|
|
Is Bob Only Exaggerating?
MSCob (frank@clark.net)
Sun, 19 Jan 1997 16:56:13 -0500
I can't speak for Bob; so I'll mostly snip. But I'd like to redirect some
questions to Mr. Brown:
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Jeffrey G. Brown wrote:
> Sir:
>
> Your Usenet posts have raised several issues which should be resolved.
> To that end, I have compiled the following list of unanswered
> questions, and trust that you will provide the necessary
> clarification.
>
> Given the fact that you are, of course, very busy, this list will be
> reposted periodically.
> Question 9 Jan 15, 1997
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In an article dated June 1, 1996, you make the following statement:
>
> "Paul Gallagher wrote:
>
> > Subspecies, or races, in biology are defined as natural populations within
> > a species that differ genetically and that are partially isolated from
> > each other reproductively because of their different geographic ranges.
> >
> > The tendency in modern systematics is to reject the recognition of
> > subspecies altogether for all species, because the definition of
> > subspecies is arbitrary and "subspecies," however they are defined,
> > have only a transitory existence as separate entities.
>
> You know damned well that anybody who disagrees with that loses his
> job."
>
> Please cite a documented case of an individual who lost his job
> specifically because he disagreed with the definition of 'subspecies'
> as given by Mr. Gallagher.
I'd like to know of a case of someone getting tenure, within the last
decade, who has openly held these positions. And I'd like even more to
know of a case where someone openly claiming that whites are innately more
intelligent than blacks getting tenure.
In other words, Bob, exaggerates, here and in the other questions you have
posed to him.
> Question 10 Jan 15, 1997
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In an article dated August 14, 1996, you make the following statement:
>
> "At the publically supported liberal seminaries we call
> universities, what Mommy Professor teaches these clones is that
> Hitler was uniquely evil, and he was evil only because he
> opposed racial intermarriage."
>
> Please cite a documented instance of a course offerred by a US university in
> which it is taught that Hitler "was evil only because he opposed racial
> intermarriage".
Less exaggeratedly: There were other mass killings than those of the
Nazis, such as those undertaken when Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were
in power. But liberal opinion regards Hitler as far worse because of his
racial ideas. Is this the case?
I invite, of course, others to respond.
Frank
|