously cross-culturally.  Do you understand the 
difference between what I actually said, and what you are saying I said, Mr. 
Stone?

[some stuff snipped]

>Moving off the aspect of anthropology a little, I would like to comment 
>on her position of equality.  She has stated for the record that equality 
>is in respect of law and judgement before the law.  Perhaps she should 
>examine case law more closely.  Very few trials are identical nor are 
>those brought before the court able to tried in identical circumstances.  
>For example, what one wears in court plays a major role, not only to 
>impress the judge, but also the jury, which can be tedious at best.  
>Also, gender can often play a role.  The book "Dress for Success" is an 
>extremely valid book for this argument.  The author goes through what 
>will and what will not work.  That in itself is proof enough of the 
>variance at court on purely social events.  Basically, we are not equal 
>before the law, what the aim should be however, is consistency.  In that 
>regard, there has to be only one law not many, and that is not possible 
>when a society wants to have multiculturalism.  No doubt the less 
>intelligent viewers will take this the wrong way, one law does not mean 
>having only one thing, for example, death sentence for everything, but 
>one consistent law.  No matter who they are, they are tried under the 
>same law.  Under multi-culturalism however, we have many laws.  Cultural 
>sensitivity is a favourite buzzword today, and that plays a role in court.  
>For example, a Tongan couple burnt their child with cigarettes.  They got 
>away with it because it was a cultural punishment for disobedience.  
>Please examine the same circumstances if we replaced Tongan parents with 
>European parents...

Mr. Stone, does the distinction between "the law" as a body of principles
and its application in specific instances have any meaning for you?  Do you 
understand the general concept of principles?  I do indeed find it ironic that you 
appear here to be arguing a case for a single body of law for all, since your posts 
elsewhere suggest that this is the last thing you want.

Would you kindly cite specific legal statutes in New Zealand to indicate that in
criminal cases, for example, there is not "one law" for all?  What is the penalty
for first degree murder, or whatever you call, in New Zealand for the various
different groups that are identified in the statutes, and what are the penalties
for each of those groups?

>A new contention for Miss Finsten or whoever would like to place their 
>head on the anthropological chopping block:  It is regularly stated that 
>Black skin is good for resisting the sun and that White skin is ideal in 
>Alpine climates.  Nose shape also plays a role, supposedly a flat nose is 
>good hot climates and a straight nose in Alpine climates.  What I would 
>like to know is the rationale for Chinks.  We have Eskimoes that live in 
>conditions that get less sun than Northern Europe and have yellow skin 
>and we have prairie Indians that live in hot climates and have yellow 
>skin.  They also have (on the whole) flat noses.  Please explain in 
>logical terms and not in emotional terms.

Are "melanin" and "vitamin D absorption" emotional terms, Mr. Stone?
I have never heard seen Eskimos (Inuit, as they call themselves) or
North American plains native groups described as "yellow skinned".  The
common, colloquial for the latter has always been "redskin".  Try to get
your terms straight, Mr. Stone.  I don't find the nose form/temperature
arguments terribly convincing, but I haven't read them in any detail.  What
is your source for the "fact" that Plains Indians have "flat noses", Mr. Stone?
I would really like to take a look at it.





From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 26 07:18:11 PDT 1996
Article: 46088 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!news.his.com!news.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.nstn.ca!ott.istar!istar.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: a surprise
Date: 25 Jun 1996 14:03:41 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <4qorjt$lqh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4qdqfe$i3f@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <4qil84$f8o@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> <31CD8B4E.48C2@unb.ca> <4qklou$ijo@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qlc6q$fi4@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <31CF0B81.8AD@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31CF0B81.8AD@unb.ca

Keith Morrison  wrote:
>mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 
>> Laura Finsten  wrote:
 
>> >Keith Morrison  wrote:
>> >>Richard Schultz wrote:

>> >>> Prince Myshkin (mgiwer@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

>> >>> : The only thing they have not made pubic [sic] yet is the strategy session
>> >>> : they indulged in.

>> >>> Hey! This is a family newsgroup!
 
>> >>No no no, he was talking about the bones in the pelvis,
>> >>weren't you, Mr Giwer?
 
>> >>By the way, figure out how many there are yet?
 
>> >Or which ones normally fuse, and by what the fusions are complete, on average?
>> >And whether this differs for men and women?

>[blithering deleted]

>I guess he hasn't.  I don't know about Laura, but I'll take that as
>an admission of error and subsequent idiocy.

I would say that it qualifies as an admission of error, as well as evidence
that he is unaware (and unwilling to learn about) some aspects of human skeletal
anatomy that are essential for understanding the effects of cremation on the
human skeleton.  It also seems to constitute pretty solid evidence that he
is completely uninterested in doing things like answering questions because
that would in fact advance understanding, something he appears to be utterly
lacking interest in.  Instead he sees responding to questions with substance
rather than insult as diminishing his control over the direction and scope of 
material posted, the only thing he seems to be concerned with. 




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Wed Jun 26 08:29:16 PDT 1996
Article: 23766 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!solaris.cc.vt.edu!homer.alpha.net!news.ultranet.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!yama.mcc.ac.uk!warwick!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,uk.misc,uk.politics.misc,talk.politics.european-union,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Whopper of the Week: Race is "Cultural"
Date: 25 Jun 1996 12:48:50 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 242
Message-ID: <4qon7i$lqh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p6no3$3uk@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pabnn$4hm@axalotl.demon.co.uk> <4pddj4$4uc@news.usaor.net> <4pk5ci$o7c@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4pme9c$kjj@news.usaor.net> <4ps1f3$bm9@news1.ucsd.edu> <31C426C2.4A19@cyberg8t.com>  <4qc65b$i32@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C9F30B.146B@cyberg8t.com> <4qf5ji$611@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31CDA46A.E37@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31CDA46A.E37@cyberg8t.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:23766 talk.politics.european-union:4206 soc.culture.europe:45783

Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:

Laura Finsten wrote:

[tiny edit]

>> I was attempting to make the point that there is a contradiction in your
>> thinking about "national identity".  It is very convenient for you to equate
>> "blood lines" (biology) and "ethnicity" for some purposes, and you do this
>> without batting an eye.  It is a way for you to identify yourself and restrict
>> the group to which you owe your primary allegiance in a way that suits your
>> racist agenda.  My use of "racist" here should work for both of us in this
>> context, since it conveys my intended meaning whether one understands it to
>> have the commonly understood meaning or the newspeak one you prefer.

>Oh, but of course, yours is the newspeak.

OK, let us just agree that your understanding of the term "racism" is pretty much the 
direct opposite of the meaning it has for most people today.  Can we do that?  Can we
make it clear that your meaning of this word and mine are pretty much diametrically
opposed?  The only way I can see any degree of overlap in our different usages of this
term is if you think that your sense of the word entails the contemporary one, i.e.,
if one can only feel pride and a sense of identification with one's "lineal" group (or at
least parts of it) if one associates particular traits and characteristics with social
groups called races (lineal groups in your terminology) [Do you see what I mean about
the communication problem?  I have to qualify everything I say.]

An aside.  I was trying to think of a good analogy for the dispute we have over the meaning
of "racism".  The best one that has come to mind is a sexual harassment case I read about at 
an American university where a groups of female students complained that a male
professor's use of the phrase "rule of thumb" constituted sexual harassment.  Their
argument was based on the original meaning of the phrase (the thickness of a rod with
which a husband could beat his wife without incurring legal penalty in England).

>> The contradiction emerges when you apply *your* criteria for *self*-identification
>> to others.  You say that people may have many ethnicities, but they will assign
>> different priorities to them.  I can certainly understand that, being one of those
>> whose heritage is all over the place.  No problem.  But in another thread, you
>> responded to a question from me in a way that suggested that if a person whose
>> "blood relations" included a Jewish grandparent, they could be "White".  

>Many European Jews are merely Whites who have adopted the Jewish faith, or who
>have minimal amounts of non-European heritage. On that basis, their bloodlines
>are acceptable. However, they must come to see that they are first and foremost
>Whites above all other interests.

Well, my hypothetical example did not specify that the Jewish grandparent would have
been Ashkenazi.  Would it make a difference if they were Sephardic?  Would that taint
their bloodlines beyond acceptable limits?  Can you specify what the acceptable limits
are?

>> I still haven't seen your answer to my followup, which asked if they could still
>> be "White" if they converted to Judaism.  In other words, if they began to practice
>> the Jewish religion.

>As I understand the Jewish religion (and despite the claims of some religious
>Jews on this discussion group), the Jewish religion rests on a belief that
>they are descended from Abraham (via Shem), whom they view as being "Semitic"
>as opposed to being descended from Japheth (from whom I believe their religion
>says Whites are descended). Therefore, there is a logical inconsistency. However,
>inconsistency in ideology/identity is not unknown among humans.

Yup.  And I suspect that with the exception of Orthodox Jews, for many this part of
Biblical history is taken as literally as the Bible is as a historical document, word
for word, by most nonfundamentalist Christians.  I'm thinking specifically of the Book 
of Genesis and the creation story, Noah's Ark and the great flood, and those sorts of 
things, rather than the birth and crucifixation of Christ.  I don't want to get myself 
into hot water here with religious folk.

>For example, we have seen athiestic Jews and religious Jews define Jewishness
>in different ways. The ethnic Jews admit that religion can be a component but
>is not the sole component. The religious Jews say that if you're not religious,
>you're not a Jew. Which is it for them? Who cares? That's between them to work
>out. Are you going to harangue them for inconsistency? If so, go spend all of
>your time interfering with alt.soc.jewish or somesuch.

No, but you seem to be seeing the edge of my point.  Isn't it up to the individual, rather
than some group, to decide his/her identity?  To determine which aspects or elements
of his/her identity s/he wishes to weigh in what ways?  I think that social groups
do indeed have a great affect on identities, both ones to which an individual belongs
through birth or ancestry and ones to which they don't (and often, by definitions like
yours, can't) belong.  I imagine you'll be amused at what may appear here to be
an inconsistency, but I'll pick up on this again further along.  My general point is
that individual identities emerge, are constructed, within a social context.  Individuals
make choices, some conscious and others not, and some constrained or limited by
by external groups who seek to define themselves in opposition to them.

I'm not interested in "interfering with alt.soc.jewish" (actually I think it is 
soc.culture.jewish).  I introduced a hypothetical example to try to understand your 
model of ethnic identity better.  I chose this example with a single Jewish grandparent, 
in fact, because I wondered if physically identifiable "blood relations" are significant.

>As I define White, it is a two-component ethnic identity based on lineage and
>value. The lineal component rests on a non-Semitic heritage (in particular a
>"European" or "Aryan" component, of if you prefer, a "Japhethian"  bloodline).
>The group identity rests on European culture and the viewing that as one's
>primary ethnic group. In my mind what distinguishes us is our own particular
>lineal heritage and our desire to maintain ourselves as a distinct people.

And you see "lineage" and "value" as inextricably (causally?) intertwined?
This is where I have a real problem with your concept of a "White ethnic group",
because you view culture as inherent, deriving from "blood lines" (I prefer to
say "genes", but we don't have to quibble over that unless you want to).  Everything
I know about culture tells me that this isn't so.

>In other words, I think Jewishness is inconsistent with being White. It is
>inconsistent because one says "We are a people based on lineal heritage
>derived from European/White blood" and the other says something else. Now, I
>do believe it is fine for someone to say "I am derived primarily of European
>heritage (although I have some non-European heritage) and my people is
>defined by its European heritage and the desire to maintain and promote that."
>That is not inconsistent. To convert to Judaism is to me, to say that some
>group other than "Whites" is one's primary social group. Most especially when
>we hear the Jews repeating that Judaism is inconsistent with racism (even
>though they're wrong because Judaism *IS* one form of racism).

I always thought that it was adopting a religion, sort of like being baptised and then
confirmed in the Catholic Church.  Your last sentence really has me confused, because
it sounds like you are using both my definition *and* yours of racism.  If they are
wrong, and you are using your definition of "racism" in the parenthetic remark, what 
is the problem?  

>> If they chose also to recognise that "additional ethnicity",
>> in your language, I think.  Am I wrong that your answer would be no, they
>> could not be "White"?

>I would say no. The reason being that one may only have one primary ethnicity
>(i.e. one with highest ordinality). Without a doubt, there are many Jews who
>consider themselves White, but they only mean it as being "of light-colored
>skin." But they would most likely consider their Jewishness as their primary
>cultural group.

I think that you are very wrong in believing that for most Jews, their Jewishness
supercedes any other identity they have.  But I didn't intend this to be a discussion 
specifically of Jewish identity, so I don't think that there is much point in arguing
about it.  Your answer clarifies some things for me about where you are coming from,
though.

>> If your answer is yes, though, substitute "black" or "African" for Jewish  "blood
>> relations" and leave out the part about religion.  How does this one work for you?
>> Does your theory of ethnicity still enable a person to have multiple ethnicities and
>> recognise them, albeit to different degrees?  Or does *your* definition of *their*
>> heritage become paramount?

>First, it is not "my theory of ethnicity." What I am speaking of is what I
>understand anthropologists and ethnographers to be saying. What might be called
>"my theory" are my views of Whiteness. Second, the lineage and its associated
>traits negate the possibility of "black" or "African-Americans" being a member
>of my society. A small percentage of European ancestry is not good enough
>although I would think that their loyalty to European interests would be good.

Well, I'm not up on that literature, so I can't cite any specific arguments to
the contrary right now.  I'll see if I can find the time to do a bit of reading, though.
Is it, in part, because such a person does not "look white"?  A related question is 
whether a Sephardic grandparent would be acceptable if that element of his/her
"lineal history" were not visibly apparent.  You are saying that 75 percent is a
"small percentage"?  You are saying that "loyalty to European interests" (I take
this to mean culture and values) is insufficient?  Blood lines are paramount?
Genes, biology, rule?

>> Does the externally imposed identification of "other" override the individual's
>> self-identification?

>I don't know what you mean by "externally imposed." I have my own definition
>which I use. That certain peoples might consider themselves "White" as do
>some Hispanics, does not affect my own valuation of them.

Sure it does, because you don't think of them as "White", and you say below that
your "White ethnic group" is your highest priority, what you value most highly.

But I was thinking of individual and group/ethnic identity in more general terms,
and maybe I can expand on the argument I was making above by introducing another 
hypothetical example and talking about the processes by which individual identities 
might be constructed.

Unless you believe that genes determine culture and values, there is no a priori
reason why a person who has 50 percent African and 50 percent English ancestry,
and who is born and raised in England by an English (white) parent might not think of 
themselves as English, first and foremost.  S/he would be English in language, culture 
and values, and in half of her "blood relations".  I'll just go with 'she', because the 
pronoun equity is getting silly.  She, of course, would not be unaware of her African 
heritage.  I would say that even if she were blind she could not be unaware, because it is 
the element of her heritage that others would ensure she was aware of.  That others would, 
in a  sense, impose upon her externally.  Elements of individual identity related to group
membership are constructed through both individual (internal) and external (social
or interactive) processes, working together (the feedback from some other post).  In other
words, I think that often, the weighting given to different identities has at least as much 
to do with a person's or a subgroup's acceptance by other elements of the larger group to
which (theoretically, at least) both belong as it does with anything else.

>> Have you decided that for some people, their different ethnicities must be
>> mutually exclusive, or that they are incapable of determining for themselves
>> which ones to grant highest priority?

>I didn't substitute "yes." However, I recognize that people have multiple
>ethnic identities. Without a doubt, there are people of mixed lineal heritage
>(i.e. African and European) who don't have a preference for either. I will
>recognize that. However, my experience is that they define this new entity
>called "American" which they define as including both. I don't share their
>viewpoint. My own definition of Whiteness does not include someone who deems
>non-European heritages as significant WRT Whiteness.

But your emphasis on blood lines is exclusionary, whatever their preference,
whatever their culture and values.  You allow yourself "multiple ethnic identities"
(Gallic and "White"), but not those whose other identities are not European.  So you
indeed are making decisions for others about the compatibility of their different
identities.  You are in a sense creating a model in which some "multiple identities"
exist in a kind of nested hierarchy, while for others their different identities must 
be warring away inside them because of their presumed incompatibility.

I thought that since the Revolution, most Americans of European origin were pretty 
clear to distinguish themselves from Europeans.  At least for certain purposes.  Not in 
relation to aboriginal people and slaves, of course.  Maybe we can explore the 
relationship between political processes and group identity formation.  [I must have 
missed something somewhere, I don't know what you mean by "WRT Whiteness".]

>However, I can never "decide for someone else." I can only state my own
>viewpoints and understandings and if they want to accept them, then fine.
>I'm not obligated to accept their definitions either. I am telling you
>what is of highest priority to me. Those who refuse to hold certain
>valuable priorities are not members of my society.

But you do decide for others, Mr. LeBouthillier, and this discussion has made this
clearer to me.  You have explicitly said that Jews, whatever their "blood relations",
are Jewish first and foremost, whatever they might say.  You have explicitly said
that whatever their ancestry and whatever they think of themselves, Hispanics
cannot be "White".  You have said that whatever their primary sense of self, culture
and values, a person who has 25 percent African ancestry cannot be "White".  You
do indeed decide for others, by determining which groups they cannot belong to,
what their alternative choices are.

>> Well, Mr. LeBouthillier, I found your argument amusing (no insult intended),
>> and I did attempt to respond in an ironic vein.  But I can't seem to win for
>> losing on the humour front, so maybe I should just go back to humourless mode.
>> I apologise for expressing myself so poorly and will endeavor to  bring my
>> argumentation up to your standards.

>No biggie. I always find your posts "amusing" for their inconsistencies.

Do tell me what amuses you about this one, eh?




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 27 08:46:33 PDT 1996
Article: 23845 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!apollo.isisnet.com!uunet.ca!news.uunet.ca!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Schoedel's "white America"
Date: 25 Jun 1996 12:52:30 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <4qonee$lqh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pqhis$aq4@freenet-news.carleton.ca <4ptega$1qi@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <4pvnsb$1nh@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4q4otf$pbg@panix2.panix.com> <4qac8o$t72@newsource.ihug.co.nz>   <31CD7A93.2B5F@unb.ca> <4qkmu1$l8r@tribune.concentric.net>  <4qn33v$kpe@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qn33v$kpe@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:34227 alt.politics.nationalism.white:23845 alt.discrimination:49243

blakkr@ix.netcom.com(Scott A. Reap) wrote:

>    Vikings found USA long before those ugly Indian savasges...not to
>mention we kicked their asses...MIGHT IS RIGHT....


Totally wrong.  Natives were on this continent for at least 10,000 years
before the Vikings.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 27 20:58:14 PDT 1996
Article: 46383 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: No wonder we can't find the bodies
Date: 23 Jun 1996 16:52:12 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <4qjsns$4h7@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pq203$8bh@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <31c411e7.144782@news.pacificnet.net> <4q1p5u$1oo@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <31C5E9F0.18AE@unb.ca> <4q69a8$pq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qh5b4$4ai8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qh5b4$4ai8@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>In article <4q69a8$pq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>, Laura Finsten
> said:

>>Keith, the ears are not part of the pelvis.  Although perhaps troll
>>anatomy differs significantly from human anatomy in that area??

>In troll anatomy, parts of the pelvic region are interchangeable with parts
>of the head.  You may draw whatever conclusions from this that you wish.

That explains a great deal.  Hmmmmmm....




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Thu Jun 27 22:57:06 PDT 1996
Article: 23865 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Liberal barnacles
Date: 26 Jun 1996 13:26:19 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 485
Message-ID: <4qrdpr$a6h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4p3lgg$aiq@freenet-news.carleton.ca> <4pden1$ecu@orb.direct.ca> <31BF41F5.4DE5@cyberg8t.com> <4pp8fb$kh8@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31C21718.29D7@cyberg8t.com> <4q75sj$hje@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4qef35$fq3@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31CBF2E3.332B@cyberg8t.com> <4qha28$11d@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31CFDBB4.4227@cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31CFDBB4.4227@cyberg8t.com

Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:

[minor editing for brevity]

>Why I insist on using "race" to describe what I repeatedly claim is
>a group which is *not* based primarily on biological relatedness...?"
>Because my usage is the proper and historical definition. Look in
>your favorite dictionary. There you will find a definition similar
>to my own; mine is the common usage of that term. Yours is not the
>common usage, but the technical usage. In a technical setting, using
>common terms is improper, but so is using a technical term in a
>common context. Moreover, since you acknowledge that I am using
>a different connotation, and I have publicly stated that is the
>definition that I'm using, why are YOU confusing the issue by
>mixing the two?

Because *I* don't want to use your definition.  Because common usage
often has misleading and erroneous implications.

How many news reports have you heard where the newscaster has 
referred to Croations or Serbs as a "race"?  Or the Hutu as a "race"?  
Perhaps when Eurodisney was built, the concern was over the
integrity of the French "race" and I missed it?  I guess my local 
newspaper and favourite radio network are not sufficiently 
"common".

How can a group whose defining parameters work within limits set
by "blood relations" be other than a group based first and foremost
on biological relatedness?



>Webster's New World dictionary defines it [race ] as such:
[deleted for brevity]

>Since you have acknowledged that dictionaries reflect common usage,
>we see that my particular definition is coincident with common
>usage. Do you have any more word games you'd like to play to
>continue this charade that you don't recognize my definition as
>a common one?

I am not playing word games.  No charades.

>> I have no problem with whatever label you want to attach to yourself.
>> It is the rest of it that becomes problematic.

>I'm supposed to care what you think is "problematic?" Do you care
>what I think is problematic?

No, you're not "supposed to" anything.  In fact, I am trying to 
understand better what you think is problematic, what solutions 
you propose for resolving those problems, what your rationalisation
is for them, and what the implications of your proposals are.  If you 
don't care about what I find problematic, then don't respond to my 
questions and comments.  Put me in your killfile.

>> The only stink I detect is a usage of "race" that seems to be
>> designed, at least in part, to cleanse the concept of "racism"
>> of its negative connotations.

>My usage of race is a commonly recognized usage. It is obvious
>that you, recognizing the importance of language to convey concepts,
>merely want to ensure that no one has a positive connotation of it.

Well I guess I just don't know enough "common folk", Mr.LeB., because
the only people I'm aware of who think that "racism" has any 
positive connotation, besides you of course, are the ones who want 
to "kill all the kikes", "lynch all the niggers", or at least rid their
countries of people whose biology and beliefs offend them.  That 
sort of thing I do indeed consider to be decidedly negative.

My problem with contemporary common meanings of "race", on the
other hand, is that they do not reflect current scientific knowledge
yet *imply* specific biological characteristics, like equivalency to
biological subspecies, and usually equate superficial biological
differences with nonbiological attributes.  Given the fallacy of
these equations, I cannot accept or use what you call the "common"
meaning.

[...]

>> Do you have the wording on that UN convention about "races hav[ing]
>> the right to exist"?  My head goes in circles with your conflation
>> of race and ethnicity.  I guess I shouldn't read that human biology,
>> it only confuses me about what "race" really means.

>Obviously you ARE confused. As I've shown, the common usage reflects
>my own usage. It is you who is using language improperly by not
>restricting words to their adequate domains. However, if you would
>be reasonable in these discussions, we could arrive at an understanding
>on these issues. Being the great "modern" anthropologist which I
>recall you saying you were, I'm sure you have a definition of
>ethnicity which is recognized to be scientifically accurate?
>Please provide it for me.

I'm being unreasonable?!?  I'm using terminology in the way that 
everyone I know uses it, and my circle of friends and acquaintances 
is not limited to those who use terms like "race" and "racism" in a 
technical sense.  I'm suggesting that we need some precision in the 
basic concepts before it is possible to discuss anything this loaded 
without screaming past each other in a cloud of mutual 
misunderstanding, and you are calling me unreasonable and
accusing me of playing word games.  Get real, Mr.LeB.

Oh man, you're not going to go off on that schtick too, are you?  
Correction:  I have never described myself as "great" or "modern".  
Maybe I'm 4'10".  Maybe I'm 78 and retired.  Who cares?
One of the things that I've noticed on usenet over the last couple of 
months is that people berate you for your lack of qualifications/ 
credibility *and* for your qualifications, depending on which way 
the wind blows, I guess.  I've been the object of both "criticisms" 
(ironically, also by you, in this one post).  I'll say this much:  my 
saying that I'm an anthropologist ranks right up there among the 
dumbest things I've said here.  I'll admit it:  I was naive enough to 
think it mattered at one time.  I've since learned otherwise.  The 
only thing that counts is the quality of arguments.  If mine aren't up 
to your exalted standards, then don't bother yourself to respond.

At the risk of being accused of "dodging", I'm going to decline to 
answer your question at this time and I've explained my reasons for 
doing so in another thread.  I need to do a little reading.  Then we can 
argue endlessly in a blue fog about "technical" versus "common" 
meanings, and find that it is impossible for us to discuss ethnicity,
too.

[edited for brevity, I'm not equivocating or dodging.  I address much 
of this in another thread, I think]

>> In answer to your question, though, I truly do not think that the
>> UN conventions were intended to do what you suggest they should.

>What I am intending here is that the UN Conventions state universal
>rights that the UN recognizes (although most often they are merely
>United Nations Civil Rights). I am merely saying that when the
>conventions say that something is a right of all people that they
>also refer to Whites. In other words, I'm using an interpretation of
>their statements which accords rights equally to all peoples of the
>world. Do you have a problem with that?

The distinction between the words "people" meaning *individuals* 
and "peoples" meaning indigenous or other *groups* is essential.  I 
think that this distinction is significant whether we are talking 
about UN accorded rights or rights in a more abstract sense.  I'll 
have to think about this some more, but I think that difference rests 
with the fact that "groups" are historically constituted entities and 
hence not the equivalent of individuals.

>>> Second, "ethnic rights" means the right to belong to such a grouping
>>> and for groupings of such people to work toward their mutual self-
>>> interests in a way that does not violate others rights.

>> Well, throwing a whole bunch of people off your territory would have
>> to do that, though, wouldn't it?  Pity it isn't still the 17th century
>> when aboriginal peoples' rights were ignored.

>Laura, you're playing another game. First, you're throwing up the old
>strawman again. When have I ever advocated "throwing a whole bunch
>of people off my territory?" Second, the issue isn't whether aboriginal
>peoples' rights were ignored throughout history, but exactly what are
>the rights of ethnic groupings (including Whites).

I don't know if you've noticed, but it really bugs me to be accused of 
playing games.  Maybe that is why you do it.  It especially irks me 
to be accused of playing games by someone who is clearly playing 
games himself.
I'll address your first point a little further below.  

On the second, I differ with you on this:  history *is* relevant.  
Although I recognise universal *individual* rights, history is indeed 
central to issues surrounding group rights and their implementation.  
Obviously individual and group rights cannot be entirely exclusive, 
but I do not think that groups have the same rights as individuals.  

>Obviously you're purposely misrepresenting my point since as I stated
>in the sentence previously "in a way that does not violate others
>rights."

Well, Mr. LeBouthillier, please explain to me how you are going to get 
your own national territory in North America (or anywhere else on 
this planet) without violating the rights of others.  Please explain to 
me how this could possibly be achieved without forcibly removing 
"non-Whites" from their homes.  Then we can talk about whether I 
am misrepresenting your point.  I do *not* engage in purposeful
misrepresentation, Mr. LeB., and resent your insinuation.  It is my 
clear impression that your national territory is intended to be 
ethnically homogenous.  Have I misunderstood you on this?  If I have 
not, then do explain how you will rid your national territory of 
undesirables without violating their rights.  Perhaps you don't like 
the directness of my phrasing, but an invitation to depart that 
cannot be refused constitutes nothing less.

>>> Do you recognize (and extend) certain rights to non-Whites which
>>> you do not also extend to Whites?

   [Deletia]

>> In certain circumstances, yes I do.  I recognise and support the
>> rights of indigenous peoples, particularly minorities, within
>> nation-states as requiring distinct protection.  Examples of such
>> groups would include the Australian Aborigines, and Native peoples
>> of the western hemisphere.

>So in other words Laura, you've just stated unequivocally that you
>are NOT for "equal rights." You have stated here that you seek to
>deny Whites certain rights which you will extend to non-White
>peoples. Therefore, I would be morally right to secure my "equal
>rights" under the organizations that refuse to extend them equally.

I am not surprised that you would choose to interpret my statement
this way.  Of course, you could only do this if you ignore the 
paragraph that follows immediately below...

>> Of course "Whites" have human rights.  The intention of the UN accords
>> is to extend to every human being some basic rights, and the
>> inhabitants of all signatories to those accords, at least in theory,
>> have those rights.  On a more philosophical level, I believe that
>> there are fundamental rights that all humans must have, with or
>> without their government's signatures on a piece of paper.

>Fine, I accept that. But what does it mean to have a right? Does
>it impose obligations on those who say they are promoting and
>protecting them?

This is one of those questions you are going to have to keep
asking me, because I haven't had the time to think it through.

>> The self-determination is a bit more problematic, though, because by
>> this you seem to mean that any group of people who choses to identify
>> itself as an ethnic group should have the right to its own territory,
>> complete with political autonomy and with the right to deny fundamental
>> rights to others.  That I do not accept.

>So all states are correct and perfect and there can be no other
>organization of political power structures other than currently
>existing states? What is the basis of states? The will of the people.

No, I do not think that the only possible or acceptable organisation
of political power structures is that of currently existing states.
I do, however, think that unilateral secessions are very bad news
more often than not.  Like you, I agree that it has to be the will of
the people.  Of *all* the people involved, or at least of a large  
majority of all the people involved.  I'm living in a country that
is dealing with just this issue.  It is something that I have given
some thought to, and that I find difficult to discuss with
detachment.  But you're not exactly objective on this score, either.

>Lacking that will, the state is illegitimate. If a sizeable population
>deems that it must have political autonomy, then that in itself
>justifies to me their political structure. Short of that, you have
>rule by decree. Whether a people likes their particular political
>situation or not, Laura Finsten has declared that they must accept it.

Get serious.  You're the one making decrees. 

[Thomas Jefferson deleted, no slight to TJ intended]

>Being the great "human rights" advocate (which you imply is
>equivalent to "natural rights), you must recognize that this
>is the basis of legitimate power of a government. Is that so?

Foul, Mr. LeBouthillier, and you know it.  In other ongoing discussions
I have been asking you about the relationship between what you call
"natural rights" and what international accords call "inherent rights"
in an effort to understand what the phrase "natural rights" means.  
To imply that *I* have been arguing based on an intentional equation 
of the two when I have been exploring the meaning of the phrase 
with you is a blatant and purposeful misrepresentation of my views,
and you know it.  I don't know what "natural rights" are supposed to
be yet, nor have I decided yet whether I think there are such things.

>> The ethnicity thing is a non-issue, as I see it in this context.
>> Call yourself whatever you like.

>Great, then we are race, which is at least a kind of ethnic group.

Didn't you just chastise me for saying that you equate "race" with
ethnic group?  Isn't there just the tiniest bit of inconsistency here?

>> Well, I confess I still haven't read the UN declarations you mention.

>Laura, please tell me how you think you are a "human rights" advocate
>if you haven't read the documents which describe them.

Uh, where did I ever describe myself as a "'human rights' advocate",
Mr. LeB?  Or are we suffering yet another lapse in communication 
due to irreconcilable semantic incompatibility?  Saying that I 
advocate some fundamental human rights does not make me a "human 
rights advocate".  At least not in my dialect of English.  Where did I 
ever say that I advocate the same human rights, all of them and no 
others, that are outlined in UN documents?

When I wrote that last week, I honestly admitted that I hadn't read
those documents.  My prior reading, as I indicated to you, was 
limited to an OAS document on the rights of indigenous peoples.  But 
I have done a little homework.  I'm afraid that it was in lieu of house
work, though, so now Mr. Stone will be on my case, no doubt.  I have
by now read the following documents:

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976)
UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976)
Optional Protocol to the Int'l Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976)
Second Optional Protocol to the Int'l Covenant on Civil and Political 
       Rights (1991)
UN International Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Racial 
       Discrimination (1969)
UN Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and 
       Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981)
The International Labor Organization Convention Concerning 
       Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989)
Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United 
       Nations (1995)
Resolution 1991/33 of the UN Economic and Social Council (1991)
UN General Assembly Resolution 49/151 (1995)
UN General Assembly Resolution 48/119 (1993)
UN Economic and Social Council Resolution 1992/11 (1992)

(There is a really cool UN gopher site with hundreds of documents.)

I have a number of other documents that I have yet to read, and there 
are severaI I have seen referred to in these ones that I have not yet 
been able to locate.  Care to talk specifics?

>> I didn't know whether you were asking about rights as codified by
>> particular international declarations (and my interpretation of them),
>> or whether you were posing broader, more philosophical questions.

>I am posing the broader, more philosophical questions since I don't
>think that tthose things codified in the international declarations
>are anything more than "civil rights" created by an organization
>bent on being the world's government (which I feel is illegitimate).

Fine, and we have agreed to discuss those elsewhere.  Why did you
choose to misrepresent my "position" on human rights and "natural
rights" earlier, Mr. LeB?  How can I have a position on "natural 
rights" when I don't know what they are supposed to be or whether I even 
think they exist?  Where have I ever explicitly claimed to have 
such a position?  
How are we ever going to have an honest (and at your suggestion, I 
note, non-hostile) discussion of political philosophy if we can't 
agree on basic terms and if you pull stunts like this?

>>> Again, are you saying that you are extending certain rights to
>>> non-Whites which you also don't extend to Whites?

>> Absolutely, in certain circumstances.

>Therefore, you are not promoting "equal rights" for Whites. Therefore,
>by your own admission, you are discriminating against Whites.

Uh, this is why the distinction between individual human rights and
group rights is essential, Mr. LeB.  I do *not* discriminate against
"Whites" as individuals.  I do not, however, accept "White" claims
to the group rights codified and intended to protect minorities in
special circumstances, which is what I refer to by group rights.

>But anyways, what are those "circumstances" for which you will
>discriminate against Whites?

Language is so complex, isn't it Mr. LeB.  You phrase questions and
arguments in a way in which it is impossible for anyone to discuss
things with you unless they adopt your rather idiosyncratic and
loaded terminology.  Pretty cagey tactic - there can be no discussion
with you except on your terms, both figuratively and literally.

If I run with the interesting but inaccurate twist you have put on
my words and try to answer what I interpret your question to 
really mean in the context of what I have said, I'm endorsing this 
distortion of my words and intent, am I not, Mr. LeB?  That's quite a 
mouthful, but you get my drift, no?  If I don't answer, I'm dodging or
evading.  This I call playing games.

Let me say this:  the examples of the special circumstances under 
which I believe that some groups should have special *group* rights 
are given above, in text from the same post that somehow inspired 
this question from you.

>>>> Tell me, Mr. LeBouthillier, do you think that any group that
>>>> decides it is an ethnicity should have the right to establish
>>>> its own state?

>>>Yes.

>> Wow.  What chaos would ensue.  How large does an "ethnic group" have
>> to be before the parent state has to give it a land grant?

>That I think they have the right to aspire to it does not mean that
>I think every group would. For example, in Canada, you have the
>Quebecois who use the threat of secession for their own political
>interests. That is good. After all, when have you "Canadians" ever
>historically been kind to us French by recognizing our rights and
>interests? Might I suggest you read Evangeline by Nathaniel Hawthorne?
>That is Canada's heritage towards the French.

It is interesting indeed the way "heritage" is relevant or irrelevant 
for you, depending on how useful it is for your argument.  In other 
words, depending upon whether you want to use it to your advantage 
or to beat down "mainstream" American society, indigenous rights,
and so on.  You imply here that all living Canadians are responsible 
for historical injustices against the Quebecois, while at other times 
you disavow any responsibility for historical injustices done by 
Canadians or Americans to aboriginal peoples, Africans brought to 
this continent against their will to be slaves, or Chinese imported 
as cheap labour to build our railroads.  And you accuse me of 
inconsistency, Mr. LeB.  Tsk tsk.

I'll add Evangeline to my reading list.

>If the state is to maintain its legitimacy, it must address the needs
>and interests of the people. But, I think that the U.N.'s policy on
>this issue is that such a people must have at least one metropolitan
>area and a sizeable agricultural region. I don't think this is a bad
>requirement. Still, that I don't automatically say "yes" to every
>group doesn't mean that I don't recognize that they have legitimate
>issues of concern or rights to exist and self-determination.

Which UN declaration(s) and/or resolution(s)?  Which article(s)?  
Haven't you read the relevant UN documents, Mr. LeB?  You "think"
this is their policy?  How can you offer an opinion on this when you
can't recall the details of the documents outlining UN policy, 
Mr. LeB?  This couldn't demonstrate a tad of hypocrisy on your part, 
could it, Mr. LeB.?

>> Sadly, in a democracy, no one every gets 100 percent of the vote, so
>> one might say that a lot of people are being ruled "against their will".

>Obviously you have a piss-poor understanding of democracy. In order
>to be a valid democracy, there must exist a commonality on the basic
>issue that they are one polity. Lacking that, you have merely forced
>conflicting interests together.

But there are *always* conflicting interests.  Does that mean that 
democracy itself is untenable?

>> So you would just keep carving up your White nation-state into
>> smaller and smaller pieces so that everybody could have their
>> own cacicazgo, sort of like a little fiefdom?

>Now you're pretending to know my position on issues without my
>consultation! I would not "keep carving up [my] White nation-state
>into smaller and smaller pieces..." I would recognize the validity
>of particular people's interests and accomodate them (unlike you
>who seem ready to tell them that they can't determine for themselves
>what is good for themselves). What an arrogant one you are! Of
>course, there would be sub-divisions such as Town, City, County,
>State.

Do you see the question mark at the end of the sentence you are
responding to?  That means the sentence is an interrogative.  I was
asking you for further information about your position.  Thank
you for addressing this issue, which I have not seen you address
previously.  But I see yet another inconsistency, Mr.LeB.

Let's see.  *Your* "people's" interests can *only* be accommodated
by total self-determination and autonomy.  But *their* interests
can be "accommodated" how?  And just who are *they* going to be
in a "White homeland" in which membership is determined on the
basis of "blood relations" and all the rest?

>> I find that difficult to believe, Mr. LeBouthillier, since if I
>> recall correctly you have said that you would use whatever force
>> was necessary in order to establish your "White" homeland.  It
>> seems rather inconsistent to give away so easily what you appear
>> to willing to kill to achieve.

>As I've shown, the perceived inconsistency is merely due to your
>mis-understanding of my position.

So you would support any effort for separation within your "White
homeland", Mr.LeB, if those who wished to secede were not satisfied
with whatever accommodation you offered?  Or am I still 
misunderstanding you?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
       I  prefer not to advertise your web site under my id
AEL:   Again, are you saying that you are extending certain rights to
       non-Whites which you also don't extend to Whites?
Laura: Absolutely, in certain circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, I get to be your poster girl.  Perhaps in the interest of 
fairness to other Lauras, you would do me the courtesy of 
including my last name, since this might be seen by some as your 
identifying me a true enemy to be targetted.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 28 16:21:29 PDT 1996
Article: 34374 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news1.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: newsgroups going nowhere
Date: 24 Jun 1996 14:15:19 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4qm7tn$80p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References:  <31BFB1DB.46FE@scott.net> <4pq22v$m5g@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4pqmia$o7l@molokini.conterra.com>  <4qbk70$17j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31ce5be6.105906705@news.concentric.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31ce5be6.105906705@news.concentric.net

clambert@cris.com (Craig Lambert) wrote:
>On 20 Jun 1996 13:37:36 GMT, Laura Finsten 
>wrote:

>>anonymous@newamericans.com (White Wolf) wrote:
>>>Right.

>>>I've killed eb, finstein, jgbrown, and about six others. The noise level
>>>is much better now. They are just mind sucks.

>>We must be doing something right.

>Congrats on making the cut, Laura.  You are now free to destroy his
>arguments at will.  No more expensive anesthesia required, the surgery may
>be performed ad hoc!

>How long do you think he'll last before he comes back howling in pain to
>answer you?

Pretty soon, if he doesn't figure out how to spell my name right!




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 28 18:33:54 PDT 1996
Article: 34374 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news1.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: newsgroups going nowhere
Date: 24 Jun 1996 14:15:19 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4qm7tn$80p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References:  <31BFB1DB.46FE@scott.net> <4pq22v$m5g@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> <4pqmia$o7l@molokini.conterra.com>  <4qbk70$17j@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31ce5be6.105906705@news.concentric.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31ce5be6.105906705@news.concentric.net

clambert@cris.com (Craig Lambert) wrote:
>On 20 Jun 1996 13:37:36 GMT, Laura Finsten 
>wrote:

>>anonymous@newamericans.com (White Wolf) wrote:
>>>Right.

>>>I've killed eb, finstein, jgbrown, and about six others. The noise level
>>>is much better now. They are just mind sucks.

>>We must be doing something right.

>Congrats on making the cut, Laura.  You are now free to destroy his
>arguments at will.  No more expensive anesthesia required, the surgery may
>be performed ad hoc!

>How long do you think he'll last before he comes back howling in pain to
>answer you?

Pretty soon, if he doesn't figure out how to spell my name right!




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Fri Jun 28 18:33:57 PDT 1996
Article: 34385 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!pacifier!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: nz.politics,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: Liberals and brain sizes
Date: 24 Jun 1996 14:22:11 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4qm8aj$80p@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4q7mon$ntf@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.141544@cantva> <4q84ks$2cj@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <1996Jun19.202656@cantva> <4qae5m$t72@newsource. <1996Jun20.155037@cantva> <4qb9ot$1ce@newsource.ihug.co.nz>  <4qlu1s$mkh@news1.ucsd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qlu1s$mkh@news1.ucsd.edu

fledgist@weber.ucsd.edu (Fragano Ledgister) wrote:
>White Flame (whiteheart@patriotic.com) wrote:
>: Ourbourous rules!

>This is, I take it, a typo for 'Our burros rule'?


I've always thought burros are cute, especially the young ones
with all that fuzz.  But they sure aren't god's smartest creatures.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 30 09:33:28 PDT 1996
Article: 46997 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones
Date: 29 Jun 1996 16:18:04 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <4r3kvs$nsg@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pt67e$b7e@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <31C39013.67CE@unb.ca> <4q09m3$a20@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <31C5E87F.7786@unb.ca> <4q517c$glj@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <31C88756.50D2@unb.ca> <4qb2s6$oql@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <31CB1D05.5F71@unb.ca> <4qhnlp$6eb@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4q <4qqdob$a7e@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> <4r29r7$2jmm@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4r29r7$2jmm@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net

gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:
>In article <4qqdob$a7e@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>, schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
>(Richard Schultz) said:

>>Keith Morrison (t08o@unb.ca) wrote:

>>: After all, since [Myshkin] cited _Gray's Anatomy_ as supporting his
>>view, : he must have had some idea on what it said on the issue, no?

>>I believe that if you reread his posts carefully, he cited *Grey's*
>>Anatomy as supporting his view -- which, for all I know, it does.

>Yeah--some guy named Charlie Grey.  :-)

I just went down the hall and looked at a copy of Gray's Anatomy.
Interestingly, on pp.257, 260 and 261 of the 35th edition (the
one available to me), there are illustrations of the human skull
which label many of its different bones by name.  I also noticed
that in a discussion of age and the skeleton, Gray notes that
*after* age 25, the degree of closure of the sutures of the
human skull is useful for determining the age of adult skeletons
at death.  Something that archaeologists and physical anthropologists
have known for quite some time, of course, and made great use of.
And I thought you-know-who claimed to know all about the science
of archaeology.
 

"If I can't dance.....I don't want to be part of your revolution."
          Emma Goldman




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 30 09:33:29 PDT 1996
Article: 47007 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones
Date: 25 Jun 1996 14:31:37 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4qot89$lqh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <4pt67e$b7e@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> <31C39013.67CE@unb.ca> <4q09m3$a20@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <31C5E87F.7786@unb.ca> <4q517c$glj@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <31C88756.50D2@unb.ca> <4qb2s6$oql@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> <31CB1D05.5F71@unb.ca> <4qhnlp$6eb@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4qklh3$ijo@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <31CF0AF2.2E47@unb.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:31CF0AF2.2E47@unb.ca

Keith Morrison  wrote:
>Laura Finsten wrote:

>> mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
 
  [cut]
  
>> >Add one more distortion if you like.  The fact remains that the pelvis
>> >and the skull are the bones most like to survive any form of cremation
>> >and the skull is never mentioned by those so-called eyewitnesses.
 
  [cut]
  
>> Let me ask the question yet another time:  By age 35, on average, what
>> degree of fusion (or closure) exists in the lambdoidal, sagittal and
>> coronal sutures of the human cranium, on average?  Why can't Mr.
>> Science answer this simple question, a true truth of human skeletal
>> anatomy, and a question that is key to evaluating the claim he makes
>> above?
 
>Mr Giwer is diligently looking through _Gray's Anatomy_ to find the
>answer.

I even gave him a couple of better references.  Maybe he couldn't find
them on IHR website, though, since that seems to be the extent of his
"research".
 
>After all, since he cited _Gray's Anatomy_ as supporting his view, he
>must have had some idea on what it said on the issue, no?

No.  I think no, Keith.




From finsten@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca Sun Jun 30 09:33:30 PDT 1996
Article: 47039 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!torn!hone!informer1.cis.McMaster.CA!usenet
From: Laura Finsten 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Can't We All Just Learn to Read?
Date: 25 Jun 1996 15:02:18 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4qov1q$lqh@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
References: <31ccc234.1900516@news.eden.com> <4qisod$846@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <31cdc853.4766109@news.eden.com> <4qngei$b0a@access4.digex.net> <4qoejk$2b7@atlas.uniserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac-finsten-l1.socsci.mcmaster.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-URL: news:4qoejk$2b7@atlas.uniserve.com

hostrov@uniserve.com (Hilary Ostrov) wrote:
>In <4qngei$b0a@access4.digex.net>, mstein@access4.digex.net (Michael
>P. Stein) wrote:

 [text deleted for brevity]
 
>>    *groan*  I can sort of understand how Hilary might have been offended,
>>but my first impression of Ehrlich's line was an Energizer Bunny
>>reference, not a sexist remark against  Hilary.  I expect he's referring
>>to the periodic FAQ posting and Daniel Keren's reposts.
 
>Actually, Mike, I took this "ad feminem"  as yet another confirmation
>that he'd sold his soul to the troll - and was attempting to emulate
>his new master!  As I recall, this one-liner was Mr. Ehrlich's
>brilliant response to a post of mine:  In commenting on one of Al
>Baron's oft repeated phrases, I had cited Mr. Thomas' perceptive
>observation that "Propagandizing of a base sort is done by repeating
>the same material over, and over, and over, and over, until it burns
>into consciousness by default."

This is one of the interesting things about language and reading.  
Perhaps I suffer from some sort of bipolar disorder, but when I read 
Ehrlich's line, a vision popped into my brain of Hilary *as* the 
Energizer Bunny.  Comical, yes, but hardly flattering.  Sexist?  It
could certainly be read that way.  (you were pink, Hilary)  
I wondered if Ehrlich hadn't intentionally used the phrase because it 
could indeed be interpreted in several ways.  

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor