Bill Cosby - NAACP leaders stunned by remarks of prominent comedian

On 8 Jun 2004 07:09:10 -0700, (Dirk) wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote in message . ..

How does anyone think that it is right to not pronounce a lot of common
English words correctly?

Common English words like

Insurance
Umbrella
Install (commonly misused as a noun, btw)
Nuclear
I

...?

You have to have some loose screws to believe
that.

I've yet to hear you complain about Southern mispronunciations of the
following words. I imagine you think that it's either

a) correct, even though the dictionaries I've consulted do not support
"INsurance," "UMbrella", INstall", "Nookyouluhr" or "Ah" even as
alternative pronunciations; or

b) a lovable part of your heritage/culture/yadda yadda.

In either case--why don't you cut the brothers some slack already.
Sheesh. So long as the grammar's ok I don't really care if an
occasional "th" sound comes out like an "f", f'rinstance (a dialect
oddity some black Americans happen to share with Cockneys). Why do
you?

Because I know how bad it sounds and how black people have such low
incomes, and that they could get better jobs if they would speak
correctly, dress correctly, sit and stand correctly, and walk correctly,
etc. Their lives would be so much better.

Holger

Many regional/ethnic pronunciations are dying out in any case.
You might as well enjoy them while you can because our great-great
grandchildren, likely as not, won't have the foggiest idea of what a
"southern accent", a "Boston accent" or a "Brooklyn accent" is save
from what they hear in old movies.


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

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:39:36 -0700, "Circe" wrote:

Dirk wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote in message
. ..
How does anyone think that it is right to not pronounce a lot of
common English words correctly?

Common English words like

Insurance
Umbrella
Install (commonly misused as a noun, btw)
Nuclear
I

...?

You have to have some loose screws to believe
that.

I've yet to hear you complain about Southern mispronunciations of
the following words. I imagine you think that it's either

a) correct, even though the dictionaries I've consulted do not
support "INsurance," "UMbrella", INstall", "Nookyouluhr" or "Ah"
even as alternative pronunciations; or

b) a lovable part of your heritage/culture/yadda yadda.

In either case--why don't you cut the brothers some slack already.
Sheesh. So long as the grammar's ok I don't really care if an
occasional "th" sound comes out like an "f", f'rinstance (a dialect
oddity some black Americans happen to share with Cockneys). Why do
you?

Moreoever, the current US President--a white man born with a silver spoon in
his mouth and privileged to have one of the best educations money can
buy--cannot pronounce "nuclear" or "sovereignty" plus a half dozen other
words correctly, regularly invents words (e.g. "misunderestimate"), and
often butchers grammar and syntax (e.g., "Is our children learning?"), but I
don't hear Holger complaining about that.

Bush speaks excellent English.

Holger

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

Holger Dansk wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:51:06 -0700, "Circe"
wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:07:31 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:
Her point is that the Greeks would not have done any of these
things without slavery, which gave them the wealth and free time
to engage in such endeavors.

That's absolutely ridiculous.

It is not only not ridiculous, it's a fact. A culture cannot
engage in significant intellectual or artistic pursuits without
surplus food production (e.g., wealth). Moreover, people's ability
to produce am agricultural surplus is directly tied to their
geographical location. Asia, Europe, and northern Africa are
better suited, geographically, to surplus food production than
sub-Saharan Africa. (Aboriginal Australians and many native
Americans faced similar challenges and didn't have cultural
"floruits" as a result.) It's that simple. Asians and Europeans
aren't smarter or better than sub-Saharan Africans--they just live
in a better location, agriculturally speaking.

Boy are you mixed up and confused.

I hope you said that to the mirror.

Read Jared Diamond's _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ and get educated, Holger. With
effort, even you can outgrow and overcome racist thinking and
narrow-mindedness.
--
Be well, Barbara

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:47:03 -0700, "Circe" wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:51:06 -0700, "Circe"
wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:07:31 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote:
Her point is that the Greeks would not have done any of these
things without slavery, which gave them the wealth and free time
to engage in such endeavors.

That's absolutely ridiculous.

It is not only not ridiculous, it's a fact. A culture cannot
engage in significant intellectual or artistic pursuits without
surplus food production (e.g., wealth). Moreover, people's ability
to produce am agricultural surplus is directly tied to their
geographical location. Asia, Europe, and northern Africa are
better suited, geographically, to surplus food production than
sub-Saharan Africa. (Aboriginal Australians and many native
Americans faced similar challenges and didn't have cultural
"floruits" as a result.) It's that simple. Asians and Europeans
aren't smarter or better than sub-Saharan Africans--they just live
in a better location, agriculturally speaking.

Boy are you mixed up and confused.

I hope you said that to the mirror.

Read Jared Diamond's _Guns, Germs, and Steel_ and get educated, Holger. With
effort, even you can outgrow and overcome racist thinking and
narrow-mindedness.

Evidently, you have been reading "Catcher in The Rye" and other sick
books. Better leave that doo doo alone and help your brothers get their
act together.

Holger

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

In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:35:26 -0700, "Circe" wrote:

.....................

Oh, so it's okay to sell people into slavery if they owe you money? Gotcha.

I suggest you look at the Mosaic code, about the Hebrew
"slave". A better term would be "indentured servant",
for a period of time, and he could be redeemed. The
anti-slavery amendment permits slavery or involuntary
servitude as a punishment for crime; we would do far
better to use this than incarceration as punishment.

They have the real thing in Mauritania and have had it
for thousands of years in Sudan. Lots of children slaves.

So what? "High" cultures the world over (and particularly in Europe) had
slavery (and children slaves) for thousands of years.

Well, we are talking about now. (today) Who else still has slavery
other than the blacks in Sudan and Mauritania?

See the cited article.

Who else has LEGAL slavery?

....................

Her point is that the Greeks would not have done any of these things
without slavery, which gave them the wealth and free time to engage in
such endeavors.

One can have wealth and free time without slavery. Private
enterprise seems to do quite well in this regard, and even
non-wealthy groups of people have subsidized their religious,
scholarly, and artistic classes.

Look at the industrial revolution. How much of a role did
slavery have in it? At most, it was a source of income, but
there were other sources.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote:
That's horrible. She has to show where someone else wrote it down for
people to believe her?

You also have to show references for people to believe you.

You don't.

Therefore we don't believe you.

You are using the social science argument, which has
hindered learning. One can acquire knowledge without
wasting memory on the precise location of the piece of
information, or even knowing where it is at all. Quoting
"experts", who have become such merely by an outpouring of
textual material which may have no relevance whatever, does
not back up claims.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Holger Dansk wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:39:36 -0700, "Circe"
wrote:
Moreoever, the current US President--a white man born with a
silver spoon in his mouth and privileged to have one of the best
educations money can buy--cannot pronounce "nuclear" or
"sovereignty" plus a half dozen other words correctly, regularly
invents words (e.g. "misunderestimate"), and often butchers
grammar and syntax (e.g., "Is our children learning?"), but I
don't hear Holger complaining about that.

Bush speaks excellent English.

You proved my point. As far as you are concerned, all *white* people speak
good English, even when their English is atrocious (aka GW Bush). Thank you
for your honesty.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

Aurora (in the bathroom with her dad)--"It looks like an elephant, Daddy."
Me (later)--"You should feel flattered."

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

In article ,
toto wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:10:22 GMT, Holger Dansk
wrote:

So what? "High" cultures the world over (and particularly in Europe) had
slavery (and children slaves) for thousands of years.

Well, we are talking about now. (today) Who else still has slavery
other than the blacks in Sudan and Mauritania?

Any country with bonded labor has slavery. Bonded labor is simply
another name for it.

How much "bonded labor" is there? It is uneconomical.

Today, slavery avoids the lable by not asserting legal ownership
of the slaves, but millions of economically and socially vulnerable
people are potential slaves creating a surplus of slave labor.

This is the Marxist approach, also held by many others, that a
person is deserving of a "living wage" just by being there.

In the South in 1850, the average slave cost the equivalent of
$40,000 in today's dollars. The average slave today costs $90
and thus when s/he becomes ill and can no longer work, s/he is
dumped or killed.

This is why it is hard to establish a free society. Freeing slaves
or serfs in many places caused revolts, as the "victims" did not
want the problem of taking care of themselves. Those who want a
government guarantee have the serf mentality, and would like to
make everyone else serfs.

In the past, those who did not like the current situation could
go to a place where they could try to impose their views. Alas,
such places no longer exist, and today's totalitarians have
essentially seen to it that they cannot.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Herman Rubin wrote:
In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Holger Dansk wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:35:26 -0700, "Circe"
wrote:
Oh, so it's okay to sell people into slavery if they owe you
money? Gotcha.

I suggest you look at the Mosaic code, about the Hebrew
"slave". A better term would be "indentured servant",
for a period of time, and he could be redeemed.

The problem with "indentured servitude" in modern times (I will not speak to
the Jewish institution) is that people rarely ever pay off their debt
bondage. In fact, bondage often continues into several generations. For
example:

"Slavery takes different forms in different lands. In Pakistan and India
there is debt bondage. Poor people are tricked with promises of good jobs,
but they are isolated and must deal with their employer in every way. The
food they buy and other required things are sold only by their employers,
with very high prices. The workers are forced to stay and work until the
debt is paid off. But the deck is stacked so the debt keeps getting bigger.
The "employee" is a slave for life.
And, even beyond life. The children are kept working until the debt is paid,
which never happens. Generations are forced to work without ever seeing a
day of freedom."

Source: http://www.injusticeline.com/slave1.html

The
anti-slavery amendment permits slavery or involuntary
servitude as a punishment for crime; we would do far
better to use this than incarceration as punishment.

They have the real thing in Mauritania and have had it
for thousands of years in Sudan. Lots of children slaves.

So what? "High" cultures the world over (and particularly in
Europe) had slavery (and children slaves) for thousands of years.

Well, we are talking about now. (today) Who else still has
slavery other than the blacks in Sudan and Mauritania?

See the cited article.

Who else has LEGAL slavery?

I don't know why it matters in the slightest whether it is legal or not; it
exists everywhere and in many places, governments turn a blind eye to it and
do not enforce their laws against it. It's certainly true that Sudanese
slavery is particularly vile, but it would be worthwhile at this juncture to
note that it is the "whites" (Arabs) doing the enslaving, not the "black
savages", to use Holger's phraseology.

From http://www.iabolish.com/today/factsheet.htm:

"Slavery occurs in every continent in the world except Antarctica. A few
selected hotspots include:
ALBANIA: Teenage girls are tricked into sex slavery and trafficked by
organized crime rings
BRAZIL: Lured into the rainforest, families burn trees into charcoal at
gunpoint
BURMA: The ruling military junta enslaves its own people to build
infrastructure projects, some
benefiting US corporations.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Haitians are rounded up at random, taken across the
border, and
forced to cut cane in sugar plantations
GHANA: Families repent for sins by giving daughters as slaves to fetish
priests
INDIA: Children trapped in debt bondage roll beedi cigarettes 14 hours a
day
IVORY COAST: Child slaves forced to work on cocoa plantations
MAURITANIA: Arab-Berbers buy and sell black Africans as inheritable
property
PAKISTAN: Children with nimble fingers are forced to weave carpets in
looms
SUDAN: Arab militias from the North take Southern Sudanese women and
children in slave raids.
THAILAND: Women and children become sex slaves for tourists
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Bangladeshi boys are transported and exploited as
jockeys for
camel racing
UNITED STATES: The CIA estimates that 50,000 people are trafficked as sex
slaves, domestics,
garment, and agricultural slaves"
Please explain why the legality of the practice makes it any more or less
vile.


Her point is that the Greeks would not have done any of these
things
without slavery, which gave them the wealth and free time to
engage in such endeavors.

One can have wealth and free time without slavery.

Of course it is. I did not claim otherwise. Notwithstanding, all ancient
cultures with high floruits had slavery in some form and the existence of
slave labor was partially responsible for producing the agricultural
surpluses that allowed some members of the society to engage in pursuits
other than making a living.

Private
enterprise seems to do quite well in this regard, and even
non-wealthy groups of people have subsidized their religious,
scholarly, and artistic classes.

No doubt. This does not alter the fact that Greek culture was highly
dependent on the existence of slavery for the support of its religious,
scholarly, and artistic classes.

Look at the industrial revolution. How much of a role did
slavery have in it? At most, it was a source of income, but
there were other sources.

Income is everything, though. And income is derived from what, exactly? Why,
from people's labor! And if the labor is derived from people who are not
paid (or are paid exceedingly low wages), then the income derived from their
labor enriches the wealthy and impoverishes the poor.

The industrial revolution was a *really* bad time to be poor. It was a great
time to be rich.
--
Be well, Barbara

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

In article ,
Holger Dansk wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 01:14:15 GMT, "R. Steve Walz"
wrote:

The Greeks had a great civilization. Much greater than the Romans.
They gave us many, many things. Not just some art and some literature.

Nonsense, they had the money to afford thinkers because they had
slaves once again, but they squandered it and most Athenians wasted
their money on high living, the few thinkers were a tiny minority.

The Greeks were not famous for being rich. I don't think there is any
mention of that in their history. I'm sure that the creators of
philosophy and architecture and math and on were probably about 10 % of
their culture. Their contributions to the world were incredible. You
see, they didn't even have libraries full of books to go and read. They
had to create all of it.

They were not even 10%, but their supporters were more than 10%.
The major centers were Athens and Asia Minor, until Alexander
conquered the Persian Empire, and then it switched to Alexandria,
in Greek-controlled Egypt. There was not much mixing between
the Greeks and the Egyptians.

If papyrus had rotted ten percent faster they'd have been unknown!

The Egyptians were the ones who found or created papyrus. That, and
some engineering (the pyramids, etc.) was about all they did.

Papyrus does not last well except in Egypt. Most of the Greek
writings, not on stone inscriptions, was on parchment, which
is more durable, and an invention of the Asia Minor Greeks.

Egyptians did more than you give them credit for, and the
Greeks did not hesitate to learn from Egypt. But the pyramids
were not much of engineering, which is evidenced by the fact
that the stages leading up to it are all there, and after the
third one, they did not even try to have big ones. And they
had at least a million farmers idle during the flood which
made Egypt the best farmland at the time.

But the tombs and temples, built a millennium later, are much
better from and engineering and artistic point of view. They
were not built by unskilled labor, as the pyramids were.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558