Bill Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian

On Sat, 29 May 2004 00:32:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Herman Rubin wrote:

In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
It's the black people who do not pronounce it
right after hundreds of years being in contact with it.

No black person has had hundred of years being in contact with it.

Neither has any white person hundreds of years in contact
with it.

No claim was made about white people. I am pointing out how silly his
claim is.

Slavery was ended roughly a half century before
my parents came in contact with English, and what do you
think the slave owners spoke to their slaves?

As little as possible, and they were explicitly forbidden by law to
teach them.

They were explicitly forbidden by law in some places to
teach them to read and write, but there had to be a fair
amount of vocal communication. Were slaves doing cooking
forbidden to read recipes?
---------------------
Actually, yes.
Slaves with reading material of any kind could be
whipped or killed.
Steve

You don't have to be able to read to be able to speak English. Slaves
learned English easily from their masters and some of them may have
spoken it better that many black people today.

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

Holger Dansk wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2004 00:32:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

Herman Rubin wrote:

In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
It's the black people who do not pronounce it
right after hundreds of years being in contact with it.

No black person has had hundred of years being in contact with it.

Neither has any white person hundreds of years in contact
with it.

No claim was made about white people. I am pointing out how silly his
claim is.

Slavery was ended roughly a half century before
my parents came in contact with English, and what do you
think the slave owners spoke to their slaves?

As little as possible, and they were explicitly forbidden by law to
teach them.

They were explicitly forbidden by law in some places to
teach them to read and write, but there had to be a fair
amount of vocal communication. Were slaves doing cooking
forbidden to read recipes?
---------------------
Actually, yes.
Slaves with reading material of any kind could be
whipped or killed.
Steve

You don't have to be able to read to be able to speak English. Slaves
learned English easily from their masters and some of them may have
spoken it better that many black people today.

Holger
------------------------
They didn't, they spoke "Suthun". They still do. Dumb****.
Steve

On Sat, 29 May 2004 00:32:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Herman Rubin wrote:

In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
It's the black people who do not pronounce it
right after hundreds of years being in contact with it.

No black person has had hundred of years being in contact with it.

Neither has any white person hundreds of years in contact
with it.

No claim was made about white people. I am pointing out how silly his
claim is.

Slavery was ended roughly a half century before
my parents came in contact with English, and what do you
think the slave owners spoke to their slaves?

As little as possible, and they were explicitly forbidden by law to
teach them.

They were explicitly forbidden by law in some places to
teach them to read and write, but there had to be a fair
amount of vocal communication. Were slaves doing cooking
forbidden to read recipes?
---------------------
Actually, yes.
Slaves with reading material of any kind could be
whipped or killed.
Steve

"The popular conception, even among historians, is that literacy rates in the
Southern states were generally very low. Actually, some 80 percent of whites and
free blacks, as well as 10 percent or more of slaves, could read, said Beth
Barton Schweiger, a professor of history at the University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville." (http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=22tl.h21)

Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
...
"Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD" wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
...
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
As little as possible, and they were explicitly forbidden by law
to teach them.

They were explicitly forbidden by law in some places to
teach them to read and write, but there had to be a fair
amount of vocal communication.

Not necessarily between master and slave, except perhaps the house
slaves.

Were slaves doing cooking forbidden to read recipes?

Why would they have written recipes?

where's the proof that they did not ?

If they were given written recipes, that would be tacit admission of
a crime, specifically teaching them to read.

'some places'

do you have proof that there were NO written recipes in ANY location ?

What kind of proof are you looking for?

if not, your arguement is flawed

For a class in logic, yes. For someone looking to figure out what was most
likely the case, why?

Slainte,
Fletch

"Fletch F. Fletch" wrote in message
...
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
...
"Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD" wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
...
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
As little as possible, and they were explicitly forbidden by law
to teach them.

They were explicitly forbidden by law in some places to
teach them to read and write, but there had to be a fair
amount of vocal communication.

Not necessarily between master and slave, except perhaps the house
slaves.

Were slaves doing cooking forbidden to read recipes?

Why would they have written recipes?

where's the proof that they did not ?

If they were given written recipes, that would be tacit admission of
a crime, specifically teaching them to read.

'some places'

do you have proof that there were NO written recipes in ANY location ?

What kind of proof are you looking for?

if not, your arguement is flawed

For a class in logic, yes. For someone looking to figure out what was
most
likely the case, why?

so now your standard is not 'logical true or false' , but 'what was most
likely the case' ?

nice waffle

come back when you're ready to deabte with the grown-ups

Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD wrote:
"Fletch F. Fletch" wrote in message
...
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
...
"Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD" wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
...
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
As little as possible, and they were explicitly forbidden by
law to teach them.

They were explicitly forbidden by law in some places to
teach them to read and write, but there had to be a fair
amount of vocal communication.

Not necessarily between master and slave, except perhaps the
house slaves.

Were slaves doing cooking forbidden to read recipes?

Why would they have written recipes?

where's the proof that they did not ?

If they were given written recipes, that would be tacit admission
of a crime, specifically teaching them to read.

'some places'

do you have proof that there were NO written recipes in ANY
location ?

What kind of proof are you looking for?

if not, your arguement is flawed

For a class in logic, yes. For someone looking to figure out what
was most likely the case, why?

so now your standard is not 'logical true or false' , but 'what was
most likely the case' ?

nice waffle

come back when you're ready to deabte with the grown-ups

You missed a question in your rush to condescend. Any other pathetic USENET
forensic devices you'd like to try?

Slainte,
Fletch

(Info Junkie) wrote:
"The popular conception, even among historians, is that literacy rates in the
Southern states were generally very low. Actually, some 80 percent of whites and
free blacks, as well as 10 percent or more of slaves, could read, said Beth
Barton Schweiger, a professor of history at the University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville." (http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=22tl.h21)

By the definition of "being able to read" in the 1850 census, over 99%
of Americans in 2004 are literate.

If one used "being able to read a newspaper", the fraction would have
been MUCH lower.

I have in the past quoted the Andersonville Diaries, wherein a
journalist of the time, serving in the Union Army and then captured
and imprisoned in Andersonville, reported that the Confederates there
had almost no one capable of reading and writing to a skill level
needed to do basic clerical work, and hence used Union prisoners. He
also reported that the Union prisoners asked him to read aloud the
occasional newspaper that made it into the prison, since he was able
to do so (strongly implying that many of them were not).

lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

On Sun, 30 May 2004 00:35:03 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:

(Info Junkie) wrote:
"The popular conception, even among historians, is that literacy rates in the
Southern states were generally very low. Actually, some 80 percent of whites and
free blacks, as well as 10 percent or more of slaves, could read, said Beth
Barton Schweiger, a professor of history at the University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville." (http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=22tl.h21)

By the definition of "being able to read" in the 1850 census, over 99%
of Americans in 2004 are literate.

If one used "being able to read a newspaper", the fraction would have
been MUCH lower.

I have in the past quoted the Andersonville Diaries, wherein a
journalist of the time, serving in the Union Army and then captured
and imprisoned in Andersonville, reported that the Confederates there
had almost no one capable of reading and writing to a skill level
needed to do basic clerical work, and hence used Union prisoners. He
also reported that the Union prisoners asked him to read aloud the
occasional newspaper that made it into the prison, since he was able
to do so (strongly implying that many of them were not).

All of the Georgia Dome security officers are illiterate except for one
part time employee.

lojbab

Holger

http://www.mindspring.com/~holger1/holger1.htm

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

I have in the past quoted the Andersonville Diaries, wherein a
journalist of the time, serving in the Union Army and then captured
and imprisoned in Andersonville, reported that the Confederates there
had almost no one capable of reading and writing to a skill level
needed to do basic clerical work, and hence used Union prisoners. He
also reported that the Union prisoners asked him to read aloud the
occasional newspaper that made it into the prison, since he was able
to do so (strongly implying that many of them were not).

This is consistent with the historic trend toward continuously
escalating literacy/education requirements for survival. In the 19th
century folks were mostly farmers and menial laborers, jobs which
did not require much education. In the 20th century, there were lots
of jobs in large offices where basic clerical skills level was
needed, leading into the information age where everthing
is computerized and high-tech skills became the norm for good jobs.

This is exactly why DAFNz are doing so poorly. As a group, they
reached their Peter Principle "level of genetic incompetence" in
about 1950 in terms of intellectual qualification for the types
of jobs available. In today's schools and workplace, DAFNz can't
cut it.

Except for entertainment, your IQ-75 DAFN-appropriate jobs have mostly
been replaced by robots/automation. In recent years, our garbage man
has always been a DAFN; in contrast with the UPS/Air_Express/Etc
services (white/Asian folks with hand-held parcel-tracking computers)
I've never seen a DAFN driver; DAFNz are probably avoided
not only due to dumbness, but in view of their proclivity for theft
of anything valuable. The couple of times our local post office
tried to use affirmative-action DAFN mailpersons, they didn't last long
due to FUBAR delivery problems...

What I see coming in 20-30 years, is a genetic test at about age 14
where IQ-75 LOOZerz will be sent straight to a warm fuzzy prison of
sorts, politely called a "Genetic Defective Management Facility"
which efficiently short circuits the crime/capture/conviction process.
DNA test will identify the few DAFNz actually capable of entering the
workplace, and save mass money processing the rest. Kind of the end
result of Walter Williams' proposed DAFN triage with *No_Breeding*
permitted.

Hey Bob, look for the ~30th Amendment that makes it all legal.
The Pendulum_of_Expediency is about to swing away from the liberal
extreme...

"Fletch F. Fletch" wrote in message
...
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD wrote:
"Fletch F. Fletch" wrote in message
...
Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
...
"Jasper PNL Mfg Co, LTD" wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
...
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
As little as possible, and they were explicitly forbidden by
law to teach them.

They were explicitly forbidden by law in some places to
teach them to read and write, but there had to be a fair
amount of vocal communication.

Not necessarily between master and slave, except perhaps the
house slaves.

Were slaves doing cooking forbidden to read recipes?

Why would they have written recipes?

where's the proof that they did not ?

If they were given written recipes, that would be tacit admission
of a crime, specifically teaching them to read.

'some places'

do you have proof that there were NO written recipes in ANY
location ?

What kind of proof are you looking for?

if not, your arguement is flawed

For a class in logic, yes. For someone looking to figure out what
was most likely the case, why?

so now your standard is not 'logical true or false' , but 'what was
most likely the case' ?

nice waffle

come back when you're ready to deabte with the grown-ups

You missed a question in your rush to condescend.

I missed nothing except your attempt to dilute the burden of proof, which is
on you, not me

Again, a nice waffle, but no cigar.