mporter, you might want to zip up. You're over-inflated ego is showing.
Here's a primer, designed for grades 10-12. I hope you can understand it mporter.
http://www.uottawa.ca/hrrec/lawroom/freespch.html
kicky can- My ego is fine. It is Mr. Blatham's ego that needs repair. He is so lacking in self esteem that he cannot bring himself to apologize for calling me a liar.
If you are really interested you can go to the May 14th post by Mr. Blatham, where the pompous ex-elementary school teacher, without doing any investigation, it seems. arrogantly declared: Well. since you reference a Time issue that apparently does not exist"
He is the one who needs to have his ego overhauled. He is apparently so deficient in self-esteem that he is unable to apolgioze for calling me a liar.
So, before you blow off on the idiocy concerning egos, kicky can, do some investigation. If you can truly say that he was correct to do what he did, then you are indeed right. Otherwise, it is his responsibility to apologize.
Something about mporter's attempts to write like blatham still raises questions for me.
Bitter ex student perhaps?
cavfancier. I read your primer( for grades 10-12) Thank you but I was thinking of something that was printed in Canadian law instead of a site like you referenced.
I have several reactions:
I have read blurbs like that many times and in many places.
I am appalled that a site like that would be so sloppy as to contain an egregious spelling error( See "democractic" (Sic)
The most important line in the piece is the one which says:
"Finding the line between free speech and hate is difficult"
I have a quote for you. Since you appear to know a great deal about free speech vis a vis hate, you may wish to evalute it. I do not call the quote below "hate" since it is based on solid evidence.
quote from Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Race and Culture"
P.172
"In the United States, blacks of above-average socio-economic status have not aveaged as high IQ as whites of lower socio-economic status, and neither blacks, Mexican Americans nor American Indians from families with incomes of $50,000 and above scored as well on the qualitiative portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test in 1981 as Asian Americans from families with incomes of $6,000 or less,"
end of quote
Do you think that the above is "hate speech" Mr. Cavfancier?
I don't
I am sorry but I cannot write like Mr. Blatham. Only ex- elementary school teachers who taught eight year olds can write like Mr. Blatham. I could never write like Mr. Blatham. I am not omniscient as he is. I don't know everything about Canada. He certainly appears to know everything about the USA or so he would like you to believe, but he is miffed because I revealed his secret. He doesn't know everything about the USA. In fact, he is unable to reference a copy of a well known Magazine like Time.
I guess they didn't use Time in the classes where Mr. Blatham taught eight year olds.
Why are you still awake mporter?
P.172
"In the United States, blacks of above-average socio-economic status have not aveaged as high IQ as whites of lower socio-economic status, and neither blacks, Mexican Americans nor American Indians from families with incomes of $50,000 and above scored as well on the qualitiative portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test in 1981 as Asian Americans from families with incomes of $6,000 or less,"
If this is truly a quote from your hero Sowell, he needs spellcheck as well. As for whether or not I think it is 'hate' literature, no, I don't, but I am curious as to the context. Why would you think that I would think this was 'hate speech?'
There are many scholarly works like those of Dr. Sowell which are indeed classed as "hate speech" In fact, John Leo writes in his column in US News and World Report that:
quote:
"Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, a LONG TIME SUPPORTER OF GAY RIGHTS AND AN IMPORTANT FIGURE IN THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, published a study finding that many gays can become heterosexual. Would that study be banned under C-250 as hate speech?"
Would it, cavfancier?
And please do not concern yourself with my sleeping habits. That is quite intrusive of you and might even qualify as "hate-speech"
Why, I have been diagnosed as "sleep-challenged".
Do you hate "Sleep challenged people"?
Don't deny it. I caught your "hateful" comment!
mporter wrote:And please do not concern yourself with my sleeping habits. That is quite intrusive of you and might even qualify as "hate-speech"
Why, I have been diagnosed as "sleep-challenged".
Do you hate "Sleep challenged people"?
Don't deny it. I caught your "hateful" comment!
Oh lord...I'm an insomniac...apparently it's a sign of intelligence. Once again, we Canadian liberals are misunderstood.
You asked why I was still awake and, just like your Canadian friend, Mr> Blatham, you ignore my post on Mr. Spitzer because you do not know how to respond. If you think that is not noted by me and others, you are mistaken.
Liberals gasbag a lot and then when they encounter evidence they can't handle, resort to childish quips.
A firm belief in Creationism is a guage of whether one is a fundamentalist as this would nearly always mean a belief in the entire Old Testament including the dubious Leviticus. I don't believe there is enough confirmed information about what Bush believes on this subject or, for that matter, any other subject. His speeches are written in the usual political rhetoric which provide more riddles than answers.
mporter wrote:You asked why I was still awake and, just like your Canadian friend, Mr> Blatham, you ignore my post on Mr. Spitzer because you do not know how to respond. If you think that is not noted by me and others, you are mistaken.
Liberals gasbag a lot and then when they encounter evidence they can't handle, resort to childish quips.
yawn, what a butt................
gasbag (Noun): Those who turn nouns into verbs.
Lightwizard wrote:A firm belief in Creationism is a guage of whether one is a fundamentalist as this would nearly always mean a belief in the entire Old Testament including the dubious Leviticus. I don't believe there is enough confirmed information about what Bush believes on this subject or, for that matter, any other subject. His speeches are written in the usual political rhetoric which provide more riddles than answers.
LW
Right on the schmoozle, that one. I'm always flabbergasted at how Presidential speeches are critiqued as if the individual mouthing the words had actually penned them. We can look back at the incredible speeches Lincoln gave, and be in awe of the intellect, the grasp of issues, the facility with words, the understanding of how a speaker can begin in front of a somewhat hostile audience and take them to rousing, foot-stomping enthusiasm. But modern presidents, this one particularly, are closer to puppets than to Lincoln. Speech writing teams plowing through polling data and instructions from re-election campaign directives...pretty hollow.
cavfancier wrote:Why are you still awake mporter?
P.172
"In the United States, blacks of above-average socio-economic status have not aveaged as high IQ as whites of lower socio-economic status, and neither blacks, Mexican Americans nor American Indians from families with incomes of $50,000 and above scored as well on the qualitiative portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test in 1981 as Asian Americans from families with incomes of $6,000 or less,"
If this is truly a quote from your hero Sowell, he needs spellcheck as well. As for whether or not I think it is 'hate' literature, no, I don't, but I am curious as to the context. Why would you think that I would think this was 'hate speech?'
I don't know it for you cavfancier, but when you read something like this, you tend to make the conclusion "so blacks (in general) have a lower IQ", although I don't believe it myself.
Though, this is not the conclusion made in the quote of mporter. There might be tons of reasons why it came out that Afro-American students had a lower score. These reasons do
not have to conclude that they are "dumber". We only see a small part of the whole research.
Rick d'Israeli wrote:cavfancier wrote:Why are you still awake mporter?
P.172
"In the United States, blacks of above-average socio-economic status have not aveaged as high IQ as whites of lower socio-economic status, and neither blacks, Mexican Americans nor American Indians from families with incomes of $50,000 and above scored as well on the qualitiative portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test in 1981 as Asian Americans from families with incomes of $6,000 or less,"
If this is truly a quote from your hero Sowell, he needs spellcheck as well. As for whether or not I think it is 'hate' literature, no, I don't, but I am curious as to the context. Why would you think that I would think this was 'hate speech?'
I don't know it for you cavfancier, but when you read something like this, you tend to make the conclusion "so blacks (in general) have a lower IQ", although I don't believe it myself.
Though, this is not the conclusion made in the quote of mporter. There might be tons of reasons why it came out that Afro-American students had a lower score. These reasons do
not have to conclude that they are "dumber". We only see a small part of the whole research.
You missed my point Rick. This is a quote taken out of context. I in no way endorse the idea that "blacks (in general) have a lower IQ." I think that mporter was simply trying to bait me into a silly argument.
Quote:You missed my point Rick. This is a quote taken out of context.
In that case, I rather think you and mporter are missing eachothers points :wink: .
