Re: Wild behaviour in men: a genetic link?

[blackout]

> The association between alcoholism and sensation seeking behaviour in
> some men may have a genetic explanation, a new French study claims -
> although an Australian expert is not so convinced.

Am I the only one not seeing a link to the article?

BTW, this seems to have no direct relevance to this NG - however, we know
that the majority of alcoholics (and addicts in general) are men, so it
would be interesting to know more about this study.

[James Cameron]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:34:33 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Am I the only one not seeing a link to the article?

No, you're not.

>BTW, this seems to have no direct relevance to this NG - however, we know
>that the majority of alcoholics (and addicts in general) are men

The majority of any group that does something that isn't merely
passive (like giving birth) are men. Sometimes that works in society's
favour, sometimes it doesn't.

However, if men were as passive as females then we'd still be waiting
for somebody to discover how to make a fire.

[James Cameron]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:13:17 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com>
wrote:

>James Cameron wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:34:33 +0200, "blackout"
>> <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Am I the only one not seeing a link to the article?
>>
>> No, you're not.
>>
>>> BTW, this seems to have no direct relevance to this NG - however, we
>>> know that the majority of alcoholics (and addicts in general) are men
>>
>> The majority of any group that does something that isn't merely
>> passive (like giving birth) are men. Sometimes that works in society's
>> favour, sometimes it doesn't.
>>
>> However, if men were as passive as females then we'd still be waiting
>> for somebody to discover how to make a fire.
>
>Well, following your logic we'd prolly also hold our breaths waiting for the
>first World War to happen. And the second...

A lot of men only turned up to fight in the first world war because
females stood on street corners handing out white feathers to every
man who wasn't in uniform. The second world war was merely the
conclusion of the first.

You should also note that almost every female prime minister or
president of those countries foolish enough to elect them have managed
to involve their country in war.

[Kai]

James Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:13:17 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com>
> wrote:
>
>> James Cameron wrote:
>>>
>>> However, if men were as passive as females then we'd still be
>>> waiting
>>> for somebody to discover how to make a fire.
>>
>> Well, following your logic we'd prolly also hold our breaths waiting
>> for the first World War to happen. And the second...
>
> A lot of men only turned up to fight in the first world war because
> females stood on street corners handing out white feathers to every
> man who wasn't in uniform. The second world war was merely the
> conclusion of the first.

That's probably the most in-depth analysis of the events that led to the WWI
and WWII I've ever read. Thanks, James. Certainly any man of reason prefers
gory, useless death on a muddy battlefield over a white feather.

>
> You should also note that almost every female prime minister or
> president of those countries foolish enough to elect them have managed
> to involve their country in war.

Really? Now that you reminded me I seem to recall Iceland attacking Latvia
and Finland later joining in a couple of years back. Surely you don't think
of Thatcher as a woman, do you?

Kai

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:13:17 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> wrote:

->James Cameron wrote:
->> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:34:33 +0200, "blackout"
->> <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
->>
->>> Am I the only one not seeing a link to the article?
->>
->> No, you're not.
->>
->>> BTW, this seems to have no direct relevance to this NG - however, we
->>> know that the majority of alcoholics (and addicts in general) are men
->>
->> The majority of any group that does something that isn't merely
->> passive (like giving birth) are men. Sometimes that works in society's
->> favour, sometimes it doesn't.
->>
->> However, if men were as passive as females then we'd still be waiting
->> for somebody to discover how to make a fire.
->
->Well, following your logic we'd prolly also hold our breaths waiting for the
->first World War to happen. And the second...
->
->Kai
->

To consider that, first you have to make the bold assumption that
you'd be around in the first place rather than you or your ancestors
having died from diseases or starvation huddled in the muck of your
cave floor, since men wouldn't have invented farming, water supplies,
roads, medicine or any other accoutrements of civilization either.

For feminists passivity = goodness. All hail the Noble Cow and
the Mighty Houseplant.

[Kai]

James Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:02:39 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com>
> wrote:
>
>> James Cameron wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:13:17 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> James Cameron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if men were as passive as females then we'd still be
>>>>> waiting
>>>>> for somebody to discover how to make a fire.
>>>>
>>>> Well, following your logic we'd prolly also hold our breaths waiting
>>>> for the first World War to happen. And the second...
>>>
>>> A lot of men only turned up to fight in the first world war because
>>> females stood on street corners handing out white feathers to every
>>> man who wasn't in uniform. The second world war was merely the
>>> conclusion of the first.
>>
>> That's probably the most in-depth analysis of the events that led to the WWI
>> and WWII I've ever read. Thanks, James. Certainly any man of reason prefers
>> gory, useless death on a muddy battlefield over a white feather.
>
> Their mothers brought them up to value death before dishonour, you
> know. Their fathers were too busy working. A couple of years before
> the war, mothers were chucking their sons into the sea so that other
> harridans could get seats on the Titanic lifeboats.
>
>>> You should also note that almost every female prime minister or
>>> president of those countries foolish enough to elect them have managed
>>> to involve their country in war.
>>
>> Really? Now that you reminded me I seem to recall Iceland attacking Latvia
>> and Finland later joining in a couple of years back. Surely you don't think
>> of Thatcher as a woman, do you?
>
> Bad choices.
>
> Iceland attacked British shipping (fishing vessels) and the Royal Navy
> had to go and sort it out. Some Icelandic ships got damaged before
> they surrendered.

Umm, you realize we're talking about a country with no military at all?

>
> Isn't Finland the country where the female prime minister resigned
> this year because of corruption and the female president wears a
> swastika as part of her presidential crest?

No, it isn't. The PM had to resign b/c she made classified information public in
order to advance her election campaign. Now this was not a major crime, but the
means she used to clear the mess, lies to the parliament, was.

The Finnish president, as far as I know, has no presidential crest, but her
official flag has the old Finnish Military Commander in Chief's sign which may
look like a swastika to less-educated people. Civilized people of course
immediately realize it's a mirror image of the Nazi version and know enough
Finnish history to remember it's been similar from year 1917, way back before no
one had even heard of the Nazis.

>
> Latvia? Ah, yes. They sent a few tanks over into Russia because of an
> oil pipeline dispute. Has Russia sent the tanks back yet?

Oh my, did the big bad Latvians attack Russia?

>
> As for Thatcher, only a woman would have her bathwater electrified in
> the hopes of removing wrinkles so, yes, she's female.

I'm not certain you can define such attributes as sex as easily to Thatcher's
species, whatever it is.

Kai

[James Cameron]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:03:19 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com>
wrote:

>
>
>James Cameron wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:02:39 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> James Cameron wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:13:17 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> James Cameron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, if men were as passive as females then we'd still be
>>>>>> waiting
>>>>>> for somebody to discover how to make a fire.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, following your logic we'd prolly also hold our breaths waiting
>>>>> for the first World War to happen. And the second...
>>>>
>>>> A lot of men only turned up to fight in the first world war because
>>>> females stood on street corners handing out white feathers to every
>>>> man who wasn't in uniform. The second world war was merely the
>>>> conclusion of the first.
>>>
>>> That's probably the most in-depth analysis of the events that led to the WWI
>>> and WWII I've ever read. Thanks, James. Certainly any man of reason prefers
>>> gory, useless death on a muddy battlefield over a white feather.
>>
>> Their mothers brought them up to value death before dishonour, you
>> know. Their fathers were too busy working. A couple of years before
>> the war, mothers were chucking their sons into the sea so that other
>> harridans could get seats on the Titanic lifeboats.
>>
>>>> You should also note that almost every female prime minister or
>>>> president of those countries foolish enough to elect them have managed
>>>> to involve their country in war.
>>>
>>> Really? Now that you reminded me I seem to recall Iceland attacking Latvia
>>> and Finland later joining in a couple of years back. Surely you don't think
>>> of Thatcher as a woman, do you?
>>
>> Bad choices.
>>
>> Iceland attacked British shipping (fishing vessels) and the Royal Navy
>> had to go and sort it out. Some Icelandic ships got damaged before
>> they surrendered.
>
>Umm, you realize we're talking about a country with no military at all?

They used their coastguard vessels to attack unarmed British
fishermen. They won't ever make that mistake again.

>> Isn't Finland the country where the female prime minister resigned
>> this year because of corruption and the female president wears a
>> swastika as part of her presidential crest?
>
>No, it isn't. The PM had to resign b/c she made classified information public in
>order to advance her election campaign. Now this was not a major crime, but the
>means she used to clear the mess, lies to the parliament, was.

Not a major crime? It's corruption in public office.

>The Finnish president, as far as I know, has no presidential crest, but her
>official flag has the old Finnish Military Commander in Chief's sign which may
>look like a swastika to less-educated people. Civilized people of course
>immediately realize it's a mirror image of the Nazi version

You are a liar. It's not a mirror image of the Nazi version:
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fi-pres.html#des


>> Latvia? Ah, yes. They sent a few tanks over into Russia because of an
>> oil pipeline dispute. Has Russia sent the tanks back yet?
>
>Oh my, did the big bad Latvians attack Russia?

Tells you something about the stupid bitch who ordered it, eh?

>> As for Thatcher, only a woman would have her bathwater electrified in
>> the hopes of removing wrinkles so, yes, she's female.
>
>I'm not certain you can define such attributes as sex as easily to Thatcher's
>species, whatever it is.

You can't wriggle out that easily. Her actions were certainly inhuman
but Thatcher is a woman. If British women have done nothing else, one
of their number destroyed British society. Of course, Thatcher said:
"There's no such thing as society" just before she wrecked it.

[Jim Blair]

Kai wrote
You don't think of Thatcher as a woman, do you?

Hell no, she has bigger balls than any leader of a democracy.
Jim

[Kai]

James Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:03:19 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> James Cameron wrote:
>>>
>>> Bad choices.
>>>
>>> Iceland attacked British shipping (fishing vessels) and the Royal Navy
>>> had to go and sort it out. Some Icelandic ships got damaged before
>>> they surrendered.
>>
>> Umm, you realize we're talking about a country with no military at all?
>
> They used their coastguard vessels to attack unarmed British
> fishermen. They won't ever make that mistake again.

And they had a female PM or president at that time?

>
>>> Isn't Finland the country where the female prime minister resigned
>>> this year because of corruption and the female president wears a
>>> swastika as part of her presidential crest?
>>
>> No, it isn't. The PM had to resign b/c she made classified information
>> public in order to advance her election campaign. Now this was not a major
>> crime, but the means she used to clear the mess, lies to the parliament, was.
>
> Not a major crime? It's corruption in public office.

Actually not, since she was not in office at the time. What's this got to do
with her supposedly having gotten Finland into a war anyway?

>
>> The Finnish president, as far as I know, has no presidential crest, but her
>> official flag has the old Finnish Military Commander in Chief's sign which
>> may look like a swastika to less-educated people. Civilized people of course
>> immediately realize it's a mirror image of the Nazi version
>
> You are a liar. It's not a mirror image of the Nazi version:
> http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fi-pres.html#des

No more a lie than your claim that *all* female heads-of-states have taken their
countries to a war. But I was wrong, I admit, it was the old Finnish Air Force
symbol that was a mirror image. It was abandoned after WWII. Like you probably
read from the link you provided, the swastika in the Finnish president's flag,
not crest, is an ancient Finnish symbol and has nothing to do with Nazis. Not to
mention it of course has absolutely nothing to do with your allegations that a
female Finnish president has taken Finland to war. Liar.

>
>
>>> Latvia? Ah, yes. They sent a few tanks over into Russia because of an
>>> oil pipeline dispute. Has Russia sent the tanks back yet?
>>
>> Oh my, did the big bad Latvians attack Russia?
>
> Tells you something about the stupid bitch who ordered it, eh?

And you're certain there was a female president at the time? Careful now.

>
>>> As for Thatcher, only a woman would have her bathwater electrified in
>>> the hopes of removing wrinkles so, yes, she's female.
>>
>> I'm not certain you can define such attributes as sex as easily to Thatcher's
>> species, whatever it is.
>
> You can't wriggle out that easily. Her actions were certainly inhuman
> but Thatcher is a woman. If British women have done nothing else, one
> of their number destroyed British society. Of course, Thatcher said:
> "There's no such thing as society" just before she wrecked it.

Hey, if Maggie gets you aroused and you like to think of her as a female, it's
okay. No need to get all worked up about it.

Kai

[James Cameron]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:40:31 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com>
wrote:

>
>
>James Cameron wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:03:19 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> James Cameron wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bad choices.
>>>>
>>>> Iceland attacked British shipping (fishing vessels) and the Royal Navy
>>>> had to go and sort it out. Some Icelandic ships got damaged before
>>>> they surrendered.
>>>
>>> Umm, you realize we're talking about a country with no military at all?
>>
>> They used their coastguard vessels to attack unarmed British
>> fishermen. They won't ever make that mistake again.
>
>And they had a female PM or president at that time?

Going to call me a liar again? You've been wrong every time that you
did it before.

>>>> Isn't Finland the country where the female prime minister resigned
>>>> this year because of corruption and the female president wears a
>>>> swastika as part of her presidential crest?
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. The PM had to resign b/c she made classified information
>>> public in order to advance her election campaign. Now this was not a major
>>> crime, but the means she used to clear the mess, lies to the parliament, was.
>>
>> Not a major crime? It's corruption in public office.
>
>Actually not, since she was not in office at the time. What's this got to do
>with her supposedly having gotten Finland into a war anyway?

Ahem. I quote from the paragraph to which you refer:

"You should also note that almost every female prime minister
or president of those countries foolish enough to elect them
have managed to involve their country in war."

Note the qualifying "almost".

Let's see where else you're wrong...

>>> The Finnish president, as far as I know, has no presidential crest, but her
>>> official flag has the old Finnish Military Commander in Chief's sign which
>>> may look like a swastika to less-educated people. Civilized people of course
>>> immediately realize it's a mirror image of the Nazi version
>>
>> You are a liar. It's not a mirror image of the Nazi version:
>> http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fi-pres.html#des
>
>No more a lie than your claim that *all* female heads-of-states have taken their
>countries to a war.

Ahem. I quote *again* from the paragraph to which you refer:

"You should also note that almost every female prime minister
or president of those countries foolish enough to elect them
have managed to involve their country in war."

>But I was wrong, I admit, it was the old Finnish Air Force
>symbol that was a mirror image. It was abandoned after WWII.

You're lying again. Look at this Finnish Messerschmitt:

http://www.sci.fi/~ambush/faf/fighters.html#Mersu

>Like you probably
>read from the link you provided, the swastika in the Finnish president's flag,
>not crest, is an ancient Finnish symbol and has nothing to do with Nazis. Not to
>mention it of course has absolutely nothing to do with your allegations that a
>female Finnish president has taken Finland to war. Liar.

Ahem. I quote *once again* from the paragraph to which you refer:

"You should also note that almost every female prime minister
or president of those countries foolish enough to elect them
have managed to involve their country in war."


>>>> Latvia? Ah, yes. They sent a few tanks over into Russia because of an
>>>> oil pipeline dispute. Has Russia sent the tanks back yet?
>>>
>>> Oh my, did the big bad Latvians attack Russia?
>>
>> Tells you something about the stupid bitch who ordered it, eh?
>
>And you're certain there was a female president at the time? Careful now.

Which answer would you like to invent?

>>>> As for Thatcher, only a woman would have her bathwater electrified in
>>>> the hopes of removing wrinkles so, yes, she's female.
>>>
>>> I'm not certain you can define such attributes as sex as easily to Thatcher's
>>> species, whatever it is.
>>
>> You can't wriggle out that easily. Her actions were certainly inhuman
>> but Thatcher is a woman. If British women have done nothing else, one
>> of their number destroyed British society. Of course, Thatcher said:
>> "There's no such thing as society" just before she wrecked it.
>
>Hey, if Maggie gets you aroused and you like to think of her as a female, it's
>okay. No need to get all worked up about it.

I think of her as I think of you -- she's irrelvant shite now.

Discussion terminated.

[Kai]

James Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:40:31 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> James Cameron wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:03:19 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> James Cameron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bad choices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Iceland attacked British shipping (fishing vessels) and the Royal Navy
>>>>> had to go and sort it out. Some Icelandic ships got damaged before
>>>>> they surrendered.
>>>>
>>>> Umm, you realize we're talking about a country with no military at all?
>>>
>>> They used their coastguard vessels to attack unarmed British
>>> fishermen. They won't ever make that mistake again.
>>
>> And they had a female PM or president at that time?
>
> Going to call me a liar again? You've been wrong every time that you
> did it before.

Well, they didn't and you claimed they did. What does that make you, a liar or
an idiot?

>
>>>>> Isn't Finland the country where the female prime minister resigned
>>>>> this year because of corruption and the female president wears a
>>>>> swastika as part of her presidential crest?
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't. The PM had to resign b/c she made classified information
>>>> public in order to advance her election campaign. Now this was not a major
>>>> crime, but the means she used to clear the mess, lies to the parliament,
>>>> was.
>>>
>>> Not a major crime? It's corruption in public office.
>>
>> Actually not, since she was not in office at the time. What's this got to do
>> with her supposedly having gotten Finland into a war anyway?
>
> Ahem. I quote from the paragraph to which you refer:
>
> "You should also note that almost every female prime minister
> or president of those countries foolish enough to elect them
> have managed to involve their country in war."
>
> Note the qualifying "almost".

Note your remark "Bad choices". How come they were bad choices as examples of
countries whose female heads-of-states haven't taken their countries to a war.
Almost all is not the same as Thatcher, you know, or maybe it is to you, you
being so obsessed about her.

>
> Let's see where else you're wrong...
>
>>>> The Finnish president, as far as I know, has no presidential crest, but her
>>>> official flag has the old Finnish Military Commander in Chief's sign which
>>>> may look like a swastika to less-educated people. Civilized people of
>>>> course immediately realize it's a mirror image of the Nazi version
>>>
>>> You are a liar. It's not a mirror image of the Nazi version:
>>> http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fi-pres.html#des
>>
>> No more a lie than your claim that *all* female heads-of-states have taken
>> their countries to a war.
>
> Ahem. I quote *again* from the paragraph to which you refer:
>
> "You should also note that almost every female prime minister
> or president of those countries foolish enough to elect them
> have managed to involve their country in war."

See above.

>
>> But I was wrong, I admit, it was the old Finnish Air Force
>> symbol that was a mirror image. It was abandoned after WWII.
>
> You're lying again. Look at this Finnish Messerschmitt:
>
> http://www.sci.fi/~ambush/faf/fighters.html#Mersu

But I did get you to check it, didn't I. Never a bad thing to educate people
about the history of Finland.

>
>> Like you probably
>> read from the link you provided, the swastika in the Finnish president's
>> flag, not crest, is an ancient Finnish symbol and has nothing to do with
>> Nazis. Not to mention it of course has absolutely nothing to do with your
>> allegations that a female Finnish president has taken Finland to war. Liar.
>
> Ahem. I quote *once again* from the paragraph to which you refer:
>
> "You should also note that almost every female prime minister
> or president of those countries foolish enough to elect them
> have managed to involve their country in war."

And again, see earlier.

>
>
>>>>> Latvia? Ah, yes. They sent a few tanks over into Russia because of an
>>>>> oil pipeline dispute. Has Russia sent the tanks back yet?
>>>>
>>>> Oh my, did the big bad Latvians attack Russia?
>>>
>>> Tells you something about the stupid bitch who ordered it, eh?
>>
>> And you're certain there was a female president at the time? Careful now.
>
> Which answer would you like to invent?

You don't know? How come I'm not very surprised.

>
>>>>> As for Thatcher, only a woman would have her bathwater electrified in
>>>>> the hopes of removing wrinkles so, yes, she's female.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not certain you can define such attributes as sex as easily to
>>>> Thatcher's species, whatever it is.
>>>
>>> You can't wriggle out that easily. Her actions were certainly inhuman
>>> but Thatcher is a woman. If British women have done nothing else, one
>>> of their number destroyed British society. Of course, Thatcher said:
>>> "There's no such thing as society" just before she wrecked it.
>>
>> Hey, if Maggie gets you aroused and you like to think of her as a female,
>> it's okay. No need to get all worked up about it.
>
> I think of her as I think of you -- she's irrelvant shite now.

But she does get you aroused, right?

>
> Discussion terminated.

Hey, you forgot to tell me you'll killfile me.

Kai

[blackout]

> >BTW, this seems to have no direct relevance to this NG - however, we know
> >that the majority of alcoholics (and addicts in general) are men
>
> Patently untrue, in my opinion and experience.

Blue Moon, you are a clueless moron. Your "opinion" and "experience" counts
as diddly squat. Look at the goddamn statistics!

[Blue Moon]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:34:33 +0200, "blackout"
<blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>BTW, this seems to have no direct relevance to this NG - however, we know
>that the majority of alcoholics (and addicts in general) are men

Patently untrue, in my opinion and experience.

--
Blue Moon

[typhonblue]

Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote in message news:<fjj1kvcgo9iqvnkvjt33dn3rhfptdu9n1h@4ax.com>...

> To consider that, first you have to make the bold assumption that
> you'd be around in the first place rather than you or your ancestors
> having died from diseases or starvation huddled in the muck of your
> cave floor, since men wouldn't have invented farming, water supplies,
> roads, medicine or any other accoutrements of civilization either.
>
> For feminists passivity = goodness. All hail the Noble Cow and
> the Mighty Houseplant.


Why exactly do you think men invented farming and medicine?

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

On 18 Aug 2003 13:55:41 -0700, typhonblue@shaw.ca (typhonblue) wrote:

->Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote in message
news:<fjj1kvcgo9iqvnkvjt33dn3rhfptdu9n1h@4ax.com>...
->
->> To consider that, first you have to make the bold assumption that
->> you'd be around in the first place rather than you or your ancestors
->> having died from diseases or starvation huddled in the muck of your
->> cave floor, since men wouldn't have invented farming, water supplies,
->> roads, medicine or any other accoutrements of civilization either.
->>
->> For feminists passivity = goodness. All hail the Noble Cow and
->> the Mighty Houseplant.
->
->
->Why exactly do you think men invented farming and medicine?

Regarding medcine, I guess I musta read some history books;
regarding farming (agriculture), there's no reason to think
that women had much to do with it, because women haven't had
much to do with any inventions at all, ever. Before you claim
that female "gathering" must mean that women developed farming,
recall that that men invented the washing machine.

[Bob]

Blue Moon wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:34:33 +0200, "blackout"
> <blackout_postboxNOSPAMPLEASE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, this seems to have no direct relevance to this NG - however, we know
>>that the majority of alcoholics (and addicts in general) are men
>
>
> Patently untrue, in my opinion and experience.
>

What's known to be true is that the majority of blaming and negative
stereotypes about drugs and alcohol are men.

Bob

[John Jones]

typhonblue wrote:
> Mr. F. Le Mur <lemurama@comxcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<fjj1kvcgo9iqvnkvjt33dn3rhfptdu9n1h@4ax.com>...
>
>> To consider that, first you have to make the bold assumption
that
>> you'd be around in the first place rather than you or your
ancestors
>> having died from diseases or starvation huddled in the muck of
your
>> cave floor, since men wouldn't have invented farming, water
supplies,
>> roads, medicine or any other accoutrements of civilization
either.
>>
>> For feminists passivity = goodness. All hail the Noble Cow
and
>> the Mighty Houseplant.
>
>
> Why exactly do you think men invented farming and medicine?

I'm curious: Do you have evidence that men did not invent
farming and/or medicine?

[Blue Moon]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:52:37 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:

>blackout wrote:
>>>>BTW, this seems to have no direct relevance to this NG - however, we know
>>>>that the majority of alcoholics (and addicts in general) are men
>>>
>>>Patently untrue, in my opinion and experience.
>>
>>
>> Blue Moon, you are a clueless moron. Your "opinion" and "experience" counts
>> as diddly squat. Look at the goddamn statistics!

Quite frankly, I really don't give a flying fuck for the opinion of
anyone who not only expresses every intention to drink, but also gives
stupidly crass advice to others on taking and even changing
mind-altering medication with excessive booze intake. If any such
person gets a clue about the subject of "alcoholISM" I might be
inclined to pay more attention. Meanwhile they should quit wasting
everyone else's time, shut up and listen for a change.

>Yes, post some "goddamn statistics."

I made no mention whatsoever of statistics! In my >opinion< and
>experience<, roughly half the alcoholics I encounter are men, the
other half women. This applies whether they're drunk or sober,
whether I'm in the UK or the US, or whether I'm looking online or in
person. Go to a treatment centre, and the quantities of male/female
patients seems roughly equal from my experience. Same applies with
AA. This first-hand experience certainly seems more relevant than
out-dated studies from times when organisations such as AA were
specifically male-oriented so were specifically not helping the women
so much. At such times, I would not be at all surprised if any
official statistics showed a different perception of the world. What
present-day studies show a prevalence of men over women to the
alcoholic condition? It's now generally accepted within medical
circles that women are actually more susceptible than men to alcohol
abuse, and subsequent dependency (thus "alcoholism"), due to their
lower body volume.

I don't give a shit whether anyone else believes this experience or
not. But nowhere where I've been does it seem apparent that men form
the majority, certainly not by such a wide margin as is implied here.
Certainly in various clubs and bars the men may be more prevalent, and
more obnoxious, but any conclusions from that would present a very
blinkered perspective.

--
Blue Moon

[Virtualoso]

In article <123891ce63de74aeda0bf483f53174d5@news.teranews.com >, Blue
Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote:

.....

> What
> present-day studies show a prevalence of men over women to the
> alcoholic condition?

Oh, how 'bout most all of them?

> It's now generally accepted within medical
> circles that women are actually more susceptible than men to alcohol
> abuse, and subsequent dependency (thus "alcoholism"), due to their
> lower body volume.

Uh, are you confusing "alcoholism" and "alcohol abuse"?

> I don't give a shit whether anyone else believes this experience or
> not.

Uh huh.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:07:09 +0000 (UTC), "debs" <debs172@hotmail.com> wrote:

->
->
->> recall that that men invented the washing machine.
->>
->> yeah.....and they have been breaking down at inopportune moments ever
->since
->

There's two easy cures for that:

- Use the phone system which men invented to call a man who
will fix the washer.

- Take your clothes down to the river and pound them with rocks.

[Bob]

Mr. F. Le Mur wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:07:09 +0000 (UTC), "debs" <debs172@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ->
> ->
> ->> recall that that men invented the washing machine.
> ->>
> ->> yeah.....and they have been breaking down at inopportune moments ever
> ->since
> ->
>
> There's two easy cures for that:
>
> - Use the phone system which men invented to call a man who
> will fix the washer.
>
> - Take your clothes down to the river and pound them with rocks.
>
>

Women invented rocks. ;-)

Bob

[Lech K. Lesiak]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Jim Blair wrote:

> Hell no, she has bigger balls than any leader of a democracy.

Somewhat smaller than her caucus, I should think, since they dumped her
quite expeditiously.

Cheers,
Lech

[Lech K. Lesiak]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Moonraker wrote:

> legislative branch about it? I thought shenanigans like that were reserved
> for the likes of Slick Willie Clintoon.

And every other holder of that office...

America's version of "L'etat c'est moi".

Cheers,
Lech

[Jay]

"Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> wrote in message
news:bhqpro$6fk$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>
>
> James Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:02:39 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> James Cameron wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:13:17 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> James Cameron wrote:
> >>>>>
(Snip)
> >>>
> >>> A lot of men only turned up to fight in the first world war because
> >>> females stood on street corners handing out white feathers to every
> >>> man who wasn't in uniform. The second world war was merely the
> >>> conclusion of the first.
> >>
> >> That's probably the most in-depth analysis of the events that led to
the WWI
> >> and WWII I've ever read. Thanks, James. Certainly any man of reason
prefers
> >> gory, useless death on a muddy battlefield over a white feather.
> >
> > Their mothers brought them up to value death before dishonour, you
> > know. Their fathers were too busy working. A couple of years before
> > the war, mothers were chucking their sons into the sea so that other
> > harridans could get seats on the Titanic lifeboats.
> >
It's been well documented in historical books on World War 1 that most who
joined to fight did not expect the kind of situation found in the trenches
in France... a lot of them expected to return home in only a few months.
I've always been taught that trench warfare, with the exception of seiges at
fortified cities and the like, was relatively uncommon until the 20th
century - I don't think it was a case of people valuing death before
dishonour, and from some of the letters my father has, from our ancestors of
that time, they were certainly more worried about "the boys" not returning,
far moreso than any care about honour or even defeating Germany.

As to mother's chucking their sons out of Titanic lifeboats, that's just
plain wrong - many of the the lifeboats, apparently, were lowered before
they were even full, and certainly those left on deck would have had little
opportunity to jump the 50 or 60 feet? into the freezing cold water, and
then swim to the lifeboats, which they would have to find in the dark. It's
not at all plausible that more than the fittest of persons could accomplish
that.

> >>> You should also note that almost every female prime minister or
> >>> president of those countries foolish enough to elect them have managed
> >>> to involve their country in war.
> >>
> >> Really? Now that you reminded me I seem to recall Iceland attacking
Latvia
> >> and Finland later joining in a couple of years back. Surely you don't
think
> >> of Thatcher as a woman, do you?
> >
> > Bad choices.
> >
> > Iceland attacked British shipping (fishing vessels) and the Royal Navy
> > had to go and sort it out. Some Icelandic ships got damaged before
> > they surrendered.
>
> Umm, you realize we're talking about a country with no military at all?
>
> >
> > Isn't Finland the country where the female prime minister resigned
> > this year because of corruption and the female president wears a
> > swastika as part of her presidential crest?
>
> No, it isn't. The PM had to resign b/c she made classified information
public in
> order to advance her election campaign. Now this was not a major crime,
but the
> means she used to clear the mess, lies to the parliament, was.
>
> The Finnish president, as far as I know, has no presidential crest, but
her
> official flag has the old Finnish Military Commander in Chief's sign which
may
> look like a swastika to less-educated people. Civilized people of course
> immediately realize it's a mirror image of the Nazi version and know
enough
> Finnish history to remember it's been similar from year 1917, way back
before no
> one had even heard of the Nazis.
>
I could believe that... as well, I thought that the Nazis invaded Finland a
little bit there, about 60 some years back, and the Finns didn't take to it
too well. Or maybe it was Iceland... hey now, that would make for one hell
of a snowball fight, Iceland and Finland fighting it out.

[Kai]

James Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:20:17 -0400, "Jay" <jay@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> I could believe that... as well, I thought that the Nazis invaded Finland a
>> little bit there, about 60 some years back, and the Finns didn't take to it
>> too well.
>
> The Finns used Nazi equipment to fight against our Allies during the
> second world war, thereby keeping the Nazis in power for at least a
> year longer than necessary.

You of course 'forgot' to mention Finland was attacked by The Soviet Union and
none of 'your' precious Allies did nothing to help so as not to anger Stalin,
the True Great Friend. Finland was able to stop the Soviet attack and save it's
independence only through terrible sacrifices. After the peace treaty Finland
made a pact with the only country willing to help it defend itself against the
Soviets, Germany, to prepare for the next attack, which came soon enough.

>
> The Nazi-Finnish Pact of August 1940, just as the Battle of Britain
> commenced, was infamous. Most of Britain's shipping losses to German
> submarines are directly attributable to Finland's action then.

You just made that one up, didn't you? Did the Finns swim out at the Atlantic
and Nordic Seas to spot British ships or what?

>
> For some reason, the Finns think they were involved in three wars
> during WWII. Or maybe four, it depends on the Finn you're talking to.
> Towards the end of the war, they saw the Nazis were losing and so
> changed sides and attacked them.

Oh well, no wonder you've chosen the Nic you have. You too are all about making
up stories.

>
> As a non-aligned country, they were supposed to be neutral during the
> cold war, but they helped the soviets (their former enemies) as much
> as possible.

Sure they did. Like in which way?

>
> Their greatest contribution to civilisation is having the highest
> suicide rate in Europe.

That would be the greatest contribution on your part, too.

>
> If Europe had an arsehole, it would be in Helsinki.

I take it you're from Helsinki, then.

Kai

[Kai]

Sigvaldi Eggertsson wrote:
>
> Finland fought three seperate wars during WW2, they were invaded by
> the Soviets dec 1939 to march 1940, then they fought alongside the
> Germans against the Soviets from 1941 to 1944 and then they had to
> fight against the Germans to clear them out of the country in 1944. If
> they did not hurry enough the Soviets offerd to help them.

Except Finland wasn't invaded by the Soviets. The Soviets attacked, but Finland
was able to stop the attack, but had to give up some land areas to the Soviets
in 1940.

Kai

[James Cameron]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:52:48 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com>
wrote:


>> The Nazi-Finnish Pact of August 1940, just as the Battle of Britain
>> commenced, was infamous. Most of Britain's shipping losses to German
>> submarines are directly attributable to Finland's action then.
>
>You just made that one up, didn't you? Did the Finns swim out at the Atlantic
>and Nordic Seas to spot British ships or what?

Their actions gave almost total control of the Baltic Sea to the
Nazis.

Thousands of British, Canadian and American seamen died because of the
U-Boat "wolfpacks". It was much harder to destroy Nazi filth in
mid-Atlantic than it was to destroy them in their Baltic homebase.
Finland made that almost impossible.

>> For some reason, the Finns think they were involved in three wars
>> during WWII. Or maybe four, it depends on the Finn you're talking to.
>> Towards the end of the war, they saw the Nazis were losing and so
>> changed sides and attacked them.
>
>Oh well, no wonder you've chosen the Nic you have. You too are all about making
>up stories.

My name is the one I got from my father. Unlike Finns, most Britons
know who their father is.

>> Their greatest contribution to civilisation is having the highest
>> suicide rate in Europe.
>
>That would be the greatest contribution on your part, too.
>
>>
>> If Europe had an arsehole, it would be in Helsinki.
>
>I take it you're from Helsinki, then.

Would I admit that if I were? Most Finns try to pretend that they're
Swedish when they get into a civilised country. That's why they insist
on all Finns learning Swedish at school.

I may have been mistaken when I called the Finns European. Their
slanted eyes, darker hair and non-Indo European language shows them to
be more Mongolian than European. Their generally low IQ backs this up.

Suomi means mongrels, doesn't it?

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

"James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bigk9d$92nv4$1@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:52:48 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> The Nazi-Finnish Pact of August 1940, just as the Battle of Britain
> >> commenced, was infamous. Most of Britain's shipping losses to German
> >> submarines are directly attributable to Finland's action then.
> >
> >You just made that one up, didn't you? Did the Finns swim out at the
Atlantic
> >and Nordic Seas to spot British ships or what?
>
> Their actions gave almost total control of the Baltic Sea to the
> Nazis.
>
> Thousands of British, Canadian and American seamen died because of the
> U-Boat "wolfpacks". It was much harder to destroy Nazi filth in
> mid-Atlantic than it was to destroy them in their Baltic homebase.
> Finland made that almost impossible.
>
> >> For some reason, the Finns think they were involved in three wars
> >> during WWII. Or maybe four, it depends on the Finn you're talking to.
> >> Towards the end of the war, they saw the Nazis were losing and so
> >> changed sides and attacked them.
> >
> >Oh well, no wonder you've chosen the Nic you have. You too are all about
making
> >up stories.
>
> My name is the one I got from my father. Unlike Finns, most Britons
> know who their father is.
>
> >> Their greatest contribution to civilisation is having the highest
> >> suicide rate in Europe.
> >
> >That would be the greatest contribution on your part, too.
> >
> >>
> >> If Europe had an arsehole, it would be in Helsinki.
> >
> >I take it you're from Helsinki, then.
>
> Would I admit that if I were? Most Finns try to pretend that they're
> Swedish when they get into a civilised country. That's why they insist
> on all Finns learning Swedish at school.
>
> I may have been mistaken when I called the Finns European. Their
> slanted eyes, darker hair and non-Indo European language shows them to
> be more Mongolian than European. Their generally low IQ backs this up.
>
> Suomi means mongrels, doesn't it?

http://www.tamil.net/list/2001-09/msg00188.html


--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org

[Tommy]

"James Cameron" > You should also bear in mind that the "average" British IQ
is lowered
> by (I'm looking for a legal way of saying this) people of a
> non-British ancestry.

Hahaha that's why all your Doctors, Professors, Noted scientists etc, are
either Pakistani or Indian.
Is it true that when the Brits emigrate to the Spanish beaches for the
summer, your national IQ doubles ??
Cheers
Tommy

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

"James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bigq84$8kujt$1@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:57:37 +0100, "Dirk Bruere at Neopax"
> <dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
>
> >> I may have been mistaken when I called the Finns European. Their
> >> slanted eyes, darker hair and non-Indo European language shows them to
> >> be more Mongolian than European. Their generally low IQ backs this up.
> >>
> >> Suomi means mongrels, doesn't it?
> >
> >http://www.tamil.net/list/2001-09/msg00188.html
>
> Thanks for the link.
>
> U. Kingdom 100
>
> Finland 97
>
> Says it all, really.
>

> You should also bear in mind that the "average" British IQ is lowered
> by (I'm looking for a legal way of saying this) people of a
> non-British ancestry.
>
> Finland, not having been a colonial power, doesn't have this problem
> to the same extent.
>
> I understand (but will listen to argument) that the average "Finnish"
> IQ is increased by excluding Lapps from the test.

You will also find other documents with different IQ rankings.
http://www.geocities.com/dienekesp2/greekiq/index.html

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org

[Jay]

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:bigqqg$9gnar$1@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bigq84$8kujt$1@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:57:37 +0100, "Dirk Bruere at Neopax"
> > <dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> I may have been mistaken when I called the Finns European. Their
> > >> slanted eyes, darker hair and non-Indo European language shows them
to
> > >> be more Mongolian than European. Their generally low IQ backs this
up.
> > >>
> > >> Suomi means mongrels, doesn't it?
> > >
> > >http://www.tamil.net/list/2001-09/msg00188.html
> >
> > Thanks for the link.
> >
> > U. Kingdom 100
> >
> > Finland 97
> >
> > Says it all, really.
> >
>
> > You should also bear in mind that the "average" British IQ is lowered
> > by (I'm looking for a legal way of saying this) people of a
> > non-British ancestry.
> >
> > Finland, not having been a colonial power, doesn't have this problem
> > to the same extent.
> >
> > I understand (but will listen to argument) that the average "Finnish"
> > IQ is increased by excluding Lapps from the test.
>
> You will also find other documents with different IQ rankings.
> http://www.geocities.com/dienekesp2/greekiq/index.html
>

I am shocked, utterly shocked, to learn that different pages on the internet
have different results about similar topics! And here, I was believing
everything I read on the 'net!

Can anyone tell me, without referring to a link (simply telling a number
would do)... what's a "good" IQ level, for a person... is 130 considered
high, average or what?

Thanks (and I will believe ya, promise ;-)

> --
> Dirk
>
> The Consensus:-
> The political party for the new millennium
> http://www.theconsensus.org
>
>

[Michael Foster]

If Brits are so much more intelligent than Finns (and as a person who
has lived as a foreigner in both countries, I think I could rather
fairly judge this), why is it that Brits simply CAN NOT learn a foreign
language? I have yet to meet a British person who can speak any language
on the planet well, save English. Whereas I've met countless Finns who
have three or four languages under their belt...surely understanding the
complexities of grammar, syntax, etc. is a fine example of intelligence
at work?

BTW, IQ tests were debunked in America in the 80s as pseudo-science, and
are not used except for criminals and mentally retarded children. What
does this tell you about your measuring stick?

James Cameron wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:39:56 -0400, "Jay" <jay@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
> >news:bigqqg$9gnar$1@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >>
> >> "James Cameron" <buggrit@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:bigq84$8kujt$1@ID-13547.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:57:37 +0100, "Dirk Bruere at Neopax"
> >> > <dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> I may have been mistaken when I called the Finns European. Their
> >> > >> slanted eyes, darker hair and non-Indo European language shows them
> >to
> >> > >> be more Mongolian than European. Their generally low IQ backs this
> >up.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Suomi means mongrels, doesn't it?
> >> > >
> >> > >http://www.tamil.net/list/2001-09/msg00188.html
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the link.
> >> >
> >> > U. Kingdom 100
> >> >
> >> > Finland 97
> >> >
> >> > Says it all, really.
> >> >
> >>
> >> > You should also bear in mind that the "average" British IQ is lowered
> >> > by (I'm looking for a legal way of saying this) people of a
> >> > non-British ancestry.
> >> >
> >> > Finland, not having been a colonial power, doesn't have this problem
> >> > to the same extent.
> >> >
> >> > I understand (but will listen to argument) that the average "Finnish"
> >> > IQ is increased by excluding Lapps from the test.
> >>
> >> You will also find other documents with different IQ rankings.
> >> http://www.geocities.com/dienekesp2/greekiq/index.html
> >>
> >
> >I am shocked, utterly shocked, to learn that different pages on the internet
> >have different results about similar topics! And here, I was believing
> >everything I read on the 'net!
> >
> >Can anyone tell me, without referring to a link (simply telling a number
> >would do)... what's a "good" IQ level, for a person... is 130 considered
> >high, average or what?
> >
> >Thanks (and I will believe ya, promise ;-)
>
> 130 is considered good in Glasgow, average in the Black Isle and a
> downright lie in London.

[Luke]

Michael Foster wrote:
> If Brits are so much more intelligent than Finns (and as a person who
> has lived as a foreigner in both countries, I think I could rather
> fairly judge this), why is it that Brits simply CAN NOT learn a foreign
> language? I have yet to meet a British person who can speak any language
> on the planet well, save English. Whereas I've met countless Finns who
> have three or four languages under their belt...surely understanding the
> complexities of grammar, syntax, etc. is a fine example of intelligence
> at work?
>
> BTW, IQ tests were debunked in America in the 80s as pseudo-science, and
> are not used except for criminals and mentally retarded children. What
> does this tell you about your measuring stick?
>

Hi Michael,

Pienso que usted encontrará que algunos de nosotros pueden en
hecho hablan otra lengua. Usted debe también considerar que el
inglés es la lengua principal del mundo tan allí no es ninguna
razón verdadera de aprenderla.

Respeto,

Lucas

[Adam Whyte-Settlar]

"Luke" <luke@REMOVEswtechnet.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1064873194.241181@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
> Michael Foster wrote:
> > If Brits are so much more intelligent than Finns (and as a person who
> > has lived as a foreigner in both countries, I think I could rather
> > fairly judge this), why is it that Brits simply CAN NOT learn a foreign
> > language? I have yet to meet a British person who can speak any language
> > on the planet well, save English. Whereas I've met countless Finns who
> > have three or four languages under their belt...surely understanding the
> > complexities of grammar, syntax, etc. is a fine example of intelligence
> > at work?
> >
> > BTW, IQ tests were debunked in America in the 80s as pseudo-science, and
> > are not used except for criminals and mentally retarded children. What
> > does this tell you about your measuring stick?
> >
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Pienso que usted encontrará que algunos de nosotros pueden en
> hecho hablan otra lengua. Usted debe también considerar que el
> inglés es la lengua principal del mundo

No it isn't - Mandarin is. I would demonstrate my fluency but I don't have
Chinese characters on my keyboard.
A W-S




tan allí no es ninguna
> razón verdadera de aprenderla.
>
> Respeto,
>
> Lucas
>

[Michael Foster]

I'd love to hear you pronounce - I'm sure it's amazingly native-level.

English is not the most difficult language on the planet - take a look
at Mandarin, Cantonese, Greek, Finnish or Swahili for a truly difficult
language (in fact, English is one of the easiest languages on the
planet, hence why it's the lingua franca). AND, something which truly
reflects your own ignorance, even if English WAS the most difficult
language on the planet, that does not mean Brits are intelligent for it
being their mother tongue - it does not require intelligence (or really
anything at all) to learn one's mother tongue.



Luke wrote:
>
> Michael Foster wrote:
> > If Brits are so much more intelligent than Finns (and as a person who
> > has lived as a foreigner in both countries, I think I could rather
> > fairly judge this), why is it that Brits simply CAN NOT learn a foreign
> > language? I have yet to meet a British person who can speak any language
> > on the planet well, save English. Whereas I've met countless Finns who
> > have three or four languages under their belt...surely understanding the
> > complexities of grammar, syntax, etc. is a fine example of intelligence
> > at work?
> >
> > BTW, IQ tests were debunked in America in the 80s as pseudo-science, and
> > are not used except for criminals and mentally retarded children. What
> > does this tell you about your measuring stick?
> >
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Pienso que usted encontrará que algunos de nosotros pueden en
> hecho hablan otra lengua. Usted debe también considerar que el
> inglés es la lengua principal del mundo tan allí no es ninguna
> razón verdadera de aprenderla.
>
> Respeto,
>
> Lucas

[Murchadh]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:14:11 +0300, Michael Foster <mfoster@abo.fi>
wrote:

>I'd love to hear you pronounce - I'm sure it's amazingly native-level.
>
>English is not the most difficult language on the planet - take a look
>at Mandarin, Cantonese, Greek, Finnish or Swahili for a truly difficult
>language (in fact, English is one of the easiest languages on the
>planet, hence why it's the lingua franca). AND, something which truly
>reflects your own ignorance, even if English WAS the most difficult
>language on the planet, that does not mean Brits are intelligent for it
>being their mother tongue - it does not require intelligence (or really
>anything at all) to learn one's mother tongue.
>
>
>
>Luke wrote:
>>
>> Michael Foster wrote:
>> > If Brits are so much more intelligent than Finns (and as a person who
>> > has lived as a foreigner in both countries, I think I could rather
>> > fairly judge this), why is it that Brits simply CAN NOT learn a foreign
>> > language? I have yet to meet a British person who can speak any language
>> > on the planet well, save English.

You've never met a Welsh or a Gaelic speaker? Today nearly all British
Celts have successfully learned English as well as their mother
tongue. I might add that the Celtic languages are considered quite
difficult by comparison with most languages (80 on a scale of
difficulty ranging from 5 - 100) while English is a reall swine of a
language to learn fluently.


>> >Whereas I've met countless Finns who
>> > have three or four languages under their belt...surely understanding the
>> > complexities of grammar, syntax, etc. is a fine example of intelligence
>> > at work?
>> >
>> > BTW, IQ tests were debunked in America in the 80s as pseudo-science, and
>> > are not used except for criminals and mentally retarded children. What
>> > does this tell you about your measuring stick?
>> >
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Pienso que usted encontrará que algunos de nosotros pueden en
>> hecho hablan otra lengua. Usted debe también considerar que el
>> inglés es la lengua principal del mundo tan allí no es ninguna
>> razón verdadera de aprenderla.
>>
>> Respeto,
>>
>> Lucas


Murchadh