quote:akoben, a NAZI she/male with ADD writes: I've never read that particular Keita article, or...
...anything else of intelligence.
Yet you quoted it, out of context, because you didn't know who wrote it.
lol. You're just and idiot.
quote:Yes but the only problem is,
...you're stupid, yet continue to try to 'debate' persons more intelligent than you, which is basically everyone in this thread.
Charlie Bass is right about you being even dumber than Debunked.
Go take your ritalin.
quote:Exploreteur writes: akoben you were wrongly reading what you cited to begin with. What you were saying has *no connection* to what you were citing.
Clear symptoms of retardation characterise *every post* by akoben.
Yet, (s)he continues to 'try' and 'argue' and refuses to take his(her) ritalin. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yet you quoted it, out of context, because you didn't know who wrote it
If this was the case little rasolowitz quote me defining race as separate distinct biological units and saying that was what was meant by the quote. Simple.
quote: What you were saying has *no connection* to what you were citing
What was "I" citing?
quote:it has nothing to do with what I was talking about,
Again, when you say "European" are you referring to a phenotypic non entity? Or "whites" with different set of genetic markers?
quote: "Pictorially", what does a genetic marker mean to you
Irrelevant since "whites" (ashkenazim jews) can have different markers but still have similar phenotypes.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh jesus are we going to play this silly game again with you not answering the questions?
What was "I" citing?
quote:Yes, jamaican dufus, what "you" were citing
Again what was I citing? Precisely what are you referring to here?
quote:Is it the policy of the intellectually dead like yourself, to first utterly screw up what others say, and then ask questions
Again, when you said "a European" are you referring to a phenotypic non entity? Or "whites" with different set of genetic markers? If you say "a European" in the context in which you did, is it not like saying "a Norwegian" meaning a person who looks like what we would call "white"?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ausarianstein, you surprised me here, I thought we were going to be treated with your usual cunt, dick pussy all night. LOL Anyway, we all know why you can't answer the question, and it's not entirely due to your deranged mental state that come and goes every now and then. But for the record: Again, when you said "a European with Hg I" and "a European with Hg R" are you referring to a phenotypic non entity? Or "whites" with different set of genetic markers? If you say "a European" in the context in which you did, is it not like saying "a Norwegian" meaning a person who looks like what we would call "white"?
Put another way, when we say ancient Egypt was an "African" civilization are we referring to a phenotypic non entity, or it was the product of what we would call "blacks" today?
In other words are "Europe" and "African" simply geographical ethnonyms?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by rasolowitz: Yet you quoted it, out of context, because you didn't know who wrote it
quote: If this was the case little rasolowitz quote me defining race as separate distinct biological units and saying that was what was meant by the quote. Simple.
^ Why would I do that? The only reason anyone quotes you, is for laughs.
And the only thing you define, whenever you open your mouth...is idiot.
^ The "jews" are every-where, and they are laughing at you Akoben, oh Jeezus, Holy Moses, by Freud and Marx [Karl and Groucho too!] what's a burnt out ritalin addicted ol' tranny like you to do!
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: ....please tell us what part of what you quote references phenotype?
It doesn't, neither does "a Norwegian", yet we have an idea who is being referred to here "a white" person. Same as "a Ghanaian" black, "an Ethiopian" black, "a Sicilian" white. That's why I'm asking him what he meant, pictorially, by "a European" having such an such a marker?
quote:let's deal one instance of your attention deficit disordered stupidity at a time.
I thought you would've wasted no time in backing up your post. "you quoted it, out of context"Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Again, when you said "a European" are you referring to a phenotypic non entity?
quote:rasol writes: Please tell us what part of what you quoted references *phenotype?*
quote:akoben writes: It doesn't.
Then the question is stupid, and you're stupid for repeating it.
All your posts are utterly daft, and lately rather boring.
quote:thought you would've wasted no time
^ Actually, i'm only clowning you. Taking you seriously would be the waste of time.
Speaking of which...
When you are going to start tantruming against imaginary Jews?
You're most fun when in full 'jewfright' mode.
You're not as much fun when you're trying so hard to prove to us that you're not as stupid as we think you are. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you saying then, that "Europeans" don't have distinguishing phenotypes that would distinguish them phenotypically from "Africans"? What would be the point of arguing then about "Norwegians" versus "Ethiopians"?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Again, when you said "a European" are you referring to a phenotypic non entity?
quote:rasol writes: Please tell us what part of what you quoted references *phenotype?*
quote:akoben writes: It doesn't.
Then the question is stupid, and you're stupid for repeating it.
quote:akoben again suffering from add writes: are you saying then, that "Europeans" don't have distinguishing phenotypes?
^ Where did you read that?
Try to understand akoben - I find you to be the most apalling idiot.
Hence - I would never allow you to put your words in my mouth, as you so desparately try to do with everyone you reply to.
Here is what I'm saying, feel free to quote me -You're a total idiot who never understand anything that was actually said, and so ends up asking stupid questions, about things no one said to begin with.... like you just did. ^ unquote.
So prove me right again, by asking another stupid question.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
No you picked up ausarianstein's post, so i assume you picked up his responsibility.
Are you saying then, that "Europeans" don't have distinguishing phenotypes that would distinguish them phenotypically from "Africans"? What would be the point of arguing then about "Norwegians" versus "Ethiopians"?Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, BTW, don't think I forgot in all your girly round robin posts; you still haven't backed up your s**t
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: Originally posted by rasolowitz: Yet you quoted it, out of context, because you didn't know who wrote it
quote: If this was the case little rasolowitz quote me defining race as separate distinct biological units and saying that was what was meant by the quote. Simple.
rasolowitz's reply
Come on little rasolowitz we see that familiar mode you go into when pressed, reminds me of Asarianstein when he went deranged as a result of his holocaust debate beatdown.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:OH btw, don't think I forgot in all your round robin posts
^ Oh, btw, I take it you finally *accept* the answer to your question:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Ok. The answer is yes. You're incredibly stupid. And the harder you try to not sound stupid, the more stupid you sound.
Now what will you do?
Let me guess, repeat the question...like a frustrated loser....
Negroid - Anthropology. a racial classification, no longer in technical use. – rasolowitz
Yet he still finds the term useful to bring across his points in his posts...
quote:Black: a person belonging to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation
Negro: member of a race of humankind native to Africa and classified according to physical features (as dark skin pigmentation)[both from his own source Merriam-Webster]
Black a powerful concept! – rasolowitz
His favorite Africanist Keita is not sure it even exists...
quote:Originally posted by rasolowitz: Yet you quoted it, out of context, because you didn't know who wrote it
quote: If this was the case little rasolowitz quote me defining race as separate distinct biological units and saying that was what was meant by the quote. Simple.
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): So the lentgh of each vector denotes the distinctfulness of the group/population?!
If so: arguement done.
^ Yes. The position of Europeans on this graph, and admixture with Africans as the cause of their short vector is exactly what is being denoted by Bowcock....
Drift, admixture, and selection in human evolution: A study with DNA polymorphisms
(population genetics/simulation/neutral theory) ANNE M. BOWCOCK*t
One can show that a branch to a population resulting from admixture tends to be shorter than other branches.
^ This is also what Keita is relating in terms of why Europeans cannot be modeled as a primary race, and source of admixture, when they lack genetic distinction to begin with, being 'hybridized' and admixed as they are.
We can have as many rounds of angry denial as Eurocentrists would care to engage.
We are more than happy to break this down into bites small enough for even the most -toothless- of Eurocentrists to be able to digest.
quote:Not only is all of above true, but you failed to dispute it
How can I "dispute" your subjective definition of the term you imbecile? LOL I can merely laugh at the cheer idiocy of that familiar narrow definition, as well your silly little efforts to make a "distinction" between your definition and "Negro". LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasolowitz: Back on topic:
Yes, I agree, you have some unfinished business...
quote:
quote: Originally posted by rasolowitz: Yet you quoted it, out of context, because you didn't know who wrote it
quote: If this was the case little rasolowitz quote me defining race as separate distinct biological units and saying that was what was meant by the quote. Simple.
posted
Is thread going to rival "European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to Europe" thread, with some 45 pages now, and beat it? Lol.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The definition is Websters. Obviously you can't dispute it.
LOLOLOL you JACKA**! Do I detect some effort at distancing? Again, it's yours, little rasolowitz, you cited it, many times, but I couldnt give a s**t what definition of Black/Negro your white master tells you; its old and useless as hell! African skin tones don't all fit neatly into your silly little definition! LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Explorateur: Is thread going to rival "European nations established only from Medieval times - whites are very new to Europe" thread, with some 45 pages now, and beat it? Lol.
Hey jewboy, I thought you were gone? LOL
Again, when you said "a European with Hg I" and "a European with Hg R" are you referring to a phenotypic non entity? Or "whites" with different set of genetic markers? If you say "a European" in the context in which you did, is it not like saying "a Norwegian" meaning a person who looks like what we would call "white"?
Put another way, when we say ancient Egypt was an "African" civilization are we referring to a phenotypic non entity, or it was the product of what we would call "blacks" today?
In other words are "Europe" and "African" simply geographical ethnonyms?Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never said anything about African skin tones.
! LOLOLOL Oh my f**king god!!!! What other context was it being discussed you deceptive back-tracking MF! Jesus rasolowitz you're such a little p***y! Are you finally trying to distance yourself from your initial f** up?
And of course what you left out of that Brace quote was his putting "black" in quotes, same as Keita, which should be obvious to even a jacka** such as yourself that he's highlighting the subjective nature of the term; not buying into your rigid definition.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
The problem is you have a baby brain and can't place information into context.
It's no joke or flame, but just the truth to say that you're even dumber than Debunked, in that respect
The context of Merriam-Websters is clear:
Black: a person belonging to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation
The context of CL Brace is clear:
Africa of course entails black, though black does not entail African.
The context of Dr. Keita is clear:
Angel found evidence for a black [if-exists] genetic influence in ancient Greece, racialist models - which imply non overlapping genepools are thus negated by Angels work
^ All of the above are concordant, to social references of dark skinned peoples, the qualifiers distinquish the notion of socially 'black' from the construct of 'race'. This is the proper context, and the *point* of both Keita [and Brace] thesis.
The context of *your unmitigated stupidity* is also clear - to us.
quote:they are not buying into your rigid definition.
^ Actually they are the -sellers-, all I had to do was quote them.
That's when you start crying...
And since you admit you cannot refute Websters, or Brace, or Keita, then you -are- buying into it, in spite of yourself.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never said anything about African skin tones - rasolowitz
quote:by Brace own logic - that they [Egyptians] were Black.
quote: ^ Black is accurate as a description of skin color
quote:I never said anything about African skin tones.
quote: ^ Black is accurate as a description of skin color
quote:they [Egyptians] were Black
quote:Black = dark skin pigmentation
quote:this is distinct from negro
quote:Negro = dark skin pigmentation
Does this mean then that blacks such as Dubois, Malcolm X and Angela Davis aren't black? Does this mean too, as your Webster definition implies, that the Egyptians and Nubians aren't black since they do not uniformly possess "dark pigmentation of the skin"?
quote:Black is also a reference to genetic trait
quote:a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence
quote: ^ All of the above are concordant, to social references of dark skinned peoples, the qualifiers distinquish the notion of socially 'black' from the construct of 'race'. This is the proper context, and the *point* of both Keita [and Brace] thesis.
Keita contribution is in deconstructing the "true Negro" stereotype particularly in Nile Valley types. Ancient Egyptians and Nubians, like AA and east African types today, were not uniformly "dark skinned" and nowhere does Keita imply that. By his own admission he doesn't even feel comfortable with the term itself. You are imposing your definition of what "black" is onto Keita.
quote: Does this mean then that blacks such as Dubois, Malcolm X and Angela Davis aren't black?
quote: ^ Did I say the above?
When will you grow a d**k boy and answer the questions I ask.
quote: Did Brace the above? Did Keita say the above?
Wasn't directed at them. you
quote:This is not only in reference to Africans, who are not the only Blacks
Are dark skinned Asians "blacks" to you?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ translation: you wish to make and excuse for being stupid and unable to understand anything. yes, comedy ensues whenever you post eva.
quote:Ancient Egyptians and Nubians were not uniformly "dark skinned"
^ And this is also a strawman argument as nowhere does the definition of Black entail *uniformity*.
Ancient Egyptians were dark skinned Africans who referred to themselves as Blacks, which you admit.
So there is no point, in even a depressed tranny like yourself trying to pretend otherwise now.
That Greeks have ancestry from Black Africans is PRECISELY what Keita meant by a "black" genetic influence in Greece.
Keita was actually talking about Black Athena, by Martin Bernal.
But again, you don't read Keita, and you can't put information into context, because your brain isn't normal and doesn't work any better than the rest of your she/he internals.......
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Originally posted by Rasolowitz: Like most shemales, I was born without one. This explains my inability to answer questions and my excessive compulsive flip flopping and editing. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic