a tip to all the black people out there

For any person with brown skin who comes across this post - and who is intellectually honest - I think you should know something. I think you should know it is the liberals in Washington who claim to be your champions - the Bill Clinton/Oxford/intellectual types - who are primarily going around behind your backs thinking black people are helpless and inferior.


This may seem surprising on its surface but, when you examine the way liberals think, you will realize it is a natural feature in their world view. They think in cartoons rather than economics, and brown is a cartoon. And you may also think this is mere speculation on my part, but it is not. This is, in fact, the true shock and horror that I am forced to endure, any time your typical mr.-smiley-faced liberal catches me alone on a ski lift or something, man to man, white to white.


The first thing to understand is that every liberal I meet immediately assumes two things about me, 1) that I am racist, and 2) that I am very intelligent. And so they immediately think I am one of the "safe" people whom they can truly be open with about how they really feel. I get it. In fact, they mistakenly think that by telling me just how dumb they think black people really are, I will empathize with them, and we will develop an immediate rapport!


See, some liberals don't know this about other liberals, a lot of them may honestly believe that deep down, they may be alone among their peers in feeling this way about black people. And they feel guilty about it, and try to overcompensate in the other direction by outwardly coming to every defense of a black person, whether it be on a web-site, or elsewhere. With liberals, it's often a constant facade even among friends, but they assume that with a social retard/outsider like me, it is safe to let down their guard.


This has happened to me at least 100 times in my life, and about 100% of the times it has had a chance to happen. It is a rule, not an exception. Watching the Superbowl, riding in a bus, no matter, they think I am a no-b.s. kind of guy, with no aversion to the politically-incorrect truth, and so every liberal in private starts spilling his guts to me. You see, they get frustrated banging their sensible ideas against my thick skull at some point and, in a last-ditch effort to melt my ice, they figure what have they got to lose by letting it all hang out!


I seem so smart, how come I don't get it, they wonder, how come they can't figure me out? So they try reverting to the basics, laying it out in black and white to find some common ground. And when a liberal lays "the way things are" out in black and white, it's pretty disappointing. You see, everything they said openly about George Bush being too dumb to function, is what they say behind closed doors about black people every day. And they believe it.


They really look at Jewish people as some kind of semi-useful aliens with political skills. They really think that a brainiac good-old-boy like Al Gore can take care of the world, but you can't take care of yourself. They really think that black people are so dumb that if they don't step in and do something, Jewish people will trick black people out of their money every time. They think that the way you get rich is by fooling enough people, but they are afraid some of their rich friends will take a good thing too far, and create a backlash.


Those are the liberal leaders, and then there are the liberal rank-and-file, the space cadets. The space cadets are really just economic ignoramuses, they think that if you put a bunch of people in a room and they all close their eyes and think "rich" together, they will all walk out with money. They think that if we all hold hands and think "good" that healthcare will appear, or that if we all shut our eyes and think "mean" real hard, that bad things will happen to one another.


They think that people's feelings manifest as actual events in the real world, and so what poor dumb black people need is kind smart white people, who will think good wishes on their behalf. They think that because Al Gore is so smart - and we all know he is - or because Ralph Nader is so morally pure, that he can defend helpless black people against bad corporations radiating mean rays. And they automatically assume that because I am smart, I will eventually start nodding my head when they spell this out.


To understand the liberal view of the world, you can classify every object in existence along two axes. The first is the subject/object axis, the giver/recipient axis, the arranger/arrangee axis. And the second is the axis of good and evil. They think that if smart people are good, they will realize they need to help blacks. So blacks are down there to the right of endangered species at the bottom middle, good and desirable, but in need to be animated by the will of others, rather than effecting their environment themselves.


You can only understand the model if you picture it like a cartoon. The people at the top left side of the chart - the ones creating impact in the environment - have sort of like effect-rays or impact-squiggles radiating from their brains and hands, or from their hearts if they are good. These lines in the cartoon indicate that these are the people making things happen, pulling the strings, causing good or bad things to happen to others - God's and Devils on Earth.


And so because men are arrangers, and women are half way down the axis toward inanimate objects in need of arranging - and because men are mean - men are the reason women are being kept down. Mean white men are the reason that trees - which are even more virtuous than women meaning further to the left, at the same time as being more objects even than women - are being cut down.


But wait, do trees have feelings, do dolphins run the world, do guns think, can a woman run a corporation? These are some of the interesting properties and questions arising naturally from the model. You see a gun, rather than being an inanimate object, is up at the top right of the chart, with the evil arrangers. A gun is, in fact, the source of an evil action that acts upon others. Don't laugh, this is just the way the model works. Guns can actually make black people do bad things, black people are that far down the animation axis!


And well, Bill Clinton, he is at the top left, he works the magic, he can make ANYTHING happen. And you little black folk should be happy he's up there thinking about you. And you are happy, aren't you! And what a liberal still can't figure, all the while he's saying this, is that why doesn't a smart like like me become an arranger? Don't you get it, black people are dumb, and any money they have is money we consciously choose not to steal from them, good people that we are.


eLROY

If you are asking whether I am serious, yes I am. I have had so many dumb people try to get me to realize so many abstract things, things they dearly held in their hearts to be the truth, that I came up with a model that could predict and explain their behavior.


I actually developed a more elaborate linguistic model, which could be deployed to make a computer think and talk like a liberal jack-ass - with a complete understanding of the world and who in it needs what and why and the source and destination of all the love and ill will and treachery so on - but of course I never bothered implementing it.


eLROY

affirmative action proponents come right out and say that we need to give unqualified people a boost (in the short term) just so minorities (this includes women) have role models.


brad

Minorities and women historically have to be twice as qualified as white males just to get an interview. You are not only a bigot, but you are also a prime example of a Klansman.

The odds are great that eLROY, brad, and Chris Alger are all the same person.

I'd like to make sure I understand what you are saying. About 100 times in your life, you have come into contact with a liberal, either on a ski-lift, on a bus, or watching the super bowl, or some other place. Each of these 100 times, the liberal assumed that you were a racist, that you were intelligent, that you were a "safe" person he or she could open up to, a no b-s kind of guy, with no aversion to political incorrectness. And each and every time, without exception, the liberal told you how dumb they think black people are, how they think Jews are semi-useful aliens with political skills, in order to develop a rapport with you.


Is this correct? A simple yes or no will suffice. If no, it's not correct, please correct me where I'm wrong.


Thank you.

so why do university admissions have lower standards for minorities?


heck, if you wanted to be fair you could just use SATs (which correctly predict how well students will do in college).


also, by the way, i do agree that in 1980 what you said may have been true, as well as that in 1980 the US may have had the highest crime rate in industrialized world. but its no longer true. (perhaps affirmative action had some effect. but it doesnt mean its right).


brad

i think he was went totally hyperbolic.


but why are there de facto race quotas (take universities) if liberals dont think minorities are too stupid to get accepted on merit?


all the arguments for greater common good aside, the big premise is that minorities dont have the intellect to (currently) compete intellectually. the argument is that later on they will, but they acknowledge that currently minorities dont.


brad

what, you cant believe that more than one person doesnt agree with you?


brad

There are reasons to want to help someone other than because you think someone is stupid. During the Depression, when unemployment was as high as 33%, the Federal Government did things to put people to work. Not because they thought that the people out of work were out of work because they were stupid, but because they felt the economic system was out of whack, which, of course, it was. The government doesn't provide social security for the elderly because it thinks they're stupid.


The argument is not that people don't have the intellect to compete intellectually. It is that the system is baised so that certain people don't have a fair shake. Now we might disagree about whether or not that notion is correct. But that is what the idea behind affirmative action is, not that minorities are either temporarily or permanently stupid.


"i think he was went totally hyperbolic."


How can you tell?

It's hard to believe that a few years ago we started a forum to discuss poker and where it has led us.


I watch Alan Keyes on MSNBC whenever I get a chance. I wonder how he would respond to this?

well, i just meant stupid in the university admission thing.


but social security is a *great* example. the underlying thinking is that old people are unable to take care of themselves. now im not making a judgement on that. im just saying that that is the premise of social security.


actually i have kind of a split argument here. on the one hand im saying discrimination, quotas (explicit or what ends up happening), etc. , are wrong.


on the other hand im saying that affirmative action may have helped homogenize society. right now im almost 100% positive that people under 30 are not racist in the classical sense. (for example no one really notices a racial 'wrongness' when you see a 'mixed couple' walking down the street.)


brad

ive started political/economic discussions at the poker table and believe me, (maybe because it gave me a certain image), it *really* makes the game great.


brad

Many liberals are just closet racists. They are simply a different form of racist then what we usually percieve racists to be. One of the more common forms of a racist is one who has a dislike for people of some particular group. The liberal often does not fit this category. They typically fit a type of superiority category. This is basically a philosophy of "well were better and smarter then blacks (or whoever) but we don't actually dislike them personally, so we'll act like we're helping them because we can". The liberal comes off as being helpful, but they are so arrogant in their assumtion that blacks need help more then other races. It's essentially saying "you black folks can only match our superior white race if we (whites) handicap oursleves, then you (blacks) will have a chance to compete". This is of course silly, very arrogant, and ummmm racist.


Kris

.. heck, if you wanted to be fair you could just use SATs (which correctly predict how well students will do in college). ..


I think the accuracy in which SAT scores predict how well students do in college is open for debate. It would be useful if you would quote the source of the statistics you have to back this up i.e. what statistics are you using to back this statement up and how do you define success?


The other issue you keep harping on is the racial quotas that universities have. Again please cite your statistical evidence that this is true.


The third issue is that even if what you are saying is true what is the significance of this i.e. what are you trying to say about university admission practices and their revlevance to society and how it functions or how it should function?

Well of course someone is going to say that whether SAT's predict "success" is "open for debate." And what is pathetic is that actual statistics exists, and success is easily defined, and yet the people who say it is open for debate would debate all day and night, but would never take time out of their busy schedule to track down any such statistics, or define and measure success or failure for black people.


Meaning, the reason it is open for debate is specifically because all people are interested in is selling their own theories, rather than checking the facts. They want to keep it open indefnitely, in the face of undeniable evidence. "Open" or not, I would suggest that the responsible thing for you to do, Mr. Haley, would be to track down these statistics yourself before you even open your mouth again.


For crying out loud, "how do you define success?" Grades, academic standing in their class, whether or not they have failed and dropped out! This isn't that complicated, only obfuscated by people with an agenda who need to dodge the facts. The truth is that SAT's overpredict the success of blacks during their first year in college, because blacks who have no prior experience in the art of getting good grades are admitted to competitive colleges and, as a result, are disproportionately likely to end up as dropouts, whereas they could have succeeded if they were pushed down to a slower-paced college.


But the real problem is revealed in your last sentence where you talk about how society "should function." As with any biological system, there is the way some theoretician says it "should" function, and the way it really does function. The way society "should" function is that everyone should sleep on a bed of roses in a glass castle. The way it does function is that black kids are destroyed by being thrown into an alien environment where grades matter, as sacrifices so that other people can maintain political power.


eLROY

You know what is the real disgrace? Using one of my own sisters as an example, the real disgrace is that she was ever even hired in the first place!


She was a concert pianist and child prodigy, who never really went to normal school, and instead spent her time touring the world and and being coddled in places like Aspen and Vienna. Then, when she was like 21, something went sour on her physiologically in her girly little left arm or something, and it all went poof.


So she basically flew straight across the ocean and walked in the door at Columbia, a golden parachute. But Columbia wasn't good enough, so she transferred to Harvard, and got a degree in International Relations or something.


People like Goldman Sachs wouldn't touch her, and the best she could do was Lazard Freres. But one of her ex-boyfriends, still in love, was able to talk his own employer, McKinsey, into picking her up in a pinch.


She always hated McKinsey, and work itself, so she got them to pay for her to go off to Yale and get her law degree as soon as possible. And she never planned on going back to MicKinsey when she was done, but of course that was never discussed openly.


So, out of Yale, what's she going to do, she has to get a job. Because she speaks all those languages, some high-powered international firm in Manhattan gives her a shot, but she flat-out quits inside the first year. Why, because she can.


Because the guy who originally got her the job at McKinsey offers her a new job, as his wife, and all she has to do is sit around the house all day, which is much more to her liking. Meanwhile, he's one of those dot-com zillionaires gone bust, he has to grind it out as a lowlife at some piddly consulting outfit, reality hits.


The point being, all that, and she's a freaking housewife, by choice. And meanwhile, to keep her in housewifery, her husband will dig ditches if need be for $5/hr, whereas she won't even go back to work for $200 an hour.


So you tell me who's qualified! The joke is on the idiot who was dumb enough to interview my sister in the first place. She went on sabbatical, and then she flat-out resigned, why, because she could.


eLROY

.. Well of course someone is going to say that whether SAT's predict "success" is "open for debate." And what is pathetic is that actual statistics exists, and success is easily defined, and yet the people who say it is open for debate would debate all day and night, but would never take time out of their busy schedule to track down any such statistics, or define and measure success or failure for black people. ..


Yet you've not offered any criteria success or given any statistics regarding SAT scores. Apparently you nor brad have any facts to back up the claims that were made.


.. Meaning, the reason it is open for debate is specifically because all people are interested in is selling their own theories, rather than checking the facts. They want to keep it open indefnitely, in the face of undeniable evidence. "Open" or not, I would suggest that the responsible thing for you to do, Mr. Haley, would be to track down these statistics yourself before you even open your mouth again. ..


Why I'm not making these claims and I have seen nothing to back the claim up. It's just brad's opinion.


.. For crying out loud, "how do you define success?" Grades, academic standing in their class, whether or not they have failed and dropped out! ..


Fine quantify these parameters that you define as indicating success and provide some evidence to back up your claims. Defining success in my mind is not as clear cut as you imply. If your discussing academic success fine I agree that the parameters you enumerate are relevant. If you define success by some parameter such as accumulation of wealth well I submit that academic success has very little relevance. And how is academic success relevant to the way society functions?


.. This isn't that complicated, only obfuscated by people with an agenda who need to dodge the facts. ..


Now I'm accussed of having an agenda because I've asked for someone to back up the arguments with facts. So facts obfuscate a reasoned debate? Very weird reaction but not totally surprising.


.. The truth is that SAT's overpredict the success of blacks during their first year in college, because blacks who have no prior experience in the art of getting good grades are admitted to competitive colleges and, as a result, are disproportionately likely to end up as dropouts, whereas they could have succeeded if they were pushed down to a slower-paced college. ..


Again nothing to back this statement up as it's just an opinion. Especially interesting is your statement, "no experience at getting good grades." No what does that mean? What is a slower-paced college? What is a competitive college? You throw out these terms and expect everyone to know what you mean. That's expecting way too much.


.. But the real problem is revealed in your last sentence where you talk about how society "should function." ..


This is what I wrote:


________________________________________________

The third issue is that even if what you are saying is true what is the significance of this i.e. what are you trying to say about university admission practices and their revlevance to society and how it functions or how it should function?

________________________________________________


Notice I haven't made any statement on how I feel society should function. I posed a question and didnt' make a statement.


.. As with any biological system, there is the way some theoretician says it "should" function, and the way it really does function. ..


Again I made no statement on how society should function. I stated no theory.


.. The way society "should" function is that everyone should sleep on a bed of roses in a glass castle. ..


I honestly don't understand the metaphor.


.. The way it does function is that black kids are destroyed by being thrown into an alien environment where grades matter, as sacrifices so that other people can maintain political power. ..


Again this is just an opinion not backed by any facts. This may surprise you but I am negatively predisposed to affirmative action. In my opinion brad is expressing a vague uninformed opinion that he can't back up with facts. In my opinion the educational system in the USA is NOT serving us well and there are a lot of problems with it. I have many problems with what I feel is a problem with an over reliance on testing as a way of measuring acheivment and/or competance.


What brad, in my mind, is stating is that affirmative action is a form of discrimination and bigotry (and yes I think affirmative action does often sell those that it is seeking to help short in their abilities and capabilities). I basically agree with that but to me he is making vague statements that he can't support with facts.

Yes, this is tragic, that we have to rely on testing, instead of sending every kid off to some oracle who will accurately predict his success and place him happily in society. But nobody is proposing an alternative to testing to rely on, they are proposing we rely on nothing, or on skin color, which is basically as randomizing as closing our eyes and saying "if a red card hits."


But if you are going to try to measure academic competence, tests work, and are unbiased. They also work better than using failure as a predictor of success, like admitting some kid because he had bad grades because he came from a broken home. You just cannot fix society by giving every reject and loser a chance to fail out of Berkeley.


And so far as the way society functions, and the accumulation of wealth, being concerns for a college admissions office, now we are really going to have to bring in the Wizard of Oz to give us these capabilities. Why can't college admissions offices just admit the subset of kids who are likely to be most successful at their particular college? The UC admissions office is no lever to move the moon, but it sure can squash some poor black kid trying.


Or were you suggesting that SAT scores are being used for something beyond college admissions already? Because you did use the words, "in college."


eLROY

To understand the liberal view of the world, you can classify every object in existence along two axes. The first is the subject/object axis, the giver/recipient axis, the arranger/arrangee axis. And the second is the axis of good and evil. They think that if smart people are good, they will realize they need to help blacks. So blacks are down there to the right of endangered species at the bottom middle, good and desirable, but in need to be animated by the will of others, rather than effecting their environment themselves.


I am having a little trouble visualizing this.


The first is the subject/object axis, the giver/recipient axis, the arranger/arrangee axis.


Is this a 3-space subset of a planar representation? Or is it simply a list of three definitions of the same thing? I'm seeing it as "active/passive", is that correct? Is it the X axis? It must be if you listed it first.


the second is the axis of good and evil


This would be the Y axis, right? Good is up and Evil is down?


So blacks are down there to the right of endangered species at the bottom middle, good and desirable,


Wouldn't bottom middle make them evil, sorta active-sorta passive? (I think we ought to set Toni Braxton aside here - I don't think that's where I'd put her(BTW, I know I've asked this before, but does anyone here have her phone number?))


OK, so let's take trees. Where would trees go? If they are just standing there swaying in the wind, they're passive; and if sombody's chopping them down they're still passive, so would they be lumped with the environment? And if they get chopped down, they can be replanted anyway, so what's the big deal? I forgot to ask, are trees endangered? Maybe, maybe not? Maybe I shouldn't have brought trees up. Let's just forget about trees.


Struggling with graphs makes me realize how much I miss the Great Communicator!

.. Yes, this is tragic, that we have to rely on testing, instead of sending every kid off to some oracle who will accurately predict his success and place him happily in society. But nobody is proposing an alternative to testing to rely on, they are proposing we rely on nothing, or on skin color, which is basically as randomizing as closing our eyes and saying "if a red card hits." ..


Again you're putting words in my mouth but that's ok I expect it by now.


.. But if you are going to try to measure academic competence, tests work, and are unbiased. ..


Again you have no facts to back this up. The phrase "tests work" is vague. Is the SAT an unbiased test? My recollection is that it is not but I don't have the facts to support my claim and neither do you.


.. They also work better than using failure as a predictor of success, like admitting some kid because he had bad grades because he came from a broken home. ..


Can you give me specific instances at schools where this happens. It's just your perception of how things are.


.. You just cannot fix society by giving every reject and loser a chance to fail out of Berkeley. ..


Again you're putting words in my mouth as I stated no such thing. I can see see that you are only interested in stating your opinions and not really interested in discussing the issues an any factual basis.


.. And so far as the way society functions, and the accumulation of wealth, being concerns for a college admissions office, now we are really going to have to bring in the Wizard of Oz to give us these capabilities. ..


Again you twist what I said and put words in my mouth. All I stated was that success means different things to different people. More evidence that you're not interested in an exchange of ideas.


.. Why can't college admissions offices just admit the subset of kids who are likely to be most successful at their particular college? ..


Your implication in my mind is that there is one unilateral admissions policy that exist amony all universities and this is not the case at all. I'll give you a hint start by dividing the set of US universities into two subsets, publicly funded and privately funded. It's just a start. And if you think that all people who do well in college and score very high are than SAT's can get into Harvard guess again and it isn't due to affirmative action. Yes there are students who do far worse on their SAT's and get worse grades that are caucasion that get into Harvard than some very academically talented people who don't.


..The UC admissions office is no lever to move the moon, but it sure can squash some poor black kid trying. ..


I suppose that's true but I'm sure what context you are making this claim is.


.. Or were you suggesting that SAT scores are being used for something beyond college admissions already? Because you did use the words, "in college." ..


My opinion is that there is very weak correlation to SAT scores predicting the liklihood of success in graduating from a 4 year institution.


Ok your last statement seems to indicate that you may wish to discuss issues rationally. My post to brad was asking him to clarify his point. His point in my mind is that bigotry is ok because it is practiced in academia. My subsequent question is why is academia something society as a whole should emulate? I know I'll never have the last word in any exchange with you so I'm done with it and you can now go on and get the last word in.

A test is the same test, no matter whom you give it to, or where. I guess you are right, that by using the term "unbiased" I opened myself up to a world of blather. What I meant is that a test is a perfect reflection of how well a student did on that test, and of nothing else. It cannot tell his skin color or zip code, just his number-two pencil color.


A test does not inadevertently, or attempt to capture any other environmental factors at the same time, except as they are passed through the student. So it doesn't matter if some student went to an easy-grading high-school, all that matters is if that easy-grading high school didn't prepare him to do well on the test, which is pretty objective, and universal.


I guess all your other issues with my posts must arise from the fact theat you don't live in California. I lived in CA after Prop 209 passed, and there was a sort of universal debate going on, with a sort of universal set of facts and ideas going around. And it is to that set of facts, and ideas, and arguments, that I am speaking.


By assuming you are up to speed on all the facts and ideas in California, I was in error. You just lit up a light on my board, so to speak, that immediately put your general thought in a certain category. And you do concede I have to make some assumptions about you, such as that you know the meaning of the word "nether." In this case, I made too many.


Now so far as customizing a specific post to your exact knowledge and "unique" set of assumptions, gosh, I hadn't really though about that! I'd have to learn more about you, and research and post about a dozen links to get you up to speed, Mr. Unique Guy. I guess I would just say that your ideas, and my responses, are not novel, but have all been turned over and over before, and the statistics have been produced where necessary to back up my side.


But of course, popular opinions are popular for a reason. And if your ideas really aren't popular, than why bother confirming or refuting them:)


eLROY

Not true. My adoptive father was a decorated WWII veteran. He enlisted at 16.His grandfather signed for him. He did 3 tours in the Pacific. The service gave him an IQ test. Thye said that he was of average intelligence and should seek to be become a mechanic. His favorite past time in the service in any free time was to read the dictionary. When he left the service in 1946, he took advantage of the GI bill. His IQ tests at UCLA revealed an IQ of 160. He pursued education. The University of Southern California graduate school's doctorate program only allowed 1 black entry every 3 years. In 1958, he moved to Denver. Denver University didn't have the same quota system. His undergraduate GPA was 4.0.


Later, he became a chief psychologist in the Federal Prison System. This is just one of his many accomplishments. Testing in many cases is culturally dependent, and prone to prejudicial interpretation. This is just one example of bigotry in the Univeristy System.

Nope.You all 3 are racists. You are all ignorant. I wonder what David Sklansky and Chuck Weinstock think of you fools?

See what Chris Alger started?Tell David Sklansky that Alger stated that Alger would rather be castrated than be Jewish. It's in a post on this board. You don't think that this is blatant anti-Semitism?

eLROY might as well be the grand dragon.

Of course, IQ's test the tester, and are not universal. But, if you could somehow mass produce a uniform IQ test, and it didn't ask something like what is the capital of Mexico, it would fulfill my criteria for testing something symmetrically. But then it would be an SAT, not an IQ.


It's also possible that the military would rather steer smart people into engineering than tell them they're "superior," or that the UCLA "IQ" test was really a vocabulary test. It's also possible that the service IQ test had a max score of 5 and he got it, or that his CO's didn't bother looking for intelligence in black people.


It's also possible that your grandfather genuinely didn't know jack when he enlisted in the service and, at the time, IQ tests tested knowledge, not aptitude. But, in any case, it looks like not even racists could keep a good man down.


And when, as a child, you heard the inspiring story of your granfather, you realized that you could do anything, even though the world may be a sucky place. And while UCLA, for example, may be a good school, they certainly don't sell magical tickets there.


Would you have preferred they not giuve yoru grandfather a test at all, and just pigeonhole him in some arbitraty assignment based on his skin color? The test may have been less than ideal, but alternatives may be even less than less than less than ideal, it's all pretty sketchy, apart from performance itself.


But to say what I really want to say, IQ tests are a bunch of crap:)


eLROY

To deny that discrimination exists is ludicrous.

The SAT is based msotly on vocabulary and simple math skills. It was standardized at a time when hte racial quota system was prevalent.

As you stated, the SAT tests a lot of vocabulary and math. I would say some of the verbal parts are pretty subjective, but I don't think that is too much of a way of detecting skin color, really.


If some kid doesn't know that "terse" and "concise" are, like, synonyms(?) or something, he doesn't get any points added or subtracted by being pink or brown.


I must say, when I was at the age when my friends were applying to colleges, one of the things that truly puzzled me was why they had to include a picture with their applications.


Are you really telling me that black kids are too dumb to read through a vocabulary book each night like a white kid, or that their parents are too irresponsible to instruct them to do so?


eLROY

Criminy, you are "black," you're addicted to white liberal white knights coming in to defend you like some kind of pathetic child.


See the kind of mentality it's created?


Nobody else on this forum goes crying to Sklansky, and no black person would have prior to 1960.


You should try meeting the Grand Dragon you pathetic puss. Your ancestors would have laughed in your face, and then they would have cried, to see how you have forgotten how to access opportunity.


Maybe the problem with black sissies is that everybody lies to them. Would you have me treat you less harshly than I treat anybody else on this forum, just because you're black??


I begin to suspect that is what you would expect. You want to be treated differently. You think you deserve kid gloves, or something.


Screw you.


eLROY

You are just another anonymous bigot, like the cowards that wear white sheets to hide their true identity.

To think that there was some poor black guy somewhere, who got stolen from his family and hung up in a tree just because his skin was brown, and here you are with some guy offending you in an Internet forum, and you feel like you have it as bad as that guy.


Shame on you. Anybody who was ever lynched would marry me and be my woman just to be here on this Internet forum today. If some guy who was hanged heard what a sissy you are over a little anonymous debate, he would hang himself out of shame to be associated with you.


I can't believe how pathetic you are, equating your plight of being offended on the Internet with some poor guy getting hanged. Yeah, making posts, and hanging someone, heck I can't tell them apart. Maybe you should try reading my post, and then hanging yourself, and see if you can't tell the difference.


Gee, people really have it rough these days. Computers in the household are a deadly menace.


eLROY

http://www.fairtest.org/facts/satfact.htm


i guess youre right about SATs.

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

(have to cut and paste into browser address bar)

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=university+admissions+racial+quotas&hl=en&selm=8p3kuq%24bqb%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&rnum=4


(have to cut and paste into browser address bar)

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=university+admissions+racial+quotas&hl=en&selm=20010327122103.20588.00000608%40nso-cm.aol.com&rnum=3


as for minority quotas, it seems applicants can recieve bonus points toward admission if they are a minority. (kind of like being a musician or athlete i guess)

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

well, my main point is 'that why do university admissions have lower standards for minorities' in response to


'Minorities and women historically have to be twice as qualified as white males just to get an interview. You are not only a bigot, but you are also a prime example of a Klansman. '


which attacked my main point of


'affirmative action proponents come right out and say that we need to give unqualified people a boost (in the short term) just so minorities (this includes women) have role models.'


but i think the most truthful thing to do would be to say, hey, if you want to go to a state school, heres an (some kind of) objective test , you can use that *or* your grades to rank yourself (as a society weve made a choice that we just can spend any more money into that bottomless pit of education (we need nukes and S&L bailouts, after all, not to mention prisons (take a look at exploding prison population) ) to get in. as for the elite universities, well, theyre for the upper class and they may give a few dispensations if they feel like it but its not like you have a right to it.


'My post to brad was asking him to clarify his point. His point in my mind is that bigotry is ok because it is practiced in academia. My subsequent question is why is academia something society as a whole should emulate?'


i think the real question is, why are some people trying to reverse bigotry (in the sense of discriminating for groups who were previously discriminated against.), when society as a whole is (at least it seems to me) overwhelmingly in favor of best man for the job, dont want to hear any excuses get the job done, etc.


i think mason made the best point in one of his books. he said that in the cardroom theres just no racial stuff of any kind going on. why? well, because everybody is treated fairly. the rules apply to everybody equally. and this is the model that the great majority of the american people would support. but i think a few power groups realize that (in my opinion only in the short term) their groups wouldnt 'thrive' in such an environment. (a little story: a poker buddy i know and genuinely like had a little downswing and i considered loaning him money, but in the end came to the conclusion that it really wouldnt be in his best interest. (young guy, by the way) )


brad

I bet tht you attend the meetings. I bet that you'd love to do some lynching. I bet that you'd be the first to pay to deliver the blows at the whipping post. You are the pathetic coward. Tell us your name? Maybe Weinstock can find out. Once we know who you are, you won't talk so tough. Besides destroying any career you might ever hope to have, revealing your name would shame your relatives to be associated with you.


What's your real name, punk?

I only scored 1450 twenty years ago. My father was dissapointed.

What is a poor school system? Inner-city teachers in Newark, NJ get paid like $100,000 - a lot more than any private-school teachers, where kids do better on the SAT's.


So far as inner-city females, inner-city Chinese girls in San Francisco and elsewhere do just fine.


And so far as not measuring merit, people are not talking about measuring merit as an alternative, they're talking about measuring skin color.


Yeah, the truth is black kids don't do as well on these tests, because they don't prepare for them as well. Since when is there any "merit" in being ill-prepared?


Truth is, these hustlers and at FairTest.org, if they really cared about black kids, would tell them what I'm telling them:


GO READ A VOCABULARY BOOK!


eLROY

You want to put some money on those bets? Arrange with Sklansky to take a deposit from you of $20,000.00. And arrange as to how it will be determined whether I "attend" the meetings. Once that's all set up, I'll accept the bet, ship in my matching $20.000.00, and collect the $40,000.00. Deal?


So, in the meantime, tell me what it is about me that makes you feel so threatened. I mean, after all, I'm not really doing anything but saying words. Could it be that they're the truth?


And are you really as violent and dangerous as you try to make yourself out to be? Maybe you are "projecting" your own inclinations onto me.


eLROY


P.S. One thing I've never been known as is a coward, and there isn't a person I know who doesn't find out what I think:)

I'm not violent. You'd just destroy your reputation. Your family's eputation would be destroyed also. Your a coward because you won't reveal your name. You hide behind anonymith like the Klan hides behind the sheet.

Who do you think my family is, Al Sharpton? I guess that's a bad example, because Sharpton spent his credibility years ago, but you get the point. We're not exactly in politics.


Besides, I thought we lived in a racist world. If you go around telling people I'm a racist, or an idiot - I'm not sure exactly what it is you would try to stick to me - wouldn't I just gain more friends, albeit behind closed doors?


If you want to go around saying "eLROY says black kids should read vocabulary books," be my guest. But that would be kind of boring. I'd rather you cooked up something that would inspire a more energetic effort on your part, and really create an entertaining spectacle of yourself.


In all honesty, if I actually believed you weren't just some joke nobody on the Internet, I'd give you my name and address, and we could have some fun. But as it is, we both know I'd be wasting spelling out my name for nothing.


I guess I'll just have fun like this while it lasts.


eLROY

If you can prove you live near me in the Northeast, maybe we'll exchange emails, and we can hang sometime.


You honestly seem like you'd be fun to go out for a beer with.


So feel free to email me at thelovemachine@elvis.com.


eLROY

"Tell David Sklansky that Alger stated that Alger would rather be castrated than be Jewish."


Sigh. Of course I don't think this and never said anything of the sort. You could at least try to understand what you are reading before posting sick lies about it.

well, i did a quick search on google, found everything supported tom haley's dont know about SATs, so i just conceded the point since it in no way was central to what i was saying.


if it was a thread about SATs then i would look a lot harder.


brad