On 22/08/2026 12:10 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 23:48:18 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour has >>>> a
causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So anyone >>>> wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link
to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent". :unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their being former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour >>>>>> has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So >>>>>> anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves >> they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their being >> former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour >>>>>> has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So >>>>>> anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves >> they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their being >> former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour >>>>>>> has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So >>>>>>> anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >>> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent". >>> :unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >>> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that >>> he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their being >>> former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a permanent >> (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Ah right ! So the reason Blacks would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment
and "the number of black professors would approach zero per cent"
really is becauae of their inferior intelligence; measured by
their low IQ.
IOW they're poor because they've got a low IQ
Rather than they've got a low IQ because they're poor.
While being former slaves has no bearing on anything
at all
On 22/08/2026 06:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour >>>>>>>> hasI don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So >>>>>>>> anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence. >>>>
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>>>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced? >>>>
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all >>>> high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >>>> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent". >>>> :unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >>>> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because >>>> Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former >>>> slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that >>>> he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their being >>>> former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
It was top down, not bottom up.
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ?
Which jobs do you mean?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour >>>>>>> has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So >>>>>>> anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >>> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent". >>> :unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >>> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that >>> he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their being >>> former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a permanent >> (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ?
On 22/08/2026 06:15 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour >>>>>>>> hasI don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So >>>>>>>> anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence. >>>>
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>>>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced? >>>>
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all >>>> high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >>>> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent". >>>> :unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >>>> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because >>>> Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former >>>> slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that >>>> he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their being >>>> former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Ah right ! So the reason Blacks would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment
and "the number of black professors would approach zero per cent"
really is becauae of their inferior intelligence; measured by
their low IQ.
I don't know that that is true any more than you do.
You're the one who posted it. Not I.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin
colour has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically
implausible. So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with
evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a
causal link to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a
thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant
factor in mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be
traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at
least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost
all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment".
Harvard faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the
best students, which means the number of black professors would
approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-
in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with
intelligence at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that
because Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of
being former slaves they're never going to be able to afford the
kind of education which has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear
that he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with
their being former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any
case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit
racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a
permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ?
bb
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves >> they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their being >> former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a
permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:neu44aF5dmbU2@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:15 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that
skin colour has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically
implausible. So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with
evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a
causal link to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a
thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant
factor in mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be
traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at
least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from
almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and
entertainment". Harvard faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited
from the best of the best students, which means the number of
black professors would approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-
Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with
intelligence at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that
because Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of
being former slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education
which has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would
appear that he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with
their being former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in
any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit
racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a
permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Ah right ! So the reason Blacks would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment
and "the number of black professors would approach zero per cent"
really is becauae of their inferior intelligence; measured by
their low IQ.
I don't know that that is true any more than you do.
You're the one who posted it. Not I.
That is a statement from Confas which is representative of his views
which you previously claimed did not necessarity imply he equated
Blacks witn a low IQ.
We're not discussing *whether its true or not* but whether its
consistent with your previous claim of the reason being
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically
repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly
because they've got a low IQ
What else is there ?
bb
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:neti3nF2lj0U2@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 12:10 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 23:48:18 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> >>> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour has
a
causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:neu3ifF5bgsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least) >>>>>
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colourI don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link
has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So >>>>>>>>> anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence. >>>>>
to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced? >>>>>
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all >>>>> high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard >>>>> faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students,
which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent". >>>>> :unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because >>>>> Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former >>>>> slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which >>>>> has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that >>>>> he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their being
former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist >>>>>
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
It was top down, not bottom up.
That's exactlky what I'm describing.
White (top) stepping down.
So when did this happen ?
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ?
Which jobs do you mean?
Lower paying jobs.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
Ah right ! So the reason Blacks would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment
and "the number of black professors would approach zero per cent"
really is becauae of their inferior intelligence; measured by
their low IQ.
I don't know that that is true any more than you do.
You're the one who posted it. Not I.
That is a statement from Confas which is representative of his views
which you previously claimed did not necessarity imply he equated
Blacks witn a low IQ.
We're not discussing *whether its true or not* but whether its
consistent with your previous claim of the reason being
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically
repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly
because they've got a low IQ
What else is there ?
On 22 Aug 2026 at 17:25:49 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >>> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent". >>> :unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >>> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that >>> he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their being >>> former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a
permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Rosa Parkes' protest was considerably less than a hundred years ago. Desegregation of their military not much before.
On 8/22/26 15:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neti3nF2lj0U2@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 12:10 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 23:48:18 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour has
a
causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence. >>>>>>
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves >> they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
No, Cofnas claimed he was citing Harvard. That Harvard said that if
student entrance was based purely upon test results the number of Black students admitted would drop to 0.7%.
He is not stating his view of black student ability, he is not stating
what he thinks of black people, not stating what he wants to happen. He
is not stating why he thinks black students have lower results. Here, he
is just citing a source (Harvard) that has access to empirical data and should be able to give an informed fact based answer.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
Why do you think Cofnas is expressing a personal feeling? If the
weatherman says the forecast is for rain tomorrow, should we castigate
him for not wanting it to be sunny?
It's like many people here think that science is about people expressing
the way they would like the world to be, as opposed to reporting actual empirical results.
The very most that Cofnas does is suggest that the observed results may
be due to genetics, evolution. This interpretation is an open question amongst scientists, not pseudoscience, as some people claim.
However, we should not confuse interpretation with reporting the actual
data. Cofnas' claim that black students would largely disappear from
Harvard if there was no affirmative action is a data claim, not his interpretation.
On 22 Aug 2026 at 22:20:29 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/22/26 15:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neti3nF2lj0U2@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 12:10 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 23:48:18 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour has
a
causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence. >>>>>>>
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >>> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent". >>>
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >>> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
No, Cofnas claimed he was citing Harvard. That Harvard said that if
student entrance was based purely upon test results the number of Black
students admitted would drop to 0.7%.
He is not stating his view of black student ability, he is not stating
what he thinks of black people, not stating what he wants to happen. He
is not stating why he thinks black students have lower results. Here, he
is just citing a source (Harvard) that has access to empirical data and
should be able to give an informed fact based answer.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that >>> he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
Why do you think Cofnas is expressing a personal feeling? If the
weatherman says the forecast is for rain tomorrow, should we castigate
him for not wanting it to be sunny?
It's like many people here think that science is about people expressing
the way they would like the world to be, as opposed to reporting actual
empirical results.
The very most that Cofnas does is suggest that the observed results may
be due to genetics, evolution. This interpretation is an open question
amongst scientists, not pseudoscience, as some people claim.
However, we should not confuse interpretation with reporting the actual
data. Cofnas' claim that black students would largely disappear from
Harvard if there was no affirmative action is a data claim, not his
interpretation.
A fairly obvious example of false argument by the excluded middle. Maybe in America any admission policy other than going purely by test results can be described as "affirmative action" but in the civilised world taking other qualities and experience into account rather than purely test results is a normal part of university admission policies and is not generally regarded as affirmative action. Just appropriate admission policy for any oversubscribed university.
On 8/22/26 23:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Aug 2026 at 22:20:29 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
On 8/22/26 15:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neti3nF2lj0U2@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 12:10 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 23:48:18 +0100, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin >>>>>>>> colour has
a
causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. >>>>>>>> So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence. >>>>>>>>
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a
causal link
to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant
factor in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced? >>>>
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all >>>> high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best
students,
which means the number of black professors would approach zero per
cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with
intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because >>>> Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being
former slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
No, Cofnas claimed he was citing Harvard. That Harvard said that if
student entrance was based purely upon test results the number of Black
students admitted would drop to 0.7%.
He is not stating his view of black student ability, he is not stating
what he thinks of black people, not stating what he wants to happen. He
is not stating why he thinks black students have lower results. Here, he >>> is just citing a source (Harvard) that has access to empirical data and
should be able to give an informed fact based answer.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear
that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
Why do you think Cofnas is expressing a personal feeling? If the
weatherman says the forecast is for rain tomorrow, should we castigate
him for not wanting it to be sunny?
It's like many people here think that science is about people expressing >>> the way they would like the world to be, as opposed to reporting actual
empirical results.
The very most that Cofnas does is suggest that the observed results may
be due to genetics, evolution. This interpretation is an open question
amongst scientists, not pseudoscience, as some people claim.
However, we should not confuse interpretation with reporting the actual
data. Cofnas' claim that black students would largely disappear from
Harvard if there was no affirmative action is a data claim, not his
interpretation.
A fairly obvious example of false argument by the excluded middle.
Maybe in
America any admission policy other than going purely by test results
can be
described as "affirmative action" but in the civilised world taking other
qualities and experience into account rather than purely test results
is a
normal part of university admission policies and is not generally
regarded as
affirmative action. Just appropriate admission policy for any
oversubscribed
university.
What is the middle being excluded? Is it the idea that despite poor test results, if black students were interviewed, they would outperform
non-black candidates with similar or better test results. Even without a conscious effort for positive discrimination. I suppose it is possible,
but I can't see why you would expect such a thing to happen? History
tends to suggest that many people in our society are biased against
black people. When black people have to rely on subjective assessments
they tend to fare worse than predicted by objective measures.
Regardless I think Cofnas was citing data produced by Harvard, he
probably qualified what the data was better than I did. IIRC he was
actually arguing against removing all positive discrimination, because
the effect would be so great. He also argued that right wing people
tended to be stupider, than left wing people.
On 8/22/26 15:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neti3nF2lj0U2@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 12:10 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 23:48:18 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour >>>>>> has
a
causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So >>>>>> anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence. >>>>>>
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves >> they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
No, Cofnas claimed he was citing Harvard. That Harvard said that if student entrance was based purely upon test results the number of Black students admitted would drop to 0.7%.
He is not stating his view of black student ability, he is not stating what he
thinks of black people, not stating what he wants to happen. He is not stating
why he thinks black students have lower results. Here, he is just citing a source (Harvard) that has access to empirical data and should be able to give
an informed fact based answer.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
Why do you think Cofnas is expressing a personal feeling? If the weatherman says the forecast is for rain tomorrow, should we castigate him for not wanting it to be sunny?
It's like many people here think that science is about people expressing the way they would like the world to be, as opposed to reporting actual empirical
results.
The very most that Cofnas does is suggest that the observed results may be due
to genetics, evolution
This interpretation is an open question amongst scientists,
not pseudoscience, as some people claim.
However, we should not confuse interpretation with reporting the actual data.
Cofnas' claim that black students would largely disappear from Harvard if there was no affirmative action is a data claim, not his interpretation.
On 18:02 22 Aug 2026, billy bookcase said:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin >>>>>>>> colour has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically
implausible. So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with
evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a
causal link to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a
thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant
factor in mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be
traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at
least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost
all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment".
Harvard faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the
best students, which means the number of black professors would
approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-
in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with
intelligence at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that
because Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of
being former slaves they're never going to be able to afford the
kind of education which has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear
that he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with
their being former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any
case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit
racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a
permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
Perhaps the Civil Rights Act 1964? Which also legalised affirmative
action in certain circumstances.
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ?
bb
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. It is full of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew it either.
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can.
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically
repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly
because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
and your deceitful attribution of that to me is more than tiresome. If you wish to continue discussion like this, tou will have to learn to be trfuthful
and courteous. That bit above was neither of those things - and you know it (as does anyone else reading these exchanges).
If you wish to continue discussion like this
tou will have to learn to be trfuthful and courteous.
neither of those things - and you know it (as does anyone else reading these exchanges).
On 22/08/2026 06:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3ifF5bgsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least) >>>>>>
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin >>>>>>>>>> colourI don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal >>>>>>>>> link
has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So
anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence. >>>>>>
to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor >>>>>>> in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced? >>>>>>
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all >>>>>> high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard >>>>>> faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best
students,
which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with
intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because >>>>>> Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former >>>>>> slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which >>>>>> has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that >>>>>> he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their >>>>>> being
former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist >>>>>>
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a
permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
It was top down, not bottom up.
That's exactlky what I'm describing.
White (top) stepping down.
So when did this happen ?
How would I know, without doing research of which you are capable for yourself?
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ?
Which jobs do you mean?
Lower paying jobs.
To my certain knowledge, minimum wage jobs are a "thing" in the USA.
They are not exclusively occupied by African-Americans.
No, Cofnas claimed he was citing Harvard. That Harvard said that if student >> entrance was based purely upon test results the number of Black students
admitted would drop to 0.7%.
Did he produce a cite ?
He is not stating his view of black student ability, he is not stating what he
thinks of black people, not stating what he wants to happen. He is not stating
why he thinks black students have lower results. Here, he is just citing a >> source (Harvard) that has access to empirical data and should be able to give
an informed fact based answer.
But what was his purpose is his citing of this data ?
Why this interest on his part, in the fate of Black people at Harvard ?
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that >>> he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
Why do you think Cofnas is expressing a personal feeling? If the weatherman >> says the forecast is for rain tomorrow, should we castigate him for not
wanting it to be sunny?
Because *as I explained to you previously* the *very obvious" reason what Blacks perform realively poorly at Harvard is because of their relative povery
they probalty couldn't afford the fees in any case.Given the limited number of places available
"Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in message news:XnsB4B0DBCD77C971F3QA2@157.180.91.226...pers
On 18:02 22 Aug 2026, billy bookcase said:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that
skin colour has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically
implausible. So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with
evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a
causal link to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a
thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant
factor in mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be
traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at
least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from
almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and
entertainment". Harvard faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited
from the best of the best students, which means the number of
black professors would approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-
in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with
intelligence at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that
because Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of
being former slaves they're never going to be able to afford the
kind of education which has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would
appear that he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with
their being former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in
any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit
racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a
permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
Perhaps the Civil Rights Act 1964? Which also legalised affirmative
action in certain circumstances.
Uncharacteristically I will just leave a cuple of links; as the
titles speak for themselves
https://news.duke.edu/stories/2024/06/10/u-s-racial-wealth-gap-is-
istent-and-growing-new-research-finds/am
https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2023/what-would-it-take-to-close-
ericas-black-white-wealth-gap.html
There is also the data underneath
bb
.According to survey data presented by the ACLU, the wealth
gap as of 2018 stands at $33,000. While the average income
for a white family of three is roughly $84,600, a Black family
of the same size would only earn $51,600. 39% less
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States
Wealth measures the total value of assets a family owns (such as
housing and business equity) minus
their debts (such as student loans and credit card bills).
The growing disparity means that in 2022, for every $100 in wealth
held by white households, Black households held only $15.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-wealth-is-increasing-but- so-is-the-racial-wealth-gap/
Immediately after Emancipation, the white to Black racial wealth
gap in the U.S. was nearly 60 to 1. By 1920, it was 10 to 1, and
by 1950 it was 7 to 1.
Todayumore than seventy years lateruit remains at 6 to 1.
https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/wealth-of-two- nations-the-u-s-racial-wealth-gap-1860-2020/#
40 68 41% less https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations /2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf
On 09:29 23 Aug 2026, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote in messagepers
news:XnsB4B0DBCD77C971F3QA2@157.180.91.226...
On 18:02 22 Aug 2026, billy bookcase said:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that >>>>>>>>>> skin colour has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically
implausible. So anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with
evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a
causal link to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a >>>>>>>>> thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant
factor in mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be
traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at
least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from
almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and
entertainment". Harvard faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited
from the best of the best students, which means the number of
black professors would approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-
in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with
intelligence at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that
because Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of
being former slaves they're never going to be able to afford the
kind of education which has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would
appear that he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with
their being former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in
any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit
racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a
permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
Perhaps the Civil Rights Act 1964? Which also legalised affirmative
action in certain circumstances.
Uncharacteristically I will just leave a cuple of links; as the
titles speak for themselves
https://news.duke.edu/stories/2024/06/10/u-s-racial-wealth-gap-is-
istent-and-growing-new-research-finds/am
https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2023/what-would-it-take-to-close-
ericas-black-white-wealth-gap.html
There is also the data underneath
bb
.According to survey data presented by the ACLU, the wealth
gap as of 2018 stands at $33,000. While the average income
for a white family of three is roughly $84,600, a Black family
of the same size would only earn $51,600. 39% less
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States
Wealth measures the total value of assets a family owns (such as
housing and business equity) minus
their debts (such as student loans and credit card bills).
The growing disparity means that in 2022, for every $100 in wealth
held by white households, Black households held only $15.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-wealth-is-increasing-but-
so-is-the-racial-wealth-gap/
Immediately after Emancipation, the white to Black racial wealth
gap in the U.S. was nearly 60 to 1. By 1920, it was 10 to 1, and
by 1950 it was 7 to 1.
Todayumore than seventy years lateruit remains at 6 to 1.
https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/wealth-of-two-
nations-the-u-s-racial-wealth-gap-1860-2020/#
40 68 41% less
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations
/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf
Of course black income in America is lower than white income.
You asked about "similar ability" but those links don't factor that in.
Nowadays the charge is that blacks of lesser ability to whites get jobsdue to
affirmative action.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was subsequently misinterpreted to award jobs
to Blacks of lower ability than white candidates, and became a
forerunner for recent "DEI" policies. This was partly halted in
academia by an asian students' group action against Harvard which went
to the US Supreme Court last year.
I suspect you question may have been rhetorical.
Of course black income in America is lower than white income. You asked
about "similar ability" but those links don't factor that in. Nowadays
the charge is that blacks of lesser ability to whites get jobs due to affirmative action.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was subsequently misinterpreted to award jobs
to Blacks of lower ability than white candidates, and became a
forerunner for recent "DEI" policies.
This was partly halted in
academia by an asian students' group action against Harvard which went
to the US Supreme Court last year.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:116d3qu$f24t$1@dont-email.me...
On 8/22/26 15:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neti3nF2lj0U2@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 12:10 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 23:48:18 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin colour >>>>>>> has
a
causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So >>>>>>> anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence. >>>>>>>
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal link >>>>>> to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in >>>> mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best students, >>> which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent". >>>
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with intelligence >>> at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
No, Cofnas claimed he was citing Harvard. That Harvard said that if student >> entrance was based purely upon test results the number of Black students
admitted would drop to 0.7%.
Did he produce a cite ?
He is not stating his view of black student ability, he is not stating what he
thinks of black people, not stating what he wants to happen. He is not stating
why he thinks black students have lower results. Here, he is just citing a >> source (Harvard) that has access to empirical data and should be able to give
an informed fact based answer.
But what was his purpose is his citing of this data ?
Why this interest on his part, in the fate of Black people at Harvard ?
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that >>> he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
Why do you think Cofnas is expressing a personal feeling? If the weatherman >> says the forecast is for rain tomorrow, should we castigate him for not
wanting it to be sunny?
Because *as I explained to you previously* the *very obvious" reason what Blacks perform realively poorly at Harvard is because of their relative povery
they probalty couldn't afford the fees in any case.Given the limited number of places available
*relative as in 39% lower income and 90% lower wealth. Data at the
foot of the post
It's like many people here think that science is about people expressing the >> way they would like the world to be, as opposed to reporting actual empirical
results.
Empirical data such as the above
The very most that Cofnas does is suggest that the observed results may be due
to genetics, evolution
Which is quite obviously a great pile of steaming bullshit.
When the vast disparrty in wealth and income between blacks and whites *which obviously has an affect on outcomes can so easily be explained
bty the fact that blacks are descended from former slaves. Ands have never had the chance to catch up.
This interpretation is an open question amongst scientists,
No it isn't.
Maybe if you put your *thinking cap* on for moment you could maybe work out for
yourself why rich white people would want you to think that the reason blacks in the US can't get on is becuse the've got a low IQ due to genetics or evoutioin,
ROLTFK&S, so that nothing can be done about it. And not becaue they've been exploited by white people for centuries. and thgerefore might ask for a bigger
share of the cake
One again Mandy Rice Davis applies.
Well rich white people who wanjted to hang onto as much of their weatht
as posiblte would say that wouldnt they ?
Or at least hire people to say it for them
not pseudoscience, as some people claim.
Yes it is.
A steaming pile of horse shit
Mark Googe provided ULM with a very erudite expostion
of the evident absurdity, of linking skin colour with intelligence.
And wa stotally ignore for his pains, of course.
However, we should not confuse interpretation with reporting the actual data.
Cofnas' claim that black students would largely disappear from Harvard if
there was no affirmative action is a data claim, not his interpretation.
But why was Confas so interested in the fate of Blacks, in Harvard
or anywhere else in the first place ?
.According to survey data presented by the ACLU,
the wealth
gap as of 2018 stands at $33,000. While the average income
for a white family of three is roughly $84,600, a Black family
of the same size would only earn $51,600. 39% less
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States
Wealth measures the total value of assets a family owns (such as housing
and business equity) minus their debts (such as student loans and credit card bills).
The growing disparity means that in 2022, for every $100 in wealth
held by white households, Black households held only $15. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-wealth-is-increasing-but- so-is-the-racial-wealth-gap/
Immediately after Emancipation, the white to Black racial wealth
gap in the U.S. was nearly 60 to 1. By 1920, it was 10 to 1, and
by 1950 it was 7 to 1.
Today-more than seventy years later-it remains at 6 to 1.
https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/wealth-of-two- nations-the-u-s-racial-wealth-gap-1860-2020/#
40 68 41% less https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations /2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. It is full >> of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew it either.
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can.
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically
repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly
because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
You didn't deny blacks are economically repressed ?
and your deceitful attribution of that to me is more than tiresome. If you >> wish to continue discussion like this, tou will have to learn to be trfuthful
and courteous. That bit above was neither of those things - and you know it >> (as does anyone else reading these exchanges).
I didn't attribute anything to you. I presented the only two possible interpretations of Confas's position. One of which you denied
that blacks are econolically repressed.
This is a discussion about abstract ideas, it's not about "you".
Although for some strange reason you have the idea that
discussions simply involve the exchange of personal opinions.
.
The only other statement I attributed to you was the following
quote
" Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor in mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?"
unquote
So are you going to finally explain what you meant by "close enough" there, or not?
My interpretation would be, that what he said was a"close enough" to be interpreted by pig thick knuckle dragging racists as hinting at a possible connection with Blacks and a low IQ
Its not what "he" meant by it. But what he could be confident knuckle dragging racists would intepret it as.
If that's not what you meant, then please say so
And explain what you"did" you mean ?
If you wish to continue discussion like this
tou will have to learn to be trfuthful and courteous.
I always am.
That bit above was
neither of those things - and you know it (as does anyone else reading these >> exchanges).
You are claerly confused
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:neujl4F7p4rU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3ifF5bgsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least) >>>>>>>
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin >>>>>>>>>>> colourI don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal >>>>>>>>>> link
has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. So
anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence. >>>>>>>
to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor >>>>>>>> in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced? >>>>>>>
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all >>>>>>> high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard >>>>>>> faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best >>>>>>> students,
which means the number of black professors would approach zero per cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with
intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because >>>>>>> Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former >>>>>>> slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which >>>>>>> has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their >>>>>>> being
former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist >>>>>>>
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>> permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
It was top down, not bottom up.
That's exactlky what I'm describing.
White (top) stepping down.
So when did this happen ?
How would I know, without doing research of which you are capable for
yourself?
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ?
Which jobs do you mean?
Lower paying jobs.
To my certain knowledge, minimum wage jobs are a "thing" in the USA.
They are not exclusively occupied by African-Americans.
.According to survey data presented by the ACLU, the average income
for a white family of three is roughly $84,600, a Black family
of the same size would only earn $51,600. 39% less
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_inequality_in_the_United_States
Wealth measures the total value of assets a family owns (such as housing
and business equity) minus
their debts (such as student loans and credit card bills).
The growing disparity means that in 2022, for every $100 in wealth
held by white households, Black households held only $15.
On 23/08/2026 10:24 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neujl4F7p4rU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3ifF5bgsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin >>>>>>>>>>>> colourI don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal >>>>>>>>>>> link
has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible. >>>>>>>>>>>> So
anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence. >>>>>>>>
to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor
in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least) >>>>>>>>
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all >>>>>>>> high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard >>>>>>>> faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best >>>>>>>> students,
which means the number of black professors would approach zero per >>>>>>>> cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with
intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because >>>>>>>> Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former >>>>>>>> slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which >>>>>>>> has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear >>>>>>>> that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their >>>>>>>> being
former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist >>>>>>>>
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>>> permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
It was top down, not bottom up.
That's exactlky what I'm describing.
White (top) stepping down.
So when did this happen ?
How would I know, without doing research of which you are capable for
yourself?
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ?
Which jobs do you mean?
Lower paying jobs.
To my certain knowledge, minimum wage jobs are a "thing" in the USA.
They are not exclusively occupied by African-Americans.
.According to survey data presented by the ACLU, the average income
for a white family of three is roughly $84,600, a Black family
of the same size would only earn $51,600. 39% less
Even if true... what do you say it indicates or proves?
What about other factors?
- level of education.
- number of working adults in the househo
He claimed something like: scientific truth is intrinsically worthwhile.
His personal interest is something like the philosophy of ethics,
specifically with respect to intelligence and evolution in human subpopulations.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nf0bagFg61bU2@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 10:24 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neujl4F7p4rU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3ifF5bgsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin >>>>>>>>>>>>> colour
has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically implausible.
So
anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causal >>>>>>>>>>>> link
to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing?
Nathan Cofnas, for one.
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant factor
in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least) >>>>>>>>>
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard >>>>>>>>> faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best >>>>>>>>> students,
which means the number of black professors would approach zero per >>>>>>>>> cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with >>>>>>>>> intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former >>>>>>>>> slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which >>>>>>>>> has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear >>>>>>>>> that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their >>>>>>>>> being
former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case >>>>>>>>>
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist >>>>>>>>>
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>>>> permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
It was top down, not bottom up.
That's exactlky what I'm describing.
White (top) stepping down.
So when did this happen ?
How would I know, without doing research of which you are capable for
yourself?
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ?
Which jobs do you mean?
Lower paying jobs.
To my certain knowledge, minimum wage jobs are a "thing" in the USA.
They are not exclusively occupied by African-Americans.
.According to survey data presented by the ACLU, the average income
for a white family of three is roughly $84,600, a Black family
of the same size would only earn $51,600. 39% less
Even if true... what do you say it indicates or proves?
That they haven't been able to afford the same level of education
as whites; ever since they were freed as slaves. And its been
cumulative
What about other factors?
- level of education.
See above
- number of working adults in the househo
Because they haven't been able to afford the same level of education
as whites ever since they were freed as slaves they've obviously
lost out in a competitive jobs market.
Although racists will claim its because they're simply lazy
and that it's all their own fault.
It shouldn't really have been necessary to even need to explain
any of this.
Should it ?
But as with bicycles and doubtless much else, borderline
racism has always a good troll for anyone who's been
successfully *insulting peoples' intelligence* for over
twenty years; as you've been doing; eh, Jimmy ?
And all so very courteous to boot !
Time to get back on that high horse of yours perhaps ?
bb
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nf0b5cFg61bU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 10:06 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. It is full
of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew it either.
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can.
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically
repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly
because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
You didn't deny blacks are economically repressed ?
I didn't mention it at all, either way round. I would never use a phrase like
"economically repressed" in any context. And I use it here merely as a
demonstration.
While here's one you prepared earlier
...................................................................
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a permanent >> (or even semi-permanent) underclass.
....................................................................
There would now doubtless follow a 20 post sub-thread; in which
an indignant, but doubtless unfailingly courteous Mr Nugent would
again seek to waste everbody's time; in this instance by seeking
to argue that "keeping African-Americans down" and "repressing them"
are not the same thing.
The rest has been snipped; for fairly obvious reasons.
On 23/08/2026 08:52 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf0bagFg61bU2@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 10:24 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neujl4F7p4rU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3ifF5bgsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour
has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implausible.
So
anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causalNathan Cofnas, for one.
link
to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing? >>>>>>>>>>
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant >>>>>>>>>>> factor
in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be >>>>>>>>>>> traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least) >>>>>>>>>>
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost >>>>>>>>>> all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard >>>>>>>>>> faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best >>>>>>>>>> students,
which means the number of black professors would approach zero per >>>>>>>>>> cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with >>>>>>>>>> intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that >>>>>>>>>> because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former
slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which >>>>>>>>>> has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear >>>>>>>>>> that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their >>>>>>>>>> being
former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case >>>>>>>>>>
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>>>>> permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back,
and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
It was top down, not bottom up.
That's exactlky what I'm describing.
White (top) stepping down.
So when did this happen ?
How would I know, without doing research of which you are capable for >>>>> yourself?
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ?
Which jobs do you mean?
Lower paying jobs.
To my certain knowledge, minimum wage jobs are a "thing" in the USA. >>>>> They are not exclusively occupied by African-Americans.
.According to survey data presented by the ACLU, the average income
for a white family of three is roughly $84,600, a Black family
of the same size would only earn $51,600. 39% less
Even if true... what do you say it indicates or proves?
That they haven't been able to afford the same level of education
as whites; ever since they were freed as slaves. And its been
cumulative
And why can't they afford education (according to you, that is, and whether or
not it's true)?
On 23/08/2026 09:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf0b5cFg61bU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 10:06 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced? >>>>>Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. It is >>>>> full
of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew it either. >>>>>
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can.
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically
repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly
because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
You didn't deny blacks are economically repressed ?
I didn't mention it at all, either way round. I would never use a phrase >>> like
"economically repressed" in any context. And I use it here merely as a
demonstration.
While here's one you prepared earlier
...................................................................
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
....................................................................
There would now doubtless follow a 20 post sub-thread; in which
an indignant, but doubtless unfailingly courteous Mr Nugent would
again seek to waste everbody's time; in this instance by seeking
to argue that "keeping African-Americans down" and "repressing them"
are not the same thing.
Which is it? I have not commented on your assertions of "repression".
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nf1b28Fl4s3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 08:52 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf0bagFg61bU2@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 10:24 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neujl4F7p4rU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3ifF5bgsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour
has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implausible.
So
anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a causalNathan Cofnas, for one.
link
to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing? >>>>>>>>>>>
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant >>>>>>>>>>>> factor
in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be >>>>>>>>>>>> traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost >>>>>>>>>>> all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best >>>>>>>>>>> students,
which means the number of black professors would approach zero per >>>>>>>>>>> cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with >>>>>>>>>>> intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that >>>>>>>>>>> because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being former
slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear >>>>>>>>>>> that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with their
being
former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case >>>>>>>>>>>
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>>>>>> permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back, >>>>>>>>> and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ?
It was top down, not bottom up.
That's exactlky what I'm describing.
White (top) stepping down.
So when did this happen ?
How would I know, without doing research of which you are capable for >>>>>> yourself?
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ?
Which jobs do you mean?
Lower paying jobs.
To my certain knowledge, minimum wage jobs are a "thing" in the USA. >>>>>> They are not exclusively occupied by African-Americans.
.According to survey data presented by the ACLU, the average income
for a white family of three is roughly $84,600, a Black family
of the same size would only earn $51,600. 39% less
Even if true... what do you say it indicates or proves?
That they haven't been able to afford the same level of education
as whites; ever since they were freed as slaves. And its been
cumulative
And why can't they afford education (according to you, that is, and whether or
not it's true)?
bb
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nf1b6gFl4s3U2@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 09:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf0b5cFg61bU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 10:06 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced? >>>>>>Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. It is >>>>>> full
of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew it either. >>>>>>
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can.
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically
repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly
because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
You didn't deny blacks are economically repressed ?
I didn't mention it at all, either way round. I would never use a phrase >>>> like
"economically repressed" in any context. And I use it here merely as a >>>> demonstration.
While here's one you prepared earlier
...................................................................
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
....................................................................
There would now doubtless follow a 20 post sub-thread; in which
an indignant, but doubtless unfailingly courteous Mr Nugent would
again seek to waste everbody's time; in this instance by seeking
to argue that "keeping African-Americans down" and "repressing them"
are not the same thing.
Which is it? I have not commented on your assertions of "repression".
bb
On 24/08/2026 08:49 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf1b28Fl4s3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 08:52 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf0bagFg61bU2@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 10:24 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neujl4F7p4rU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3ifF5bgsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageIt was top down, not bottom up.
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin
colour
has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implausible.
So
anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causalNathan Cofnas, for one.
link
to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing? >>>>>>>>>>>>
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant >>>>>>>>>>>>> factor
in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at >>>>>>>>>>>> least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost >>>>>>>>>>>> all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". >>>>>>>>>>>> Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best >>>>>>>>>>>> students,
which means the number of black professors would approach zero per >>>>>>>>>>>> cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with >>>>>>>>>>>> intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that >>>>>>>>>>>> because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being >>>>>>>>>>>> former
slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education >>>>>>>>>>>> which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear
that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with >>>>>>>>>>>> their
being
former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case >>>>>>>>>>>>
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit >>>>>>>>>>>> racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>>>>>>> permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back, >>>>>>>>>> and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ? >>>>>>>>>
That's exactlky what I'm describing.
White (top) stepping down.
So when did this happen ?
How would I know, without doing research of which you are capable for >>>>>>> yourself?
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ? >>>>>>>>Which jobs do you mean?
Lower paying jobs.
To my certain knowledge, minimum wage jobs are a "thing" in the USA. >>>>>>> They are not exclusively occupied by African-Americans.
.According to survey data presented by the ACLU, the average income >>>>>> for a white family of three is roughly $84,600, a Black family
of the same size would only earn $51,600.
Even if true... what do you say it indicates or proves?
That they haven't been able to afford
as whites; ever since they were freed as slaves. And its been
cumulative
And why can't they afford education (according to you, that is, and whether
or
not it's true)?
bb
No response.
OK.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nf2v39FssvoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/08/2026 08:49 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf1b28Fl4s3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 08:52 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf0bagFg61bU2@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 10:24 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neujl4F7p4rU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu3ifF5bgsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 06:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageIt was top down, not bottom up.
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
On 22/08/2026 03:21 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Yes, I've seen that a number of times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/26 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
People do have different abilities. However, the idea that skin
colour
has
a causal link with mental ability seems intrinsically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implausible.
So
anyone
wishing to make that assertion does need to back it with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence.
I don't know where you got the idea of skin colour having a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causalNathan Cofnas, for one.
link
to mental ability from? Has anyone claimed such a thing? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Really?
Was he actually saying that skin colour alone was a determinant >>>>>>>>>>>>>> factor
in
mental ability?
Or something else, but close enough for his statements to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> traduced?
What Cofnas is on record as saying, is (the bits in quotes at >>>>>>>>>>>>> least)
quote:
Under a true meritocracy black people would "disappear from almost
all
high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". >>>>>>>>>>>>> Harvard
faculty, he wrote, "would be recruited from the best of the best >>>>>>>>>>>>> students,
which means the number of black professors would approach zero per
cent".
:unquote
https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/10/03/cambridge-clears-academic-in-race-row-citing-new-free-speech-protections/
Which as you say, doesn't necessarily equate skin colour with >>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligence
at all.
Perhaps Cofnas is agreeing with the point I made earlier; that >>>>>>>>>>>>> because
Blacks in the US are relatively worse off as a result of being >>>>>>>>>>>>> former
slaves
they're never going to be able to afford the kind of education >>>>>>>>>>>>> which
has always been open to whites.
But because Cofnas doesn't put it in so many words, it would appear
that
he's perfectly happy for it to stay that way.
With US blacks kept as a permanent underclass. Which what with >>>>>>>>>>>>> their
being
former slaves is probably all that they deserve, in any case >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which some people at least, might describe as being a tiny bit >>>>>>>>>>>>> racist
Or at least a bit on the White Supremacist side.
What do you think ?
See another post nearby.
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>>>>>>>> permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
Maybe a hundred years ago in some parts of the USA.
Ah right. So at what point exactly did white folks step back, >>>>>>>>>>> and offer their jobs to any black folk of similar ability ? >>>>>>>>>>
That's exactlky what I'm describing.
White (top) stepping down.
So when did this happen ?
How would I know, without doing research of which you are capable for >>>>>>>> yourself?
And then do the black folks former jobs themselves, instead ? >>>>>>>>>Which jobs do you mean?
Lower paying jobs.
To my certain knowledge, minimum wage jobs are a "thing" in the USA. >>>>>>>> They are not exclusively occupied by African-Americans.
.According to survey data presented by the ACLU, the average income >>>>>>> for a white family of three is roughly $84,600, a Black family
of the same size would only earn $51,600.
****39% less*****
Even if true... what do you say it indicates or proves?
That they haven't been able to afford
*****the same level of education *****
as whites; ever since they were freed as slaves. And its been
cumulative
And why can't they afford education (according to you, that is, and whether
or
not it's true)?
bb
No response.
No coloured crayons unfortunately...
On 24/08/2026 08:50 AM, billy bookcase wrote:They both mean the same thing
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf1b6gFl4s3U2@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 09:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf0b5cFg61bU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 10:06 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced? >>>>>>>Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. It is >>>>>>> full
of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew it either. >>>>>>>
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can. >>>>>>
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically
repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly
because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
You didn't deny blacks are economically repressed ?
I didn't mention it at all, either way round. I would never use a phrase >>>>> like
"economically repressed" in any context. And I use it here merely as a >>>>> demonstration.
While here's one you prepared earlier
...................................................................
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a
permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
....................................................................
There would now doubtless follow a 20 post sub-thread; in which
an indignant, but doubtless unfailingly courteous Mr Nugent would
again seek to waste everbody's time; in this instance by seeking
to argue that "keeping African-Americans down" and "repressing them"
are not the same thing.
Which is it? I have not commented on your assertions of "repression".
bb
No response.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nf2v43FssvoU2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/08/2026 08:50 AM, billy bookcase wrote:They both mean the same thing
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf1b6gFl4s3U2@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 09:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf0b5cFg61bU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 10:06 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced? >>>>>>>>Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. It is
full
of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew it either. >>>>>>>>
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can. >>>>>>>
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically
repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly
because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
You didn't deny blacks are economically repressed ?
I didn't mention it at all, either way round. I would never use a phrase >>>>>> like
"economically repressed" in any context. And I use it here merely as a >>>>>> demonstration.
While here's one you prepared earlier
...................................................................
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>> permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
.................................................................... >>>>>
There would now doubtless follow a 20 post sub-thread; in which
an indignant, but doubtless unfailingly courteous Mr Nugent would
again seek to waste everbody's time; in this instance by seeking
to argue that "keeping African-Americans down" and "repressing them" >>>>> are not the same thing.
Which is it? I have not commented on your assertions of "repression".
On 24 Aug 2026 at 14:21:15 BST, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In my third year several of my lectures/supervisions were from one of
the founders of DAMPT in Mill Lane, Cambridge. At the time they thought
the future was in fluidic computers. Mad as a box of frogs, but quite
entertaining.
ISTR a Scientific American article about that sometime in the late '60s. Nowadays I suppose it would be possible to make a mechanical analogue computer
on silicon, complete with little accelerometers and beams etc, if one wanted to.
On 24/08/2026 02:42 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf2v43FssvoU2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/08/2026 08:50 AM, billy bookcase wrote:They both mean the same thing
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf1b6gFl4s3U2@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 09:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nf0b5cFg61bU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/08/2026 10:06 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced? >>>>>>>>>Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. It >>>>>>>>> is
full
of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew it either. >>>>>>>>>
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can. >>>>>>>>
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically
repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly
because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
You didn't deny blacks are economically repressed ?
I didn't mention it at all, either way round. I would never use a phrase
like
"economically repressed" in any context. And I use it here merely as a >>>>>>> demonstration.
While here's one you prepared earlier
................................................................... >>>>>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:neu0sdF4ru0U5@mid.individual.net...
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>>> permanent
(or even semi-permanent) underclass.
.................................................................... >>>>>>
There would now doubtless follow a 20 post sub-thread; in which
an indignant, but doubtless unfailingly courteous Mr Nugent would
again seek to waste everbody's time; in this instance by seeking
to argue that "keeping African-Americans down" and "repressing them" >>>>>> are not the same thing.
Which is it? I have not commented on your assertions of "repression". >>>>>
Do they?
I still have not commented.
With what do you wish to take issue?
In doing so (if at all), I'd appreciate it if you could be accurate and precise
(yes, I know they mean the same thing, more or less).
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 02:42 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 08:50 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 23/08/2026 09:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 23/08/2026 10:06 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be traduced?
Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. It >>>>>>>>>> is full of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew it either.
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can.
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically >>>>>>>>>>> repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly >>>>>>>>>>> because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
You didn't deny blacks are economically repressed ?
I didn't mention it at all, either way round. I would never use a phrase
like "economically repressed" in any context. And I use it here merely as a
demonstration.
While here's one you prepared earlier
...................................................................
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>>>> permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass.....................................................................
There would now doubtless follow a 20 post sub-thread; in which
an indignant, but doubtless unfailingly courteous Mr Nugent would >>>>>>> again seek to waste everbody's time; in this instance by seeking >>>>>>> to argue that "keeping African-Americans down" and "repressing them" >>>>>>> are not the same thing.
Which is it? I have not commented on your assertions of "repression".
They both mean the same thing
Do they?
I still have not commented.
With what do you wish to take issue?
In doing so (if at all), I'd appreciate it if you could be accurate and
precise
(yes, I know they mean the same thing, more or less).
So they do, more less
So that in accusing me of grossly misrepresenting you, "I didn't mention
it at all" you were, as per usual simply talking out of your arse, more
or less.
On 24/08/2026 06:50 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 02:42 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 08:50 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 23/08/2026 09:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 23/08/2026 10:06 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be >>>>>>>>>>>> traduced?
Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. It
is full of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew >>>>>>>>>>> it either.
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can. >>>
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically >>>>>>>>>>>> repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly >>>>>>>>>>>> because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
You didn't deny blacks are economically repressed ?
I didn't mention it at all, either way round. I would never use a >>>>>>>>> phrase
like "economically repressed" in any context. And I use it here merely
as a
demonstration.
While here's one you prepared earlier
...................................................................
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>>>>> permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass..................................................................... >>>
There would now doubtless follow a 20 post sub-thread; in which >>>>>>>> an indignant, but doubtless unfailingly courteous Mr Nugent would >>>>>>>> again seek to waste everbody's time; in this instance by seeking >>>>>>>> to argue that "keeping African-Americans down" and "repressing them" >>>>>>>> are not the same thing.
They both mean the same thingWhich is it? I have not commented on your assertions of "repression". >>>
Do they?
I still have not commented.
With what do you wish to take issue?
In doing so (if at all), I'd appreciate it if you could be accurate and
precise
(yes, I know they mean the same thing, more or less).
So they do, more less
But you still cannot find any of my posts in which I used the phrase "economically repressed" (except when quoting it back to you after your use of
it).
I did not say it. You lie when you say I did.
So that in accusing me of grossly misrepresenting you, "I didn't mention
it at all" you were, as per usual simply talking out of your arse, more
or less.
Well, there's the level of discourse of which you are capable, proven many times over the years.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nf41e3F3mdqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/08/2026 06:50 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 02:42 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 08:50 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 23/08/2026 09:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 23/08/2026 10:06 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> traduced?
Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. It
is full of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew >>>>>>>>>>>> it either.
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can. >>>>
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically >>>>>>>>>>>>> repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly >>>>>>>>>>>>> because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
You didn't deny blacks are economically repressed ?
I didn't mention it at all, either way round. I would never use a >>>>>>>>>> phrase
like "economically repressed" in any context. And I use it here merely
as a
demonstration.
While here's one you prepared earlier
................................................................... >>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>>>>>> permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass..................................................................... >>>>
There would now doubtless follow a 20 post sub-thread; in which >>>>>>>>> an indignant, but doubtless unfailingly courteous Mr Nugent would >>>>>>>>> again seek to waste everbody's time; in this instance by seeking >>>>>>>>> to argue that "keeping African-Americans down" and "repressing them" >>>>>>>>> are not the same thing.
They both mean the same thingWhich is it? I have not commented on your assertions of "repression". >>>>
Do they?
I still have not commented.
With what do you wish to take issue?
In doing so (if at all), I'd appreciate it if you could be accurate and >>>> precise
(yes, I know they mean the same thing, more or less).
So they do, more less
But you still cannot find any of my posts in which I used the phrase
"economically repressed" (except when quoting it back to you after your use of
it).
I did not say it. You lie when you say I did.
You meant the same thing.
So that in accusing me of grossly misrepresenting you, "I didn't mention >>> it at all" you were, as per usual simply talking out of your arse, more
or less.
Well, there's the level of discourse of which you are capable, proven many >> times over the years.
"Discourse" ?
This ?
As with your mention of Karl Popper being a Logical Postivist,
doubtless hoping to impress.
ROTFK&S !
But seriously there does actually come a point where I'm having
grave misgivings about being seen to be taking advantage of
somebody with genuine learning difficulties..
Could you please offer a carefully reasoned argument; even if
only the once ?
Or maybe evidence that you've at some point actually read a book ? Even
just the one ?
That week you spent in the university library doesn't count obviously.
As the very fact you mentioned it at all, would tend to suggest a general unfamiliarity on your part with the world of libraries and books.
( See above )
On 25/08/2026 08:44 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageWhat do you use when relaxing in your hand-painted horse-drawn caravan?
news:nf41e3F3mdqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/08/2026 06:50 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 02:42 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 24/08/2026 08:50 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 23/08/2026 09:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 23/08/2026 10:06 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/08/2026 06:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"something else, but close enough for his statements to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> traduced?
Pancho's post makes it quite clear. I recommend you read it asap. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It
is full of stuff I didn't kmnow and I cannot believe that you knew
it either.
Honestly, read it. It'll answer your questions better than I can. >>>>>
But Blacks either fare badly because they're economically >>>>>>>>>>>>>> repressed, which you strenuously deny; or they fare badly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they've got a low IQ
I said neither of those things
You didn't deny blacks are economically repressed ?
I didn't mention it at all, either way round. I would never use a >>>>>>>>>>> phrase
like "economically repressed" in any context. And I use it here >>>>>>>>>>> merely
as a
demonstration.
While here's one you prepared earlier
................................................................... >>>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I don't accept that America is keeping African-Americans down as a >>>>>>>>>>> permanent (or even semi-permanent) underclass..................................................................... >>>>>
There would now doubtless follow a 20 post sub-thread; in which >>>>>>>>>> an indignant, but doubtless unfailingly courteous Mr Nugent would >>>>>>>>>> again seek to waste everbody's time; in this instance by seeking >>>>>>>>>> to argue that "keeping African-Americans down" and "repressing them" >>>>>>>>>> are not the same thing.
They both mean the same thingWhich is it? I have not commented on your assertions of "repression". >>>>>
Do they?
I still have not commented.
With what do you wish to take issue?
In doing so (if at all), I'd appreciate it if you could be accurate and >>>>> precise
(yes, I know they mean the same thing, more or less).
So they do, more less
But you still cannot find any of my posts in which I used the phrase
"economically repressed" (except when quoting it back to you after your use >>> of
it).
I did not say it. You lie when you say I did.
You meant the same thing.
Crystal ball?
Tarot cards?
Tea leaves?
So that in accusing me of grossly misrepresenting you, "I didn't mention >>>> it at all" you were, as per usual simply talking out of your arse, more >>>> or less.
Well, there's the level of discourse of which you are capable, proven many >>> times over the years.
"Discourse" ?
This ?
As with your mention of Karl Popper being a Logical Postivist,
doubtless hoping to impress.
You ought to be impressed. Popper was the logical authority. Scientific methodology was (and still remains) his field.
HE didn't resort to crystal balls and Tarot cards.
ROTFK&S !
But seriously there does actually come a point where I'm having
grave misgivings about being seen to be taking advantage of
somebody with genuine learning difficulties..
Could you please offer a carefully reasoned argument; even if
only the once ?
Or maybe evidence that you've at some point actually read a book ? Even
just the one ?
That week you spent in the university library doesn't count obviously.
As the very fact you mentioned it at all, would tend to suggest a general
unfamiliarity on your part with the world of libraries and books.
( See above )
I am bound to admit that that's a bit of an improvement over your last post in
this thread.
But your mind-reading needs a lot of work before you are able to be even slightly accurate.
In message <9019181225.5aaffdab@uninhabited.net>, at 19:16:32 on Tue, 1
Sep 2026, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Well if you'd just said that many schools don't make pupils stay all day in >>the sixth form no-one could have argued. It was your generalisation that all >>schools do so that is so easily refuted by even one counter-example. Why this >>quixotic desire to pursue a clearly false generalisation?
The desire is entirely that of a couple of "usual suspects", not myself, both
of whom are apparently not here for the hunting. I wish they'd go and harass someone else, somewhere else.
Maybe your girl(s) weren't allowed them, though that seems a little strange given your proud allegations of working earlier with Alan Sugar and Amstrad.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 36:40:18 |
| Calls: | 1,196 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
16 files (19,622K bytes) |
| Messages: | 294,950 |