Roger wrote:

California Struggles to Hide Black Inferiority
Report; Posted on: 2004-07-07 00:19:25 [ Printer friendly ]

Racist if you do, racist if you don't.

by Alex Wells

New Haven, CA -- California has prohibited its public schools from
administering IQ tests to Black students since 1979. Now a White
mother has challenged the prohibition in an effort to obtain special
education for her 6-year-old Mulatto son.

When Pamela Lewis requested that her son Nicholas be given the
standardized IQ test to see if he qualified for special education, she
was informed that only students of other races may take the test. The
reason? Testing the intelligence of Blacks is "biased."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124498,00.html

And why did you dishonestly edit this article without specifying that
your paraphrase and use of sneer quotes completely changes the tone of
it?

Here is what the article *really* says:

And to think that Roger bitches at others for copyright violations.

... when they are not properly attributed (as you have a habit of
doing) or posted in their entirety (as you have a bait of doing) or
dishonestly edited (as you just did -- and the fact of which you are
trying to avoid) then yes I point that out.

No need for you to explain your contempt of law to me man.

No contempt shown, since no violation occurred.

Really?
Where is that fair use disclaimer that you posted under that copy and past
job you did?

Note that I did none of these things.

And this is why no violation occurred.

Also note that you are running from the fact that changed the article
without indicating that you were doing so, thereby earning once again
the description "lying little tommie"

You have a problem with commentary I see.

What you did was not commentary. You *changed the text* without
indicting such, and *then* commented on that change as if it were the
original.

But you appear to be so dishonest you don't even see the problem with
that.

That's what you think...

"The United States may have come a long way in the fight against
institutionalized racism but in California, black children are still
being denied access to an important educational tool.

Pamela Lewis wanted to have her 6-year-old son Nicholas take a
standardized IQ test (search) to determine if he qualifies for special
education speech therapy. Officials at his school routinely provide
the test to kids but as Lewis soon found out, not to children who are
black, due to a statewide policy that goes back to 1979.

At that time, many black kids performed poorly on the IQ test and
wound up in special education classes. A lawsuit claimed the test was
biased and a judge agreed — banning public schools from giving the
test to black children while allowing it for everyone else."

See, lying little tommie: that's the quote

Note that the test was ACTUALLY FOUND TO BE BIASED in a court of law.

And *that's* the commentary: clearly differentiated from the quote.

In what way biased? Whites, Asians, Blacks etc...All get the same test.

Here's an idea: why don't you *research* the matter before you shoot
your keyboard off.

dito

I'm not the one sneering at the court.

The way you're violating copyrights you may just end up in court....

Let me give you an example: if *you* were required to take a test,
the same as everyone else and were asked to comment on a passage which
talks about the minder popping over to the offy and hiding the swag in
the bonnet so the posty didn't see -- would you be able to? There's
no bias there, is there? Everyone takes the same test, right?

Wtf do you want the test to say, How many ounces be'z in one of dem 40's
of colt-45?

One notes that lying little tommie has conceded the point that a test
can be biased even if universally administered.

What do ya want? You want an IQ test for blacks and another one for Whites
and another for Asian's?

Like I've said: THE BELL CURVE RINGS TRUE.

And yet the only way you can support this delusion is to distort the
facts of the matter -- just like your support for the crackpot theory
that we never landed on the moon, or that the Holocaust never happened
-- or that you have a grasp of fundamental computing concepts such as
the difference between an OS and a shell...

So say the Semitic code slinger..

And given the opportunity to offer such support, lying little tommie
falls back on lying about zir respondent and substitutes personal
attack for substantive discussion (and then wonders why no one takes
zie seriously....)

Personal attack? Look in the mirror..

I do not make up reasons to dismiss your words, but merely point out
the actual facts and so demonstrate your habitual dishonesty.

Another attack from a Semite on Gentile.....Who could have seen that coming?

And one notes that lying little tommie *still* declines to offer any
factual basis for zir lies...

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 07:33:07 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

you just get sucked into racist websites exactly like 11 year
old girls do with internet perves

Sandbox Steve Walz criticizing pedophiles.

Oh the irony.