From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 23 05:33:47 PDT 1995
Article: 5947 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,misc.immigration.usa,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Tom Lathrop's Philosophy
Date: 21 Jun 1995 21:40:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 202
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sa3l7$ef@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References:  <3rl6gi$ngk@newsbf02.news.aol.com>  <3rqnc6$7oo@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc13-02.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.politics.nationalism.white:5947 alt.discrimination:24807 alt.politics.correct:36474 misc.immigration.usa:3460 soc.culture.usa:49672 soc.culture.african.american:74837 talk.politics.misc:203318


From: jlopez@panix.com (J Lopez)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,
alt.politics.correct,misc.immigration.usa,soc.culture.usa,
soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Tom Lathrop's Philosophy
Date: 15 Jun 1995 21:39:18 -0400

Tom Lathrop:
>If you go back far enough, maybe 2000 years, you will find that *all*
>whites have some black ancestors, all blacks some white, and so on.
>And yet racial differences *do* exist between the peoples of various
>parts of the world.  How can this be?

>The problem goes away when you realize that races do not have to be
>"pure" to be real.  All races are mixed to some degree.  So what?
>Racial difference still exists, and *that* is what we are trying to
>preserve, not some sort of "racial purity" which never existed to
begin
>with.

J. Lopez:
Tom, I guess I don't read enough of your posts, cause I can't figure
out 
the agenda here.  Are you saying the racial status quo is the *ideal*
one 
and should be preserved, or that we can roll back the clock to pre 1492

race distinctions if we work at it?  Or do you think that if we don't 
diligently protect against current race mixture, that humanity will
wind 
up as one ugly undifferentiated blob?  Surely you can't mean the
latter.  
People are experts at distinguishing differences no matter how
homogenous 
the groups, and even if say, everyone died out but Anglo-Saxons, we'd
be 
left with the Blue-Eyeds vs. the Brown-Eyeds, or the Blonds vs. the 
Brunets, or the little-transparent fuzzy facial haireds vs. the thick 
black coarse facial haired, or the attached vs. hanging earlobes, or 
whatever "races" would form in the aftermath.  There will *always* be 
"race" differences, meaning genetic variations in populations,
regardless 
of whether we work to preserve it or not, don't you agree?

Or maybe you are more concerned with "cultural" purity, is that it?  
Although that opens itself up to the same questions.  Which is the
ideal 
culture?  "White" culture PRE blues or POST blues, New Yawk ethnic v. 
Southern gentry, and so on.  

I'm aware that you *do* have an articulate and well thought out
position, 
I'm just (honestly) baffled about the specifics. 

Frank now:
Tom, of course, will have to speak for himself.
But for me, the issue is not to draw up some ideal
distribution of the world's peoples according to
their genetic lineage and move them about like
chess pieces. Rather, I urge that the high
likelihood that genetic factors shape behavior as
well as appearance across groups be taken into
account when contemplating how we might
redraw our social contracts so as to improve our
lives. I say contracts, plural, because I am not so
arrogant as to suppose that I have, or anyone else
has, some ideal scheme for our living together
that we should all urgently adopt. Even if I had
such pretensions, the future will bring changes I
cannot even imagine, let alone provide for.

Besides, the vast bulk of our social arrangements
occurs without any conscious planning, in a
fashion that might well be called "ordered
anarchy." It is a kind of spontaneous evolutionary
order that builds on the past and never entirely
gets rid of the past. I may stoutly detest
Christianity, but much of the Christian conception
of virtue (faith, hope, and charity) is going to
continue. The same is just as true for the schemes
of central planning that resulted in disaster in the
Soviet Union and only less unhappy results in this
country. Like it or not, there will be planning. A
free society came into being in the United States
much by accident--having a frontier, the
uselessness of much of English law, certain
temperaments of the emigrants from Europe--and
much, much less by philosopher-kings deciding to
create a free society. But any reduction of the
scope of gummint in our lives will take concerted,
deliberate thought. Even if someone nukes
Washington, state gummints will remain. (There
is the possibility that encryptioning money will so
frustrate the tax collectors that all taxes will be
voluntary. John Perry Barlow predicted two
months ago this will happen in six months. Four
months to go! Whee!)

But as I said, temperament is another factor
shaping our histories, as well as deliberate
planning and spontaneous evolution/cumulative
causation. Those willing to pay the price of
liberty, which is eternal vigilance, will be free;
those that aren't won't. But I also say that group
genetic factors shape behavior and temperament.
Any social contract worthy of the name will have
to take this into account, because we do make
future generations by giving birth to them. You or
I can draw up as many social contracts as we
like, and we can expect future generations to tear
them up and replace them with something better.
But if the social contract we draw up for
ourselves also includes *who* it is that is being
included in the contract and what our policies will
be regarding external immigration and the sort of
internal immigration that issues from the womb of
a woman each time a child is born, we can have a
true multi-generation social contract, the only one
worthy of the name. 

To "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity," if this indeed is what we
want, we must not only write Preambles to our
constitutions but also secure that we will continue
to have the sort of people who will be eternally
vigilant. I do not say that liberty is the best policy
for all mankind, because I do not speak for all
mankind, even if I always seem prepared to sing
of liberty. Very serious scholars wonder whether
authoritarian capitalist regimes, as characterize
the Far East, will ultimately be more prosperous
than the supposedly decadent, atomistic capitalism
of the United States and Europe. I do not know; I
do not even know how much liberty I should be
willing to surrender for prosperity, assuming that
Ben Franklin was wrong in saying those so
willing to make even a small surrender would
wind up with neither; I certainly cannot tell those
in the Far East what trade-offs they should make.
(As l said, there is indeed social planning here;
moreover, the idea of social planning, even if it
be to increase freedom, has gone global; there is
no turning back.)

My philosophy can be called EVOLUTIONARY
FEDERALISM. It is evolutionary in that any
presumption of finality is true *and* in that it
recognizes the role of genetic lineages in shaping
behavior of individuals and, though individuals,
of social institutions. It is also evolutionary in that
it recognizes that cooperation among nations is
just as important as competition; indeed, the
whole scheme can be dubbed COOPERATIVE
COMPETITION. And it is federal in that no
solution is universal. It is universalist, however,
in that all men must agree to the tolerance about
morals, and get off our metaphysical high horses
about having found the one and only and forever
lasting scheme of things to impose on all
mankind, to make it go, but it is a universalist
philosophy of particularism.

Tom, and I, will have our own ideas about what
our own social contract should be like, our
political constitution and our immigration and
birth control policy. We will have different ideas
on the value we place on liberty and on the kinds
of liberty we value the most. We will have
different ideas about the value of science, of
music, of local culture. (I think the great culture
that produced Romantic classical music is over
and that the arts will, as far as I can see, be a
mixture of local trivia, global rock "music," and
internationalized post-modern silliness. But that's
just an opinion.) Tom and I will also differ on our
assessment of how genetic lineages shape our
futures. We will disagree both on our values and
on our facts, though reading what Tom has
written we will certainly agree more than two
random people in these newsgroups will.

This is, course, all very abstract. What do Tom
and I and J. Lopez think of Far Easterners
becoming part of our social contract? What do we
think of that magnificent race of troublemakers,
the Jews, whose continual if not genetically
compulsive keeping things stirred up has been
severely undervalued? What of racial mixtures,
and how far should *they* decide what group to
identify with? And what indeed of the blue-eyed
vs. the brown-eyed? (The only animals that have
color vision are birds and primates and in both
cases eye color is correlated with behavior.
There's a fascinating book on the subject by
Morgan Worthy, _Eye Color, Sex, and Race_
(approx. title). Or do we simply ignore any
effects genetic lineage has on behavior and draw
up newer versions of eighteen-century pre-
Darwinian ideologies?

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 23 11:44:10 PDT 1995
Article: 22494 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Bible Dates (was Re:  Jews hate Jesus)
Date: 22 Jun 1995 00:15:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 39
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sacnl$2i7@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References:   <3rt49m$r4f@sndsu1.sedalia.sinet.slb.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc11-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.conspiracy:67455 talk.politics.guns:153590 talk.politics.misc:203429 alt.revisionism:22494 soc.culture.jewish:103189

In  bjohnson@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
(Benjamin Johnson) writes: 
>
>In article <3rt49m$r4f@sndsu1.sedalia.sinet.slb.com>
dcd@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com (Dan Day) writes:
>>In article  bzs@world.std.com (Barry
Shein) writes:
>>>>As they contain prophesies about the destruction of the
>>>>Temple in that year, they had to be written prior to that.
>>>
>>
>>Likewise, whoever wrote the Gospels could have thrown a number of
>>such "prophecies" of past events into their work (with, of course,
>>claims that the "prophecies" were made before the events themselves)
>>with the aim of making the rest of the text seem more trustworthy
>>and/or divinely inspired. 
>
>    Fragments of a copy of the Book of James were found in the Qumran
caves
>dating prior to 80 A.D., meaning the Gospels it cites must be older
than that,
>placing their writing pre-70 A.D.  Thus, their prophecies were
PROPHECIES.
>Some people just don't like truth-like those running from an
unpleasant
>realization that they are in need of forgiveness for their manifold
evils.
>
>Ben 

Just a note to say that not all scholars accept the analysis of
handwriting styles that are said to show a pre-80 date. I read of these
doubts, I believe, in the _Times Literary Supplement_ last year, but
cannot provide a reference. Perhaps the doubters are just goddam
liberals, but I'd at least find out what they have to say. Check with
the Biblical Archeology Society, which published _Bible Review_, if you
want to follow this up. Sorry I can't be of any more help.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 23 12:13:56 PDT 1995
Article: 22549 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: OY, Dose Very Hard Working Jewish Guys & Gals
Date: 22 Jun 1995 00:02:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 15
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sabv8$26u@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3rtkkl$sgg@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3ruo14$ca4@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <18JUN199511180646@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu> <3s51lt$955@earth.usa.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc11-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.skinheads:16907 alt.revisionism:22549 alt.politics.nationalism.white:5978

In <3s51lt$955@earth.usa.net> hkatz@earth.usa.net (Harry Katz) writes: 
>
>In article <3ruo14$ca4@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman) writes...
>
>	What I'd really like to know is the incomes of Ashkenazi vs.
>	Sephardic Jews in Israel. The IQs of the former are much higher,
>	and so should be their incomes.
>
>Assuming Mr. Forman is correct, IQ values are not a good predictor of
>income.

Do you have any actual facts? The correlation of IQ and income in this
country, for *individuals*, is around 50 percent, I believe. But for
*groups* the correlation is much higher.


From forman@ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 23 13:11:49 PDT 1995
Article: 5958 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!simtel!noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Who needs "race?"
Date: 21 Jun 1995 21:35:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 218
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sa3bi$c0@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3q9aj4$5vd@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3qslb2$pr0@pipe1.nyc.pipeline.com> <3qt311$om8@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3rft1e$1bq@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <3rg6c4$lbb@news.acns.nwu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc13-02.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.discrimination:24824 soc.culture.african.american:74874 alt.politics.nationalism.white:5958

From: djack@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Dowdy Jackson)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,soc.culture.african.american,
alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Who needs "race?"
Date: 12 Jun 1995 01:47:48 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston IL

Jim White:
>>>The relevance of your question escapes me.  
>>>From the level of Microbiology
>>>what does race mean?   Define it for us.  It is
>>>meaningless in microbiology.
>>>If you want to identify differences at the level of
>>>Microbiology then we could say that 
>>>chimps and humans belong to separately
>>>identifiable classes at the level of Microbiology. 

Frank Forman:
>I saw an article on alt.bio.evolution that said some
>taxonomists do not recognize any taxa besides species,
>not races or subspecies, not genera or orders. I'd
>like to see what reception James White would get if he
>took his bluster about what "Microbiology" says over
>there.

Dowdy Jackson:
First of all "microbiology" has nothing at all to do with race or
anything
dealing with genetics/inheritance or the like. Microbiology is the
study of
micro-organisms (ie bacteria). No one defines organisms in terms of
microbiology, it simply makes no sense at all.

The techniques used to distinguish one group from another is usually
defined
by some sort of genetic differences. If you compare the raw DNA
sequences
between the groups, we call races, there is NO difference in the
genetic code
between these groups. The differences arise when one looks at
mitochondrial DNA
patterns of inheritance, but even these differences can only provide
you with
a general geographic location of origin at best. The differences that
are
obvious between any group of organisms is defined by the pattern of
expression
of the genes they possess. Since the manner and timing of gene
expression is
complicated, to put it in the most simple terms. So before you start
talking
about races and the differences between groups, you should have a good
grasp
of terms and concepts involved in order to discuss this topic in a
coherent
fashion, which hasn't been displayed here or anywhere else. You simply
don't
see people who know a great deal about genetics discussing issues like
race
differences.... I wonder why ????

Dowdy Jackson
Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Cell Biology

Frank now:
I have read in a number of places that biologists
are great at explaining everything *except* the
origin of species. Just how little changes at the
level of molecular level cumulate to a change
>from  one species to the next is still a mystery.
Indeed the path from microevolution to
macroevolution is cloudy. For wings to develop,
quarter-wings, half-wings, indeed every step
along the way had to confer survival value to the
bird or insect that eventually developed wings.
Conferences are held on the subject of wings,
with some scientists showing how a quarter-wing
was hypothetically good for survival and other
scientists tearing the conjecture down. I don't
know whether there is any firm consensus about
wings, either in birds or in insects, but there are
certainly many other macro-evolutionary features
that are there for all to see but which defy any
evolutionary explanation.

This situation is quite normal for science: there
are precious few full reductions of one subfield to
another. Mario Bunge argued (I don't need to
reproduce that argument here) that even "the
textbook paradigm of theory reduction," that of
thermodynamics to statistical mechanics is a
program not an accomplished fact.^ Scientists just
go merrily on their ways at all levels, make
assumptions, clarify ideas, test hypotheses, and so
on, without waiting for every assumption to be
fully grounded at a deeper level.
     ^[Mario Bunge, "Problems Concerning
Intertheory Relations," in Paul Weingartner and
G. Zecha, eds., _Induction, Physics, and Ethics_
(Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1970). What has been
accomplished since 1970, I do not know. What
counts here is that this was accepted as "the
textbook paradigm of theory reduction" at the
time. Bunge also pointed out that the Second Law
of Thermodynamics has been derived only in the
case of an ideal gas.]

This is just as well, otherwise nothing would get
off the ground. What can also happen, and what
is not at all just as well, is for this (current) lack
of *epistemological* reduction to be extended to a
claim of *ontological* reduction. Thus,
neurologists and philosophers seeped in their
jargon are known to dismiss consciousness as a
fiction. Certain laissez-faire economists like
Ludwig von Mises dismiss macro-economic
concepts like the standard of living as meaningless
because they are not built up from individual
action.^ And certain molecular biologists might
even say macro-evolution isn't real, if it weren't
so patently obvious. They do not go that far,
though they do claim superiority over the "less
scientific" field of evolutionary biology (i.e., the
part of biology that studies what I called macro-
evolution).^^
     ^[A second reading of Mises' _Human
Action_ about five years ago (I first read it about
1966) revealed to me how sneaky a book it is.
When Mises gets into a bind--it is rather obvious
that Americans are richer than Africans--he
resorts to the term "understanding" (German
Verstehen): we can't really *prove* we are richer
than Africans, but we can "understand" it, you
know. This use of "understanding" occurs many
times in the book. He also thinks that whenever
gummint intervenes in the economy, e.g., by
printing money, it throws off calculations so
chaotically that businessmen can barely counter
them, yet these same men have the
"understanding" to cope with all manner of
change they mutually cause for themselves in the
free market. I thought of writing up a second-
thoughts review of his book but realized that there
was no market for it: there are either those who
accept everything Mises says or who ignore him.
A professor I had in graduate school (U.Va., at
the time one of the few strongly free-market
economics departments anywhere) hoped that
someone would write a dissertation on _Human
Action_ that would discern what Mises' genuine
contributions were. Mises trumpets what he
insists is his very own idea of entrepreneurship,
but it was all in Schumpeter.]
     ^^[E.O. Wilson, "The Molecular Wars,"
(an excerpt from his autobiography, _Naturalist_
(Island Press, 1994), _Ha'va'd Magazine_ 1995
May/June), is very good.]

Now the gap between micro- and macro-evolution
is indeed narrowing, esp. when the two specialists
call off their turf wars, and I think we will be
seeing a considerable complication of the whole
notion of genetic distance that you mention in
what you wrote. The simplest distance is just a
count of the number of allele changes. This may
do for purposes of dating (IF there is a constant
probability of allele change across all alleles and
at all times) and, as you say, for geographic
location. But even here, a taxonomy based upon
this simple metric will not in general be unique.^
Life (for biologists) will get far more complicated
when the fact that allele changes are decidedly
unequal as far as macro-evolution goes is taken
into account. Indeed a far more complicated
metric than assigning different weights to different
allele changes and plugging them into the
Pythagorean theorem will have to be employed.
     ^[See Jardine and Sibson, _Mathematical
Taxonomy_ for this. The book assumes a good
background in point set topology.]

ANTI-RACISTS, PLEASE NOTE

In all cases, the resultant taxonomy will depend
on the *purposes* of the taxonomist. I have found
a little reference to purpose in every treatise on
taxonomy I looked at some twenty years ago.
This means that the notion that race is a "social
construct" is no big deal, since *all* taxonomies
are "social constructs." In the case of biologists,
the general purpose, as far as most biologists are
concerned, is for the taxonomy to conform with
evolutionary history. In human affairs the purpose
involves this but it involves other factors as well,
such as group loyalty: we all know that what the
White race consists of admits of a variety of
answers and depends on who wants to exclude
whom from the polity, i.e., upon the specific turf
war at hand. (Much more about this in future
postings.)

Why don't molecular biologists talk about race,
you ask? The first answer is that it is too difficult,
which you surely realize. Second is that the gap
between micro- and macro-evolution is huge.
Third is the willingness to commit the sin of
ontological bulldozing (there is no consciousness,
standard of living, or what not), that is, to try to
explain emergent things *away* rather than trying
to explain them (which is what epistemological
reductionism, if not science as a whole, is all
about). Fourth are the turf wars that even
scientists get into. Fifth is that, in academia at
present, talking about human races, at least, can
get you into trouble.

Frank



From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 24 10:31:36 PDT 1995
Article: 22595 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Engineer Says - NO HOLOCAUST * NO WAY * NO HOW !
Date: 24 Jun 1995 14:09:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 78
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sh6a1$98m@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3qocgi$6gm@agate.berkeley.edu> <3qruaf$u3t@epaus.island.net> <3rd8bg$juo@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <10JUN199519191539@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu> <3rulsi$bit@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3scfch$bt7@bird.summit.novell.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc7-28.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.revisionism:22595 talk.politics.misc:203869

In <3scfch$bt7@bird.summit.novell.com> mattk@summit.novell.com (mattk)
writes: 
>
>Frank Forman (forman@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: The Lipstadt book did not go into the popular views of the
Holocaust,
>: just the Revisionists. And she was too huffy to get down to the
>: business of refuting their arguments. You and others on a.r. are not
>
>Err, she handily dices, slices and otherwise puree's their 'arguments'
>in one of the appendices.

I read this appendix and she was really only quoting other experts, not
getting to the details of the Revisionist arguments. I still await a
really good book answering the Revisionists.

>She won't debate with the deniers, she makes
>her reasons clear.

One of her reasons is that the Revisionists are slippery. This is also
true of the Creationists, but they do get debated? Why not the
Holocaust Revisionists as well?


>: huffy, and for this you have my thanks and also my agreement. (Why I
>: still cannot buy a book treating Revisionist arguments with fairness
>: and detail is a puzzle.) Still, a treatment like _Hollywood Views of
>
>Perhaps because they're all without merit and merely thinly disguised
>Jew-bashing?

You must be able to penetrate disguises much better than I can! It is a
totally irrelevant issue, unless your metaphysics says, "So and so is
an anti-semite; therefore the Holocaust happened."

>Denier arguments all crash and burn when investigated in
>*any* detail. Without exception.

That is your opinion, but I still would eagerly read a detailed book
treating the Revisionists, not just a lot of  name calling.

>: the Holocaust_ would be most welcome. I read George MacDonald
Fraser's
>
>Oh, why not contact HoffmanII for a slant on history that seems in
>more accord with your agenda?

Is my agenda thinly disguised also? What don't you tell me what it is
and just how my disguise operates. Are you aping what you claim to be
Revisionist methods?

>He can tell you why the Simpson's are a ZOG plot for instance.

I'll wait for his argument and then evaluate it.

>: delightful book, _The Hollywood History of the World from _One
Million
>: Years BC_ to _Apocalypse Now__, NY: Fawcett Columbine, 1988), whose
>: verdict is that Hollywood history is surprising accurate. But if
four
>: million Jews gassed at Auschwitz has turned up in the movies, I
should
>: not be overwhelmingly surprised.
>
>So tell us, Frank, how many Jews do *you* think were gassed at
Auschwitz?

The anti-Revisionist arguments on alt.revisionism, plus the
unwillingness or inability of Revisionists to respond, have persuaded
me that homocidal gassings did take place at Auschwitz. I don't know
how many, and I don't know what the range of estimates among
Exterminationist historians are. And I am not going to spend a lifetime
researching the matter and add my own estimate to the pile of existing
estimates. But, if and when, the Revisionists make a counter-response,
I certainly want to read it.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 24 20:59:44 PDT 1995
Article: 5482 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A general critique...
Date: 25 Jun 1995 00:55:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 80
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sic5l$luv@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3s3g2d$cct@uvapsy.psy.uva.nl> <3s2rqo$3csa@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>   <3s60qd$2ru@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> <3sb4uj$ofd@inforamp.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.politics.nationalism.white:6029 alt.discrimination:24917 alt.politics.white-power:5482 alt.revisionism:22624

In 
jeannek@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Jeanne Kowalewski) writes: 
>
>In article <3sb4uj$ofd@inforamp.net>, George Hawthorne
> wrote:
>
>> u9114423@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (I. Khalil) wrote:
>> >Everytime I come into this newsgroup, I notice that the 
>> >regulars that post here never change and have their own specific
style. 
>> >James White is a man of wit, while Lane Singer's posts show
thoughtfulness 
>> >and a heart...then there is LESS Griswald. I must say that this man
is 
>> >probably the biggest moron I have ever come across. Truly, a person
(sic) 
>> >who is of low intellect and inferior upbringing. I am surprised
that this 
>> >man can even write...
>> >
>> >
>> >Just a general critique,
>> >
>> >The Hab
>> >
>> 
>> WELL, WELL, Flab, I assume that you are inferring that if people
hold
>different opinions than yourself, then they MUST, by necessity=
>> , be morons?  I have met Les myself, and I can tell you that while I
>know nothing about his upbringing, he is more of a man than you=
>> 'll ever be.  Perhaps rather than make your "general critiques" of
total
>strangers, you should first look in the mirror and ask whet=
>> her or not it is YOU is is the total moron.  History will vindicate
men
>like Griswald and myself.  Wallow in your self-abasement, pl=
>> ebian.
>
>How is it that a specimen of the master race such as yourself doesn't
know
>how to hit the return key after 78-80 characters so that your hordes
of
>admirers with lowly DOS machines can read to the end of every line?
Looks
>pretty moronic to me. Hey -- will history clean up your shitty
formatting,
>too?
>
>Jeanne K.

Temper, temper. This margin business is a real problem all
over the Net, since our various providers set their own
maxima. You'll see this when you read what you wrote. The
only sure way if for me to hit the enter key well in advance
of what is my supposed maximum. To redo whatever it is
I'm responding to, I'd have to edit line after line after
line. I can take the document, convert it into WordPerfect,
set a margin that I think not wrap around on any Net
provider, then use the WordPerfect Replace command, 
replacing each enter with nothing or with space (it depends
on the situation which), being careful not to mesh
paragraphs together. Well, I can do all this, but I could
spend the same amount of time dashing off two idiotic
replies instead of just this one. This reply is idiotic,
since you were *only* asking that poster hit the enter
key every 78-80 characters, evidently so that the end
pieces of lines will be visible. But, I was rushing to
answer before I reread exactly what you said. There are
just too many things on this Internet thing that I want
to add my dime's worth that I don't take enough care
with individual items. But I am certainly not alone in
this. At least, I do try to refrain from calling people
names. It is just not good logic to say, "Frank thinks
so and so is a jerk, therefore so and so's statements
are false." My opinions just don't have that sort of
metaphysical power!

Frank



From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 24 20:59:48 PDT 1995
Article: 5484 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Are Jews White People?
Date: 25 Jun 1995 01:02:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 71
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sicjn$m35@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.politics.white-power:5484 alt.discrimination:24918 alt.revisionism:22625 alt.politics.nationalism.white:6030

In  bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
writes: 
>
>
>From: George Hawthorne 
>>Top Rabbis have stated that jews are not white.
>
>Whoever *they* are, but I'm sure you had some good reason not to
>mention any names (har. they just make it up as they go along.)
>
>>However, there are different Racial strains of jewry, the Ashkenazim,

>>the Sephardim, and the Falashim.  The Ashkenazi jews are slavic in 
>>origin, and comprise 90% of Israel, and an even higher percentage of 
>>North American and European jews.  The are descendants of Khazars,
who 
>>adopted Judaism in circa 800 C.E.  The Sephardim are basically Arabs,
or 
>>semites, and the Falashim are black jews from Africa.
>
>Oh this tired thing.
>
>Ok, if the Ashkenazic Jews are all slavs then why have they spoken
>Yiddish, clearly a Germanic language (much closer to German than, say,
>Danish or English or Norwegian), since practically the date you give.
>
>Why is there no such discontinuity of Jewish presence in Europe
>throughout the era you seem to claim they couldn't exist. Why does
>Charlemagne pronounce a protection for the Jews in his kingdom
>(780AD), for example? How do the Jews manage to establish a community
>in England in 691 when, according to you, they didn't even exist in
>Europe yet? Why does King Louis the Pious, in France, appoint a
>magistrate in 800AD to protect Jewish rights in his kingdom? Do you
>mean the Khazars instantly transported themselves from the Caucauses
>to Paris, and in such numbers that Kings are appointing magistrates
>for their population?

Barry,
    I feel obliged to point out some dubious reasoning here. There
may very well have been a few Jews in the places you mention, but
the Khazar theory has to do with the *bulk* of current Jews
descending from Khazars, not each and every one. Now it looks like
there were not that many Khazars that actually did embrace Judaism,
that only a few at the top did for political reasons and that the
vast majority continued worshiping whatever gods and godesses they
did before. But that is something that has to be argued.

>I also find it amusing that the current looney-fringe attempt to
>convince themselves that the Jews aren't caucasians revolves around
>claiming that they all came from the caucases (ie, as khazars.) Huh?
>
>>As a side note, it is 
>>interesting that they use the term "anti-Semitic" to describe 
>>jew-critics, when the majority of them are not even Semites at all.  
>>Once a jew asked me if I was anti-Semitic, and I told him that I had 
>>nothing against Arabs.
>
>Which may seem clever to you but indicates, in fact, that you are a
>phony psuedo-intellectual. Look the term up in a dictionary.
>
>Perhaps one should counter this idiocy by pointing out that "Aryans"
>only come from Iran.
>
>>14 words.
>
>Learn a 15th, and perhaps a 16th, eventually you may not appear so
>ignorant to others.

Moral: if reason and the facts are on your side, use them.

Frank


From bzs@world.std.com Sat Jun 24 20:59:51 PDT 1995
Article: 5486 of alt.politics.white-power
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!simtel!news.kei.com!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Are Jews White People?
In-Reply-To: forman@ix.netcom.com's message of 25 Jun 1995 01:02:47 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: 
	 <3sicjn$m35@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 01:48:59 GMT
Lines: 32
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.politics.white-power:5486 alt.discrimination:24920 alt.revisionism:22626 alt.politics.nationalism.white:6032


From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
>Barry,
>    I feel obliged to point out some dubious reasoning here. There
>may very well have been a few Jews in the places you mention, but
>the Khazar theory has to do with the *bulk* of current Jews
>descending from Khazars, not each and every one. Now it looks like
>there were not that many Khazars that actually did embrace Judaism,
>that only a few at the top did for political reasons and that the
>vast majority continued worshiping whatever gods and godesses they
>did before. But that is something that has to be argued.

I have no problem with this and this is essentially what I suspect
occurred (that latter part of your statement.) I believe there is
possiblyy some grain of truth to some number of Khazars converting to
Judaism, it's an interesting story, but big deal really.

But obviously these identity-christian types, and a few others with a
particular bone to pick, have gone off the deep end taking an
interesting story and using it to spin something that suits their
rather peculiar agendas.

Even if it were true: So what, really. It's not like anyone can say
for certain they somehow weren't descended from converts, in any
religion (in fact, it's a meaningless concept.)


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 24 21:18:29 PDT 1995
Article: 22624 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A general critique...
Date: 25 Jun 1995 00:55:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 80
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sic5l$luv@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3s3g2d$cct@uvapsy.psy.uva.nl> <3s2rqo$3csa@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>   <3s60qd$2ru@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> <3sb4uj$ofd@inforamp.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.politics.nationalism.white:6029 alt.discrimination:24917 alt.politics.white-power:5482 alt.revisionism:22624

In 
jeannek@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Jeanne Kowalewski) writes: 
>
>In article <3sb4uj$ofd@inforamp.net>, George Hawthorne
> wrote:
>
>> u9114423@muss.cis.McMaster.CA (I. Khalil) wrote:
>> >Everytime I come into this newsgroup, I notice that the 
>> >regulars that post here never change and have their own specific
style. 
>> >James White is a man of wit, while Lane Singer's posts show
thoughtfulness 
>> >and a heart...then there is LESS Griswald. I must say that this man
is 
>> >probably the biggest moron I have ever come across. Truly, a person
(sic) 
>> >who is of low intellect and inferior upbringing. I am surprised
that this 
>> >man can even write...
>> >
>> >
>> >Just a general critique,
>> >
>> >The Hab
>> >
>> 
>> WELL, WELL, Flab, I assume that you are inferring that if people
hold
>different opinions than yourself, then they MUST, by necessity=
>> , be morons?  I have met Les myself, and I can tell you that while I
>know nothing about his upbringing, he is more of a man than you=
>> 'll ever be.  Perhaps rather than make your "general critiques" of
total
>strangers, you should first look in the mirror and ask whet=
>> her or not it is YOU is is the total moron.  History will vindicate
men
>like Griswald and myself.  Wallow in your self-abasement, pl=
>> ebian.
>
>How is it that a specimen of the master race such as yourself doesn't
know
>how to hit the return key after 78-80 characters so that your hordes
of
>admirers with lowly DOS machines can read to the end of every line?
Looks
>pretty moronic to me. Hey -- will history clean up your shitty
formatting,
>too?
>
>Jeanne K.

Temper, temper. This margin business is a real problem all
over the Net, since our various providers set their own
maxima. You'll see this when you read what you wrote. The
only sure way if for me to hit the enter key well in advance
of what is my supposed maximum. To redo whatever it is
I'm responding to, I'd have to edit line after line after
line. I can take the document, convert it into WordPerfect,
set a margin that I think not wrap around on any Net
provider, then use the WordPerfect Replace command, 
replacing each enter with nothing or with space (it depends
on the situation which), being careful not to mesh
paragraphs together. Well, I can do all this, but I could
spend the same amount of time dashing off two idiotic
replies instead of just this one. This reply is idiotic,
since you were *only* asking that poster hit the enter
key every 78-80 characters, evidently so that the end
pieces of lines will be visible. But, I was rushing to
answer before I reread exactly what you said. There are
just too many things on this Internet thing that I want
to add my dime's worth that I don't take enough care
with individual items. But I am certainly not alone in
this. At least, I do try to refrain from calling people
names. It is just not good logic to say, "Frank thinks
so and so is a jerk, therefore so and so's statements
are false." My opinions just don't have that sort of
metaphysical power!

Frank



From forman@ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 24 21:18:33 PDT 1995
Article: 22625 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Are Jews White People?
Date: 25 Jun 1995 01:02:47 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 71
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sicjn$m35@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
References:  
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc8-13.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.politics.white-power:5484 alt.discrimination:24918 alt.revisionism:22625 alt.politics.nationalism.white:6030

In  bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
writes: 
>
>
>From: George Hawthorne 
>>Top Rabbis have stated that jews are not white.
>
>Whoever *they* are, but I'm sure you had some good reason not to
>mention any names (har. they just make it up as they go along.)
>
>>However, there are different Racial strains of jewry, the Ashkenazim,

>>the Sephardim, and the Falashim.  The Ashkenazi jews are slavic in 
>>origin, and comprise 90% of Israel, and an even higher percentage of 
>>North American and European jews.  The are descendants of Khazars,
who 
>>adopted Judaism in circa 800 C.E.  The Sephardim are basically Arabs,
or 
>>semites, and the Falashim are black jews from Africa.
>
>Oh this tired thing.
>
>Ok, if the Ashkenazic Jews are all slavs then why have they spoken
>Yiddish, clearly a Germanic language (much closer to German than, say,
>Danish or English or Norwegian), since practically the date you give.
>
>Why is there no such discontinuity of Jewish presence in Europe
>throughout the era you seem to claim they couldn't exist. Why does
>Charlemagne pronounce a protection for the Jews in his kingdom
>(780AD), for example? How do the Jews manage to establish a community
>in England in 691 when, according to you, they didn't even exist in
>Europe yet? Why does King Louis the Pious, in France, appoint a
>magistrate in 800AD to protect Jewish rights in his kingdom? Do you
>mean the Khazars instantly transported themselves from the Caucauses
>to Paris, and in such numbers that Kings are appointing magistrates
>for their population?

Barry,
    I feel obliged to point out some dubious reasoning here. There
may very well have been a few Jews in the places you mention, but
the Khazar theory has to do with the *bulk* of current Jews
descending from Khazars, not each and every one. Now it looks like
there were not that many Khazars that actually did embrace Judaism,
that only a few at the top did for political reasons and that the
vast majority continued worshiping whatever gods and godesses they
did before. But that is something that has to be argued.

>I also find it amusing that the current looney-fringe attempt to
>convince themselves that the Jews aren't caucasians revolves around
>claiming that they all came from the caucases (ie, as khazars.) Huh?
>
>>As a side note, it is 
>>interesting that they use the term "anti-Semitic" to describe 
>>jew-critics, when the majority of them are not even Semites at all.  
>>Once a jew asked me if I was anti-Semitic, and I told him that I had 
>>nothing against Arabs.
>
>Which may seem clever to you but indicates, in fact, that you are a
>phony psuedo-intellectual. Look the term up in a dictionary.
>
>Perhaps one should counter this idiocy by pointing out that "Aryans"
>only come from Iran.
>
>>14 words.
>
>Learn a 15th, and perhaps a 16th, eventually you may not appear so
>ignorant to others.

Moral: if reason and the facts are on your side, use them.

Frank


From bzs@world.std.com Sat Jun 24 21:18:35 PDT 1995
Article: 22626 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!simtel!news.kei.com!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Are Jews White People?
In-Reply-To: forman@ix.netcom.com's message of 25 Jun 1995 01:02:47 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: 
	 <3sicjn$m35@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 01:48:59 GMT
Lines: 32
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.politics.white-power:5486 alt.discrimination:24920 alt.revisionism:22626 alt.politics.nationalism.white:6032


From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
>Barry,
>    I feel obliged to point out some dubious reasoning here. There
>may very well have been a few Jews in the places you mention, but
>the Khazar theory has to do with the *bulk* of current Jews
>descending from Khazars, not each and every one. Now it looks like
>there were not that many Khazars that actually did embrace Judaism,
>that only a few at the top did for political reasons and that the
>vast majority continued worshiping whatever gods and godesses they
>did before. But that is something that has to be argued.

I have no problem with this and this is essentially what I suspect
occurred (that latter part of your statement.) I believe there is
possiblyy some grain of truth to some number of Khazars converting to
Judaism, it's an interesting story, but big deal really.

But obviously these identity-christian types, and a few others with a
particular bone to pick, have gone off the deep end taking an
interesting story and using it to spin something that suits their
rather peculiar agendas.

Even if it were true: So what, really. It's not like anyone can say
for certain they somehow weren't descended from converts, in any
religion (in fact, it's a meaningless concept.)


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


From forman@ix.netcom.com Tue Jun 27 06:34:50 PDT 1995
Article: 22748 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: OY, Dose Very Hard Working Jewish Guys & Gals
Date: 26 Jun 1995 23:08:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 61
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sneku$1cv@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3rtkkl$sgg@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3ruo14$ca4@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <18JUN199511180646@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu> <3s51lt$955@earth.usa.net> <3sabv8$26u@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3smcoj$ehh@bird.summit.novell.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc14-18.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.skinheads:17087 alt.revisionism:22748 alt.politics.nationalism.white:6124 soc.culture.jewish:103822

In <3smcoj$ehh@bird.summit.novell.com> mattk@summit.novell.com (mattk)
writes: 
>
>Frank Forman (forman@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >Assuming Mr. Forman is correct, IQ values are not a good predictor
of
>: >income.
>
>: Do you have any actual facts? The correlation of IQ and income in
this
>: country, for *individuals*, is around 50 percent, I believe. But for
>: *groups* the correlation is much higher.
>
>
>So? Sounds like a quote from that Bell Cure bulls**t. 50% correlation
>means it explains 25% of the variance. How do you explain the other
75%
>of the population variance, Frank?

Our subject was the IQs incomes of Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic Jews in
Israel. I'd *still* like to get information on that, so I'm adding
soc.culture.jewish to the list of newsgroups. If no one there can
answer the question, please add any newsgroups dealing with Israel, if
there be any such.

The biggest problem I have with _The Bell Curve_ is what I have with
all use of statistics in the social sciences as they are practiced 
today, namely the serious metaphysical error of leaving out free will.
Social scientists seem to think heredity and environment (plus a
measurement error) *must* add up to 100% of the variance.

We don't have any good measures, or proxies, for free will, so I don't
know what part of the missing 75% of the variance could be
accounted for by free will (which includes effort). Part of the
75% surely has to do with what we call luck, but sometimes what
seems as luck is really finding and seizing opportunities (an 
aspect of free will).

I told my dissertation director (economics) about this ignoring free
will. He's been a scholar for fifty years, but he said no one had
ever pointed out this obvious omission of free will in regression
equations.

I think it was bad of Murray and Herrnstein to put the coefficients
of determination (R-squares) in the appendix, and so did Stephen Jay
Gould in his review. Good for him, for once!

What is *your* theory on the missing 75%? Or why correlations
are sometimes high and sometimes low? Free will will have
something to do with it, but how much when I don't know.

The subject of the thread is Very Hard Working Jewish Guys
and Gals. Does anyone have any equations on hardworkingness
separating it into heredity, environment, and free will?
Does the heredity of Jews as a group lead them to create
environments where their children work hard?

And whatever happened to the *Protestant* work ethic Max
Weber wrote about?

Frank


From bzs@world.std.com Tue Jun 27 06:35:02 PDT 1995
Article: 22762 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,soc.culture.jewish
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!hookup!simtel!news.kei.com!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: OY, Dose Very Hard Working Jewish Guys & Gals
In-Reply-To: forman@ix.netcom.com's message of 26 Jun 1995 23:08:14 GMT
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <3rtkkl$sgg@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3ruo14$ca4@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
	<18JUN199511180646@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu> <3s51lt$955@earth.usa.net>
	<3sabv8$26u@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3smcoj$ehh@bird.summit.novell.com>
	<3sneku$1cv@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 23:42:44 GMT
Lines: 51
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.skinheads:17092 alt.revisionism:22762 alt.politics.nationalism.white:6129 soc.culture.jewish:103841


From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
>We don't have any good measures, or proxies, for free will, so I don't
>know what part of the missing 75% of the variance could be
>accounted for by free will (which includes effort). Part of the
>75% surely has to do with what we call luck, but sometimes what
>seems as luck is really finding and seizing opportunities (an 
>aspect of free will).

On a related note...

My undergrad degree is in child psychology. I was working in an
elementary school classroom one year and was told there was this kid,
David, who needed special attention because he'd made it to the 6th
grade with a very sub-standard reading score, was nearly illiterate.

Well, I worked with David and he didn't seem very illiterate to me
(for his age group), not the brightest bulb on the planet but perhaps
just a little below average, nothing I'd be very concerned about, odd.

So it came time for the yearly standardized tests and I proctored
them. Oddly, David was the first kid in the class finished and he
dumped off his test and proceeded to head out the door (they could go
out to the playground when done.) Not so fast David! I had a look. To
make a long story short as near as I could tell he ran thru the thing
marking the answers randomly. He simply didn't care.

So that did prompt me to bring up the issue of motivation in
subsequent college courses which mentioned standardized testing.

All this standardized testing seems to make one fatally flawed
assumption: That the people (usually children) being tested give a
damn and are even trying to write down the correct answers.

In my experience I think that's a seriously flawed assumption. Even
where not as extreme as David's case, given the often multi-hour
format of these exams I find it easy to believe one is often just
testing the distribution of patience and persistence on these exams
and many kids, being utterly bored and not caring one whit, begin,
well, not trying very hard and just want to be done with it (or put in
a less malignant way, just lose focus entirely.)

It's certainly an issue that those who advocate standardized testing
don't want to deal with at all.


-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


From forman@ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 28 23:20:08 PDT 1995
Article: 17192 of alt.skinheads
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gumby!newspump.wustl.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: OY, Dose Very Hard Working Jewish Guys & Gals
Date: 28 Jun 1995 00:17:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 66
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sq72g$rsf@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3rtkkl$sgg@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3ruo14$ca4@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc14-01.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.skinheads:17192 alt.revisionism:22850 alt.politics.nationalism.white:6177 soc.culture.jewish:104088

In  bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
writes: 
>
>
>From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
>>We don't have any good measures, or proxies, for free will, so I
don't
>>know what part of the missing 75% of the variance could be
>>accounted for by free will (which includes effort). Part of the
>>75% surely has to do with what we call luck, but sometimes what
>>seems as luck is really finding and seizing opportunities (an 
>>aspect of free will).
>
>On a related note...
>
>My undergrad degree is in child psychology. I was working in an
>elementary school classroom one year and was told there was this kid,
>David, who needed special attention because he'd made it to the 6th
>grade with a very sub-standard reading score, was nearly illiterate.
>
>Well, I worked with David and he didn't seem very illiterate to me
>(for his age group), not the brightest bulb on the planet but perhaps
>just a little below average, nothing I'd be very concerned about, odd.
>
>So it came time for the yearly standardized tests and I proctored
>them. Oddly, David was the first kid in the class finished and he
>dumped off his test and proceeded to head out the door (they could go
>out to the playground when done.) Not so fast David! I had a look. To
>make a long story short as near as I could tell he ran thru the thing
>marking the answers randomly. He simply didn't care.
>
>So that did prompt me to bring up the issue of motivation in
>subsequent college courses which mentioned standardized testing.
>
>All this standardized testing seems to make one fatally flawed
>assumption: That the people (usually children) being tested give a
>damn and are even trying to write down the correct answers.
>
>In my experience I think that's a seriously flawed assumption. Even
>where not as extreme as David's case, given the often multi-hour
>format of these exams I find it easy to believe one is often just
>testing the distribution of patience and persistence on these exams
>and many kids, being utterly bored and not caring one whit, begin,
>well, not trying very hard and just want to be done with it (or put in
>a less malignant way, just lose focus entirely.)
>
>It's certainly an issue that those who advocate standardized testing
>don't want to deal with at all.

Thanks for the information, Barry. This issue seemed to be
at the back of my head, too. I must have presumed unawares
that the many critics of standardized testing would have
picked up on it. Psychologists do know about the general
problem of test-retest correlations, and I'm sure Arthur
Jensen has gone into the matter in some of his many
writings. I also know that very truncated forms of IQ tests
often do just about as well as the full version, for many
purposes, at least. The whole business of testing is one of
cost-effectiveness and the verdict of the market place seems
to be in favor of them. I wonder why there don't seem to be
other tests you can take and show to prospective admissions
officers or employers in case you don't do so well on the
standard IQ tests. Maybe there are, but I am not too versed
in this area.

Frank


From forman@ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 29 05:33:28 PDT 1995
Article: 22849 of alt.revisionism
Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: forman@ix.netcom.com (Frank Forman)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.revisionism,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: More pseudo-linguistics on alt.revisionism
Date: 28 Jun 1995 00:10:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 47
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3sq6l0$rma@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
References: <3rt2r8$kpm@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <3sdbul$2oe0@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc14-01.ix.netcom.com
Xref: news.port.island.net alt.discrimination:25145 alt.revisionism:22849 alt.politics.nationalism.white:6176

In <3sdbul$2oe0@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> gmcfee@ibm.net (Gord McFee)
writes: 
>
>In message <3rt2r8$kpm@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> - forman@ix.netcom.com
(Frank For
>man) writes:
>:>
>
>:>>>In English, "public" and "pubic" have the same roots, but
>:>>>they mean different things.
>:>>
>:>>Do you have a source for this (let us say) interesting assertion?
>:>>My American Heritage Dictionary (the classic first edition, not the
>:>>crummy later ones) traces "public" to "populus" which it says is of
>:>>Etruscan origin and "pubic" to "pubes" which it says is of
"obscure"
>:>>origin.  Likewise, the Webster's New Universal Unabridged (2d
edition)
>:>>traces "public" to "populus" and "pubic" (well, actually "pubis")
to
>:>>"pubes."  I hesitate to give people unsolicited advice, but I do 
>:>>sincerely think (based on your record so far) that if you are
>:>interested
>:>>in becoming a linguist -- don't give up your day job.
>:>>--
>:>>					Richard Schultz
>:>
>:>I got it from my first-year college roommate much later when he was
>:>(and still is) a professor of German linguistics. I guess he was
>:>mistaken. I won't tell you his name, since he may have to get
another
>:>job! Sorry for the error.
>
>Frank, perhaps the next time you have a question about English
etymology, you 
>will not ask a German linguistics professor!  BTW, I just spoke to my
former 
>German linguistics professor and he did not make the same mistake.

I will certainly take your advice to heart! Actually, he is just
as much a professor of *Germanic* languages as of German. He
wrote his dissertation on the ablaut (eg, sing-sang-sung) in
proto-Germanic. But I hope he will be allowed his one mistake.
He is a fine fellow. Enough of this! The moral is that we
should all look things up.

Frank

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor