A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.

"Bazzer Smith"  wrote in message 
news:f70ok.21421$Lt6.7131@newsfe17.ams2...
>A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>
>
>

Too much chlorine in the filtration pump.

> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.

Turn the milk^Hwater chocolatey ?

Bazzer Smith wrote:
> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.

I'm sure I read somewhere that it's a genetic thing.
No, seriously.
It's also the same reason why you see very few black swimmers on the sports 
on telly, and why you see more black boxers than white ones.
I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
 wrote:

>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 

Urban myth.
It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

JAF  writes:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>  wrote:
>
>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
>
> Urban myth.
> It's a cultural thing

Which cultura would that be?

-- 
another set of scars to boast

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:45:21 +0100, August West  wrote:

>JAF  writes:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
>>
>> Urban myth.
>> It's a cultural thing
>
>Which cultura would that be?


The one you snipped.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

JAF  writes:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:45:21 +0100, August West  wrote:
>
>>JAF  writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>>>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>>>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
>>>
>>> Urban myth.
>>> It's a cultural thing
>>
>>Which cultura would that be?
>
> The one you snipped.

No, that was just a list of things, not a culture. So, which culture?
Nigerain? West Indian? Somalian? American? Bright? Or are you suggesting
all black people, everywhere, have the same culture?

-- 
They walked along by the old canal

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:09:07 +0100, Bazzer Smith wrote:

> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.

Have you ever tried cleaning a swimming pool after a Paki's been in it?

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:02:03 +0100, Mike wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:09:07 +0100, Bazzer Smith wrote:
> 
>> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
>> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
> 
> Have you ever tried cleaning a swimming pool after a Paki's been in it?

Why? Are you suggesting that people with one racial history are in some way
dirtier than others? On what grounds? Or are you just a piece of racist
shit? So insecure of your own life that you have to attack others, because
you are to utterly worthless? Blaming other people for the fact that you
are a complete and utter failure? Leaving a trail of drool around your
bedsit, like a snail? Knuckles worn to the bone? Too stupid to masturbate
without the aid of a wallchart? Maybe you can fly... go on... give it a
go... find  a tall building and jump...


-- 
If I look confused it's because I'm thinking.

On Aug 11, 3:46 pm, Hot Badger Deluxe  wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:02:03 퍝, Mike wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:09:07 퍝, Bazzer Smith wrote:
>
> >> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> >> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>
> > Have you ever tried cleaning a swimming pool after a Paki's been in it?
>
> Why? Are you suggesting that people with one racial history are in some way
> dirtier than others? On what grounds? Or are you just a piece of racist
> shit? So insecure of your own life that you have to attack others, because
> you are to utterly worthless? Blaming other people for the fact that you
> are a complete and utter failure? Leaving a trail of drool around your
> bedsit, like a snail? Knuckles worn to the bone? Too stupid to masturbate
> without the aid of a wallchart? Maybe you can fly... go on... give it a
> go... find  a tall building and jump...
>
> --
> If I look confused it's because I'm thinking.

Man, y'all all be just a swimmin' in it, ain'tcha?

In article <g7q9dd$oej$1@aioe.org>, samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk 
says...
> Bazzer Smith wrote:
> > A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> > down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
> 
> I'm sure I read somewhere that it's a genetic thing.
> No, seriously.
> It's also the same reason why you see very few black swimmers on the sports 
> on telly, and why you see more black boxers than white ones.
> I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
> I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
> assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
> given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
> 

You'll be branded an idiot.

Firstly there are black swimmers competing at the top level. Just as 
there are white boxers at the top level. However the real reason you are 
an idiot is that black and white is not a valid description of race at a 
genetic level. The categorisation simply doesn't make biological sense. 
There is just as much genetic diversity within the two categories as 
between them. Whilst there are populations of people that share some 
significant genetic traits such as a tendency to be particularly tall, 
particularly strong etc, there are in pretty much all cases some such 
populations where the genes are also associated with white skin and some 
with black skin. The categorisation of black and white simply isn't 
relevant.

More relevant is the simple fact that competitive swimming requires a 
swimming pool. By and large in most of the world there are more swimming 
pools in areas of greater wealth. Also by and large these are places with 
a majority white population. Which makes sense, since black and white as 
a categorisation of race makes no sense biologically, but thanks to 
billions of ill educated morons around the world it often makes too much 
sense politically.

So the real reason is that there are bugger all decent Olympic sized 
swimming pools in Burkina Faso or Uganda, and that boxing gloves are 
relatively easily available world wide.

-- 
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:01:30 -0700 (PDT), d.s. wrote:

<snip>

> Man, y'all all be just a swimmin' in it, ain'tcha?

Have you considered trying to make sense?


-- 
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia

>A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.

Pool's closed.

"Hot Badger Deluxe"  wrote in message 
news:79tufcxmllqz.10i4cah9meof5.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:02:03 +0100, Mike wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:09:07 +0100, Bazzer Smith wrote:
>>
>>> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
>>> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>>
>> Have you ever tried cleaning a swimming pool after a Paki's been in it?
>
> Why? Are you suggesting that people with one racial history are in some 
> way
> dirtier than others? On what grounds? Or are you just a piece of racist
> shit? So insecure of your own life that you have to attack others, because
> you are to utterly worthless? Blaming other people for the fact that you
> are a complete and utter failure? Leaving a trail of drool around your
> bedsit, like a snail? Knuckles worn to the bone? Too stupid to masturbate
> without the aid of a wallchart? Maybe you can fly... go on... give it a
> go... find  a tall building and jump...

Calm down dear.... you're beginning to sound a little hysterical!

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:59:25 +0100, August West  wrote:

>JAF  writes:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:45:21 +0100, August West  wrote:
>>
>>>JAF  writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>>>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>>>>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>>>>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
>>>>
>>>> Urban myth.
>>>> It's a cultural thing
>>>
>>>Which cultura would that be?
>>
>> The one you snipped.
>
>No, that was just a list of things, not a culture. So, which culture?
>Nigerain? West Indian? Somalian? American? Bright? Or are you suggesting
>all black people, everywhere, have the same culture?

No, I'm not, and you know I'm not.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

Bazzer Smith wrote:
> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
> 
> 
> 
Segragation - whites get the surface, blacks the bottom

Bing Trotsky wrote:
> In article <g7q9dd$oej$1@aioe.org>, samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk
> says...
>> Bazzer Smith wrote:
>>> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
>>> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>>
>> I'm sure I read somewhere that it's a genetic thing.
>> No, seriously.
>> It's also the same reason why you see very few black swimmers on the
>> sports on telly, and why you see more black boxers than white ones.
>> I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>> I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but
>> I assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying
>> information that was given to me under the guise of a medical and
>> genetic fact.
>>
>
> You'll be branded an idiot.
>
> Firstly there are black swimmers competing at the top level. Just as
> there are white boxers at the top level.

Did I say there were none?
NO.
I said there was fewer.
That's a world of difference.
Perhaps it's you who's the idiot as you seem unable to read a simple 
sentence and understand the meaning of the words.

While we're on the subject, thanks for proving me right about one thing.
I said I would get someone attacking me for what I posted, and true to form, 
you stepped up to the podium and took that title.
So predictable.

Bing Trotsky wrote:
> In article <g7q9dd$oej$1@aioe.org>, samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk
> says...
>> Bazzer Smith wrote:
>>> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
>>> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>>
>> I'm sure I read somewhere that it's a genetic thing.
>> No, seriously.
>> It's also the same reason why you see very few black swimmers on the
>> sports on telly, and why you see more black boxers than white ones.
>> I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>> I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but
>> I assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying
>> information that was given to me under the guise of a medical and
>> genetic fact.
>>
>
> You'll be branded an idiot.
>
> Firstly there are black swimmers competing at the top level. Just as
> there are white boxers at the top level. However the real reason you
> are an idiot is that black and white is not a valid description of
> race at a genetic level. The categorisation simply doesn't make
> biological sense. There is just as much genetic diversity within the
> two categories as between them. Whilst there are populations of
> people that share some significant genetic traits such as a tendency
> to be particularly tall, particularly strong etc, there are in pretty
> much all cases some such populations where the genes are also
> associated with white skin and some with black skin. The
> categorisation of black and white simply isn't relevant.
>
> More relevant is the simple fact that competitive swimming requires a
> swimming pool.

Or a river, or a lake, or a coast, or a hole in the ground with some water 
in it.

> By and large in most of the world there are more
> swimming pools in areas of greater wealth.

Lakes, rivers and the sea are generally cheaper than swimming pools.
What did people learn to swim in before swimming pools were invented.
"Gee paw, I'm a-goin't fer a dip in the ceeement pond"

In article , 
anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com says...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>  wrote:
> 
> >I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
> >I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
> >assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
> >given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
> 
> Urban myth.
> It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
> menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
> sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.

Bollocks. There are as many black kids as white in the local pool over 
the summer; and a fair few black adults during the year too. I see them 
in the training lanes, in the diving lessons, in the swimming lanes and 
in the main pool every week.

On Aug 12, 12:33 pm, Amethyst Deceiver 
wrote:
> In article ,
> anarchSPAMKIL...@ntlworld.com says...
>
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
> >  wrote:
>
> > >I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
> > >I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I
> > >assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was
> > >given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact.
>
> > Urban myth.
> > It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
> > menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
> > sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.
>
> Bollocks. There are as many black kids as white in the local pool over
> the summer; and a fair few black adults during the year too. I see them
> in the training lanes, in the diving lessons, in the swimming lanes and
> in the main pool every week.

And if you had been watching the olympics, you would have seen back
swimmers competing. If you missed the finals of the 4x100 freestyle
relay, you missed one of the greatest swims of all time.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:24:07 +0100, Aidy 
wrote the following to uk.misc:

>>A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
>> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>
> Pool's closed. 

Either that or they heard an odious troll with the some tired old hooks that
have been doing the rounds for aeons was about to show up and decided to
give him a miss. I know it's the summer holidays, but *really*.

mh.
-- 
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk

From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:15:36 +0100, JAF 
wrote:

>It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
>menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
>sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.

What a fuss the above paragraph has caused.
That's what happens when people read the words, but not the meaning.

Maybe I should have added - "While the majority of Brits don't seem to mind
wallowing in each other's ordure."
'The cultural thing' is the British habit of sitting in a bath of your own
dirt, which most of the rest of the world don't do, and think we are a bit
odd for doing so.  Not so long ago it was positively encouraged - when it
took nearly half a day to heat a bath of water, whole families shared the
same bath.  Even the French thought we were revolting for that.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

"JAF"  wrote in message 
news:sgq2a45lg0enl64nssl8j6rg9asq2q60f6@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:15:36 +0100, JAF 
> wrote:
>
>>It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of 
>>chemicals,
>>menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
>>sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.
>
> What a fuss the above paragraph has caused.
> That's what happens when people read the words, but not the meaning.
>
> Maybe I should have added - "While the majority of Brits don't seem to 
> mind
> wallowing in each other's ordure."
> 'The cultural thing' is the British habit of sitting in a bath of your own
> dirt, which most of the rest of the world don't do


So you're saying that black people aren't British?

On Aug 12, 12:22 pm, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
 wrote:

> Did I say there were none?
> NO.
> I said there was fewer.
> That's a world of difference.

Then it is a trivially stupid thing to say, since there are fewer
black people demographically.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:03:01 +0100, "mentalguy2008"
 wrote:

>
>So you're saying that black people aren't British? 
>
Fuck off.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Aug 12, 12:27 pm, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
 wrote:
> Bing Trotsky wrote:
> > In article <g7q9dd$oe...@aioe.org>, samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk
> > says...
> >> Bazzer Smith wrote:
> >>> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> >>> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>
> >> I'm sure I read somewhere that it's a genetic thing.
> >> No, seriously.
> >> It's also the same reason why you see very few black swimmers on the
> >> sports on telly, and why you see more black boxers than white ones.
> >> I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
> >> I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but
> >> I assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying
> >> information that was given to me under the guise of a medical and
> >> genetic fact.
>
> > You'll be branded an idiot.
>
> > Firstly there are black swimmers competing at the top level. Just as
> > there are white boxers at the top level. However the real reason you
> > are an idiot is that black and white is not a valid description of
> > race at a genetic level. The categorisation simply doesn't make
> > biological sense. There is just as much genetic diversity within the
> > two categories as between them. Whilst there are populations of
> > people that share some significant genetic traits such as a tendency
> > to be particularly tall, particularly strong etc, there are in pretty
> > much all cases some such populations where the genes are also
> > associated with white skin and some with black skin. The
> > categorisation of black and white simply isn't relevant.
>
> > More relevant is the simple fact that competitive swimming requires a
> > swimming pool.
>
> Or a river, or a lake, or a coast, or a hole in the ground with some water
> in it.
>
> > By and large in most of the world there are more
> > swimming pools in areas of greater wealth.
>
> Lakes, rivers and the sea are generally cheaper than swimming pools.
> What did people learn to swim in before swimming pools were invented.
> "Gee paw, I'm a-goin't fer a dip in the ceeement pond"

But we are talking about why there are fewer black people at swimming
pools, so open water swimming is irrelevant.

On Aug 12, 1:15 pm, JAF  wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:03:01 +0100, "mentalguy2008"
>
>  wrote:
>
> >So you're saying that black people aren't British?
>
> Fuck off.

Both of you.

(used to be) Fat Sam wrote:
> Bing Trotsky wrote:
>> In article <g7q9dd$oej$1@aioe.org>, samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk
>> says...
>>> Bazzer Smith wrote:
>>>> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
>>>> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>>> I'm sure I read somewhere that it's a genetic thing.
>>> No, seriously.
>>> It's also the same reason why you see very few black swimmers on the
>>> sports on telly, and why you see more black boxers than white ones.
>>> I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>> I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but
>>> I assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying
>>> information that was given to me under the guise of a medical and
>>> genetic fact.
>>>
>> You'll be branded an idiot.
>>
>> Firstly there are black swimmers competing at the top level. Just as
>> there are white boxers at the top level. However the real reason you
>> are an idiot is that black and white is not a valid description of
>> race at a genetic level. The categorisation simply doesn't make
>> biological sense. There is just as much genetic diversity within the
>> two categories as between them. Whilst there are populations of
>> people that share some significant genetic traits such as a tendency
>> to be particularly tall, particularly strong etc, there are in pretty
>> much all cases some such populations where the genes are also
>> associated with white skin and some with black skin. The
>> categorisation of black and white simply isn't relevant.
>>
>> More relevant is the simple fact that competitive swimming requires a
>> swimming pool.
> 
> Or a river, or a lake, or a coast, or a hole in the ground with some water 
> in it.

It also needs a trainer or coach, these are normally found where the 
swimming pools are. Flailing your arm about while making progress 
through the water isn't competitive swimming.

"JAF"  wrote in message 
news:k5s2a49jfj6lgju481669bv7dje4u0biqa@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:03:01 +0100, "mentalguy2008"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>So you're saying that black people aren't British?
>>
> Fuck off.

Answer the question.

In article <g7rog1$au5$1@aioe.org>, samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk 
says...
> Bing Trotsky wrote:
> 
> > By and large in most of the world there are more
> > swimming pools in areas of greater wealth.
> 
> Lakes, rivers and the sea are generally cheaper than swimming pools.
> What did people learn to swim in before swimming pools were invented.
> "Gee paw, I'm a-goin't fer a dip in the ceeement pond" 
> 

Have you ever swum competitively? I used to when I was a kid. I've also 
swum in the sea and in rivers. Show me a river in which you can learn to 
do a racing turn or a backstroke start. Show me the sea in which you can 
learn how to get the breathing right for butterfly.

Of course you can learn to swim without the facilities. What you can't 
learn to do is compete at Olympic level.

-- 
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.

JAF  writes:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:59:25 +0100, August West  wrote:
>
>>JAF  writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:45:21 +0100, August West  wrote:
>>>
>>>>JAF  writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>>>>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>>>>>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>>>>>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Urban myth.
>>>>> It's a cultural thing
>>>>
>>>>Which cultura would that be?
>>>
>>> The one you snipped.
>>
>>No, that was just a list of things, not a culture. So, which culture?
>>Nigerain? West Indian? Somalian? American? Bright? Or are you suggesting
>>all black people, everywhere, have the same culture?
>
> No, I'm not, and you know I'm not.

So your statement's nonsense, then? Becasue if they don't share a
culture, it can't be cultural.

-- 
I'm just a drunk in a band

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:09:09 +0100, August West wrote:

> JAF  writes:
> 
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:59:25 +0100, August West  wrote:
>>
>>>JAF  writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:45:21 +0100, August West  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>JAF  writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>>>>>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>>>>>>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>>>>>>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Urban myth.
>>>>>> It's a cultural thing
>>>>>
>>>>>Which cultura would that be?
>>>>
>>>> The one you snipped.
>>>
>>>No, that was just a list of things, not a culture. So, which culture?
>>>Nigerain? West Indian? Somalian? American? Bright? Or are you suggesting
>>>all black people, everywhere, have the same culture?
>>
>> No, I'm not, and you know I'm not.
> 
> So your statement's nonsense, then? Becasue if they don't share a
> culture, it can't be cultural.

Numerous cultures can share certain attributes. How is any one of these
attributes then not cultural?


-- 
The revolution will not be documented

Hot Badger Deluxe  writes:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:09:09 +0100, August West wrote:
>
>> JAF  writes:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:59:25 +0100, August West  wrote:
>>>
>>>>JAF  writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:45:21 +0100, August West  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>JAF  writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>>>>>>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>>>>>>>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>>>>>>>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Urban myth.
>>>>>>> It's a cultural thing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which cultura would that be?
>>>>>
>>>>> The one you snipped.
>>>>
>>>>No, that was just a list of things, not a culture. So, which culture?
>>>>Nigerain? West Indian? Somalian? American? Bright? Or are you suggesting
>>>>all black people, everywhere, have the same culture?
>>>
>>> No, I'm not, and you know I'm not.
>> 
>> So your statement's nonsense, then? Becasue if they don't share a
>> culture, it can't be cultural.
>
> Numerous cultures can share certain attributes. How is any one of
> these attributes then not cultural?

True; although I was talking in the specific, not the general. Whatever,
JAF's argument is nonsense.

-- 
Just tell me where it hurts you, honey, and I'll tell you who to call

"August West"  wrote in message 
news:87iqu6weax.fsf@news2.kororaa.com...
> Hot Badger Deluxe  writes:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:09:09 +0100, August West wrote:
>>
>>> JAF  writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:59:25 +0100, August West  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>JAF  writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:45:21 +0100, August West  
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JAF  writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>>>>>>>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, 
>>>>>>>>>but I
>>>>>>>>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information 
>>>>>>>>>that was
>>>>>>>>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Urban myth.
>>>>>>>> It's a cultural thing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which cultura would that be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The one you snipped.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that was just a list of things, not a culture. So, which culture?
>>>>>Nigerain? West Indian? Somalian? American? Bright? Or are you 
>>>>>suggesting
>>>>>all black people, everywhere, have the same culture?
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not, and you know I'm not.
>>>
>>> So your statement's nonsense, then? Becasue if they don't share a
>>> culture, it can't be cultural.
>>
>> Numerous cultures can share certain attributes. How is any one of
>> these attributes then not cultural?
>
> True; although I was talking in the specific, not the general. Whatever,
> JAF's argument is nonsense.

Some people become hysterical when they see anything about "black people". 
In this case, he's actually gone to great length trying to show us that 
black people are quite different to white, and somehow superior because they 
don't appear to use swimming pools as much. He sounds like a racist to me, 
denigrating white people as dirty and unhygenic.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:09:09 +0100, August West  wrote:

>So your statement's nonsense, then? Becasue if they don't share a
>culture, it can't be cultural.

Of course it can.
They can share an element of culture, a meme, if you will.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:31:02 +0100, August West  wrote:

>Whatever,
>JAF's argument is nonsense.

Not if you read into it more than just a bundle of words.
Say, meaning for instance.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

JAF  wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
> wrote:
>
>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
>
>Urban myth.
>It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
>menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
>sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.

Blimey! I didn't realise that they were holding the swimming events at
Keith Moon's old gaff...

JAF  writes:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:31:02 +0100, August West  wrote:
>
>>Whatever,
>>JAF's argument is nonsense.
>
> Not if you read into it more than just a bundle of words.
> Say, meaning for instance.

The meaning is crap, as well, as Linz pointed out to you.

-- 
We're middle-class, we're middle-aged

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:41:43 +0100, mentalguy2008 wrote:

<snip>

> Some people become hysterical when they see anything about "black people". 
> In this case, he's actually gone to great length trying to show us that 
> black people are quite different to white, and somehow superior because they 
> don't appear to use swimming pools as much. He sounds like a racist to me, 
> denigrating white people as dirty and unhygenic.

I remember a story from some years ago - a group of Bayaka Pigmy musicians
came to the UK to perform a concert (and their music is wonderful). They
were amazed that people used toilet paper, rather than washing one's arse
in water, which was much more hygienic. Were they being racist?

The word "culture" exists for a reason - people are different. Not better
or worse, just different.


-- 
It's raining soup
and I've got a fork

In article , 
anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com says...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:15:36 +0100, JAF 
> wrote:
> 
> >It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
> >menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
> >sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.
> 
> What a fuss the above paragraph has caused.
> That's what happens when people read the words, but not the meaning.
> 
> Maybe I should have added - "While the majority of Brits don't seem to mind
> wallowing in each other's ordure."
> 'The cultural thing' is the British habit of sitting in a bath of your own
> dirt, which most of the rest of the world don't do, and think we are a bit
> odd for doing so.  Not so long ago it was positively encouraged - when it
> took nearly half a day to heat a bath of water, whole families shared the
> same bath.  Even the French thought we were revolting for that.

I'm not sure what that has to do with swimming, JAF.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:50:47 +0100, August West  wrote:

>JAF  writes:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:31:02 +0100, August West  wrote:
>>
>>>Whatever,
>>>JAF's argument is nonsense.
>>
>> Not if you read into it more than just a bundle of words.
>> Say, meaning for instance.
>
>The meaning is crap, as well, as Linz pointed out to you.

Suit yourself.
I know what I meant, and it bears no relation to what you seem to think I
meant.

I'm done now.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:50:41 +0100, Jeff York  wrote:

>JAF  wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
>>
>>Urban myth.
>>It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
>>menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
>>sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.
>
>Blimey! I didn't realise that they were holding the swimming events at
>Keith Moon's old gaff...

At last, someone with a sense of humour.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

"Hot Badger Deluxe"  wrote in message 
news:l5fdyhpapua9.1rgt3c55eag53.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:41:43 +0100, mentalguy2008 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Some people become hysterical when they see anything about "black 
>> people".
>> In this case, he's actually gone to great length trying to show us that
>> black people are quite different to white, and somehow superior because 
>> they
>> don't appear to use swimming pools as much. He sounds like a racist to 
>> me,
>> denigrating white people as dirty and unhygenic.
>
> I remember a story from some years ago - a group of Bayaka Pigmy musicians
> came to the UK to perform a concert (and their music is wonderful). They
> were amazed that people used toilet paper, rather than washing one's arse
> in water, which was much more hygienic. Were they being racist?

Well, I don't think so. But if I said that Indians were dirty and smelly 
because they bathe in the Ganges, I'd bet money that someone would start 
accusing me. He's inferring that black people are reluctant to swim in 
polluted water, but white people aren't. If people want to keep throwing 
accusations of racism where none exists, then they shouldn't be making posts 
which define racial differences like that.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:01:00 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver
 wrote:

>In article , 
>anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com says...
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:15:36 +0100, JAF 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
>> >menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
>> >sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.
>> 
>> What a fuss the above paragraph has caused.
>> That's what happens when people read the words, but not the meaning.
>> 
>> Maybe I should have added - "While the majority of Brits don't seem to mind
>> wallowing in each other's ordure."
>> 'The cultural thing' is the British habit of sitting in a bath of your own
>> dirt, which most of the rest of the world don't do, and think we are a bit
>> odd for doing so.  Not so long ago it was positively encouraged - when it
>> took nearly half a day to heat a bath of water, whole families shared the
>> same bath.  Even the French thought we were revolting for that.
>
>I'm not sure what that has to do with swimming, JAF. 

I'm sure if you thought about it a bit and used the imagination and
intelligence that I know very well that you have, you'd see it.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:11:15 +0100, mentalguy2008 wrote:

> "Hot Badger Deluxe"  wrote in message 
> news:l5fdyhpapua9.1rgt3c55eag53.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:41:43 +0100, mentalguy2008 wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Some people become hysterical when they see anything about "black 
>>> people".
>>> In this case, he's actually gone to great length trying to show us that
>>> black people are quite different to white, and somehow superior because 
>>> they
>>> don't appear to use swimming pools as much. He sounds like a racist to 
>>> me,
>>> denigrating white people as dirty and unhygenic.
>>
>> I remember a story from some years ago - a group of Bayaka Pigmy musicians
>> came to the UK to perform a concert (and their music is wonderful). They
>> were amazed that people used toilet paper, rather than washing one's arse
>> in water, which was much more hygienic. Were they being racist?
> 
> Well, I don't think so. But if I said that Indians were dirty and smelly 
> because they bathe in the Ganges, I'd bet money that someone would start 
> accusing me. He's inferring that black people are reluctant to swim in 
> polluted water, but white people aren't. If people want to keep throwing 
> accusations of racism where none exists, then they shouldn't be making posts 
> which define racial differences like that.

It's when one suggests that one culture is better than another, without
accepting that there are reasons for cultural differences. Why does it
matter that they are (allegedly) dirty and smelly? They bathe in the Ganges
for reasons either of culture, or because there is nowhere else to bathe.
Comparing elements of a culture, without looking at the reasons, is racism.


-- 
Chitty Chitty Bang & Olufsen.

"(used to be) Fat Sam"  wrote in message 
news:g7rog1$au5$1@aioe.org...
> Bing Trotsky wrote:
>> In article <g7q9dd$oej$1@aioe.org>, samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk
>> says...
>>> Bazzer Smith wrote:
>>>> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
>>>> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>>>
>>> I'm sure I read somewhere that it's a genetic thing.
>>> No, seriously.
>>> It's also the same reason why you see very few black swimmers on the
>>> sports on telly, and why you see more black boxers than white ones.
>>> I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>> I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but
>>> I assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying
>>> information that was given to me under the guise of a medical and
>>> genetic fact.
>>>
>>
>> You'll be branded an idiot.
>>
>> Firstly there are black swimmers competing at the top level. Just as
>> there are white boxers at the top level. However the real reason you
>> are an idiot is that black and white is not a valid description of
>> race at a genetic level. The categorisation simply doesn't make
>> biological sense. There is just as much genetic diversity within the
>> two categories as between them. Whilst there are populations of
>> people that share some significant genetic traits such as a tendency
>> to be particularly tall, particularly strong etc, there are in pretty
>> much all cases some such populations where the genes are also
>> associated with white skin and some with black skin. The
>> categorisation of black and white simply isn't relevant.
>>
>> More relevant is the simple fact that competitive swimming requires a
>> swimming pool.
>
> Or a river, or a lake, or a coast, or a hole in the ground with some water 
> in it.
>
>> By and large in most of the world there are more
>> swimming pools in areas of greater wealth.
>
> Lakes, rivers and the sea are generally cheaper than swimming pools.
> What did people learn to swim in before swimming pools were invented.
> "Gee paw, I'm a-goin't fer a dip in the ceeement pond"


Most people didn't learn to swim.
Few rivers or lakes are suitable - too dangerous.



>
>

Bazzer Smith  wrote in message
news:f70ok.21421$Lt6.7131@newsfe17.ams2...
> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>
>
>

You won't see many "persons of colour", buying or selling,
at carboot sales.

ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

In article , 
anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com says...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:50:47 +0100, August West  wrote:
> 
> >JAF  writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:31:02 +0100, August West  wrote:
> >>
> >>>Whatever,
> >>>JAF's argument is nonsense.
> >>
> >> Not if you read into it more than just a bundle of words.
> >> Say, meaning for instance.
> >
> >The meaning is crap, as well, as Linz pointed out to you.
> 
> Suit yourself.
> I know what I meant, and it bears no relation to what you seem to think I
> meant.

If enough people fail to understand what you meant, perhaps there's a 
problem with the writer rather than the reader.

In article , 
anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com says...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:01:00 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver
>  wrote:
> 
> >In article , 
> >anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com says...
> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:15:36 +0100, JAF 
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
> >> >menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
> >> >sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.
> >> 
> >> What a fuss the above paragraph has caused.
> >> That's what happens when people read the words, but not the meaning.
> >> 
> >> Maybe I should have added - "While the majority of Brits don't seem to mind
> >> wallowing in each other's ordure."
> >> 'The cultural thing' is the British habit of sitting in a bath of your own
> >> dirt, which most of the rest of the world don't do, and think we are a bit
> >> odd for doing so.  Not so long ago it was positively encouraged - when it
> >> took nearly half a day to heat a bath of water, whole families shared the
> >> same bath.  Even the French thought we were revolting for that.
> >
> >I'm not sure what that has to do with swimming, JAF. 
> 
> I'm sure if you thought about it a bit and used the imagination and
> intelligence that I know very well that you have, you'd see it.

Cop-out.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:04:47 +0100, Amethyst Deceiver
 wrote:

>
>Cop-out.

Not at all.  The intended humour wasn't clear.  maybe that's the medium at
fault.  But I'd have thought he list itself showed that it wasn't entirely
earnest.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Aug 11, 3:09 pm, "Bazzer Smith"  wrote:
> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.


I see blacks in municipal pools, you just won't see them in the elite
levels of competition.

Now of course, those who readily admit that blacks have an advantage
on the track will scream racism when you point out they don't fare
well in elite swimming.

They'll point out a tiny handful of mixed-race swimmers who have made
a tiny blip on the swimming radar medaling in sprint events. None of
them have been dark black of obvious direct African descent.

They'll concoct every sort of reason why - all of which of course are
somehow related to racism - "The Man" oppressing them, lack of access
to facilities, etc. The fact that there's not a lot of money in
swimming might be a minor factor but they utterly refuse to admit the
most obvious reason - there are physiological barriers to black
success in swimming.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 at 11:48:55, obbzerver@yahoo.com wrote in uk.legal :
>
>Now of course, those who readily admit that blacks have an advantage
>on the track will scream racism when you point out they don't fare
>well in elite swimming.
>
>They'll point out a tiny handful of mixed-race swimmers who have made
>a tiny blip on the swimming radar medaling in sprint events. None of
>them have been dark black of obvious direct African descent.
>
>They'll concoct every sort of reason why - all of which of course are
>somehow related to racism - "The Man" oppressing them, lack of access
>to facilities, etc. The fact that there's not a lot of money in
>swimming might be a minor factor but they utterly refuse to admit the
>most obvious reason - there are physiological barriers to black
>success in swimming.

I've heard various half-serious reasons given - here are a couple :

The home country is drought-ridden.

They dare not swim at home, due to crocodiles/water-borne diseases.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

"Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )" 
 wrote in message 
news:6ge241Fdc141U1@mid.individual.net...
> Bazzer Smith  wrote in message
> news:f70ok.21421$Lt6.7131@newsfe17.ams2...
>> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
>> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You won't see many "persons of colour", buying or selling,
> at carboot sales.

No because they don't have car boots.

>
> ps
> What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
> and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
> http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
> or nutteingd in a search engine.
>
>
>
>

Bazzer Smith wrote:
> "Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script )"
>  wrote in message
> news:6ge241Fdc141U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Bazzer Smith  wrote in message
>> news:f70ok.21421$Lt6.7131@newsfe17.ams2...
>>> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
>>> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You won't see many "persons of colour", buying or selling,
>> at carboot sales.
>
> No because they don't have car boots.

They do, actually, but they're too full of bass bins to contain anything 
else.

Bazzer Smith laid this down on his screen :
> A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.

Who are you talking about, the Welsh ?

-- 
Count Baldoni

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:09:07 +0100, "Bazzer Smith" 
wrote:

>A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
>down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.

They're probably worrying about their skin colouring washing off, and
turning white. It happened to Michael Jackson.
-- 
YouTube Video of MI5 HorrorFags; www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e9x0TwHkbY
Jealous Gay Agents Masturbating Outside Window; www.mi5.com/evidence/#britspy
MI5 Tried to Kill Me in Florida 17/Nov/2001; www.mi5.com/evidence/#deathsquad
MindControl Torture and Proof It's Real; www.mi5.com/evidence/mc/mc.htm

On Aug 11, 2:05 pm, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
 wrote:
> Bazzer Smith wrote:
> > A certian lack of our darker skinned cousins
> > down the pool. Are they banned from going swimminig.
>
> I'm sure I read somewhere that it's a genetic thing.
> No, seriously.
> It's also the same reason why you see very few black swimmers on the sports
> on telly, and why you see more black boxers than white ones.
> I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
> I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I
> assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was
> given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact.

Bullshit.  There are many more pools in upper-class white
neighborhoods, schools and homes than in poorer neighborhoods.

mlw

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:15:36 +0100, JAF wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>  wrote:
> 
>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
> 
> Urban myth.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/2/429

"Racial Differences in Bone Density between Young Adult Black and 
 White Subjects Persist after Adjustment for Anthropometric, Lifestyle,
 and Biochemical Differences".

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:15:36 +0100, JAF wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
>> 
>> Urban myth.
>
> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/2/429
>
> "Racial Differences in Bone Density between Young Adult Black and 
>  White Subjects Persist after Adjustment for Anthropometric, Lifestyle,
>  and Biochemical Differences".

Although I question the broad use of "black" here: a SA Bushman or
Kenyan maasai, has substantially different body types from yer average
Nigerian Igbo.

-- 
red rabbit is at a zoo

In article , august@kororaa.com says...
> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:15:36 +0100, JAF wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
> >>  wrote:
> >> 
> >>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
> >>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
> >>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
> >>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
> >> 
> >> Urban myth.
> >
> > http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/2/429
> >
> > "Racial Differences in Bone Density between Young Adult Black and 
> >  White Subjects Persist after Adjustment for Anthropometric, Lifestyle,
> >  and Biochemical Differences".
> 
> Although I question the broad use of "black" here: a SA Bushman or
> Kenyan maasai, has substantially different body types from yer average
> Nigerian Igbo.
> 

The same with "white". Though to a slightly lesser extent. Compare 
Norwegians with Sicilians.

As I said before, the idea of black and white races has pretty much no 
validity when it comes to biology. Or culture. Just because skin colour 
is something visually obvious doesn't make it a marker that has any other 
real significance.

-- 
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.

Bing Trotsky  writes:

> In article , august@kororaa.com says...
>> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:15:36 +0100, JAF wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>>I'm certain it's because they have a higher density in their bones.
>> >>>I'm sure I'll now be branded a racist for making that statement, but I 
>> >>>assure whoever makes that accusation, I'm just relaying information that was 
>> >>>given to me under the guise of a medical and genetic fact. 
>> >> 
>> >> Urban myth.
>> >
>> > http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/2/429
>> >
>> > "Racial Differences in Bone Density between Young Adult Black and 
>> >  White Subjects Persist after Adjustment for Anthropometric, Lifestyle,
>> >  and Biochemical Differences".
>> 
>> Although I question the broad use of "black" here: a SA Bushman or
>> Kenyan maasai, has substantially different body types from yer average
>> Nigerian Igbo.
>> 
>
> The same with "white". Though to a slightly lesser extent. Compare 
> Norwegians with Sicilians.

True enough; I just couldn't think of such extreme examples: Europe's so
much smaller than Africa!

> As I said before, the idea of black and white races has pretty much no 
> validity when it comes to biology. Or culture. Just because skin colour 
> is something visually obvious doesn't make it a marker that has any other 
> real significance.

Quite so. In many ways, it's a trivial difference, on its own.

-- 
One of these days I'm gonna pull myself together

On 12 Aug, 14:50, Jeff York  wrote:
> JAF  wrote:
> >On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 +0100, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
> > wrote:
>
> >It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
> >menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
> >sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.
>
==========================

I thought it was mainly a religious prohibition - about not being
allowed to see a girl in a bikini.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:41:32 +0100, August West wrote:

> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
> 
>> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/2/429
>>
>> "Racial Differences in Bone Density between Young Adult Black and 
>>  White Subjects Persist after Adjustment for Anthropometric, Lifestyle,
>>  and Biochemical Differences".
> 
> Although I question the broad use of "black" here: a SA Bushman or
> Kenyan maasai, has substantially different body types from yer average
> Nigerian Igbo.

Californian study, innit, so "black" means "African American" which means
"people most of whose great^n-grandparents lived in sub-Saharan Africa".

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:41:32 +0100, August West wrote:
>
>> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/2/429
>>>
>>> "Racial Differences in Bone Density between Young Adult Black and 
>>>  White Subjects Persist after Adjustment for Anthropometric, Lifestyle,
>>>  and Biochemical Differences".
>> 
>> Although I question the broad use of "black" here: a SA Bushman or
>> Kenyan maasai, has substantially different body types from yer average
>> Nigerian Igbo.
>
> Californian study, innit, so "black" means "African American" which means
> "people most of whose great^n-grandparents lived in sub-Saharan Africa".

More closely drawn that that, even: Western sub-Saharan Africa.

-- 
The key to performance is elegance, not battalions of special cases

August West  writes:

> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:41:32 +0100, August West wrote:
>>
>>> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> 
>>>> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/2/429
>>>>
>>>> "Racial Differences in Bone Density between Young Adult Black and 
>>>>  White Subjects Persist after Adjustment for Anthropometric, Lifestyle,
>>>>  and Biochemical Differences".
>>> 
>>> Although I question the broad use of "black" here: a SA Bushman or
>>> Kenyan maasai, has substantially different body types from yer average
>>> Nigerian Igbo.
>>
>> Californian study, innit, so "black" means "African American" which means
>> "people most of whose great^n-grandparents lived in sub-Saharan Africa".
>
> More closely drawn that that, even: Western sub-Saharan Africa.
From The Gambia to the Congo, roughly.

[Hit send too soon]
-- 
In the bitter dance of loneliness fading into space

On Aug 19, 5:08 am, Ishtar  wrote:
> On 12 Aug, 14:50, Jeff York  wrote:> JAF  wrote:
> > >On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 퍝, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
> > > wrote:
>
> > >It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
> > >menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
> > >sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.
>
> ==========================
>
> I thought it was mainly a religious prohibition - about not being
> allowed to see a girl in a bikini.

Which is the only thing that really matters to some people. They will
gladly ingest other people's vomit, feces,menses etc., but to see a
girl in a bikini would defile their purity.
Which is why some UK councils are offering certain religious groups
their own exclusive times for using the swimming pools, in 'modest'
dress, with whites excluded. In this way they can protect themselves
from the calamity of being defiled by the sight of white girls in
bikinis.
It's a re-run of Ireland in the 1950s and  my heart goes out to these
tragic victims of religious abuse.
(Don't have link to that story, but read it a few months ago.)

On 19 Aug, 15:46, Ishtar  wrote:
> On Aug 19, 5:08 am, Ishtar  wrote:
>
> > On 12 Aug, 14:50, Jeff York  wrote:> JAF  wrote:
> > > >On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 퍝, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
> > > >menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
> > > >sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.
>
> > ==========================
>
> > I thought it was mainly a religious prohibition - about not being
> > allowed to see a girl in a bikini.
>
> Which is the only thing that really matters to some people. They will
> gladly ingest other people's vomit, feces,menses etc., but to see a
> girl in a bikini would defile their purity.
> Which is why some UK councils are offering certain religious groups
> their own exclusive times for using the swimming pools, in 'modest'
> dress, with whites excluded. In this way they can protect themselves
> from the calamity of being defiled by the sight of white girls in
> bikinis.
> It's a re-run of Ireland in the 1950s and  my heart goes out to these
> tragic victims of religious abuse.
> (Don't have link to that story, but read it a few months ago.)

This is one link to that story:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article74568.ece

On 19 Aug, 15:46, Ishtar  wrote:
> On Aug 19, 5:08 am, Ishtar  wrote:
>
> > On 12 Aug, 14:50, Jeff York  wrote:> JAF  wrote:
> > > >On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:23 퍝, "\(used to be\) Fat Sam"
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >It's a cultural thing - they don't like swimming in a solution of chemicals,
> > > >menses, faeces, smegma, dead skin, urine, semen, mucus, the occasional
> > > >sticking plaster, hair and, less often, but not particularly rare, vomit.
>
> > ==========================
>
> > I thought it was mainly a religious prohibition - about not being
> > allowed to see a girl in a bikini.
>
> Which is the only thing that really matters to some people. They will
> gladly ingest other people's vomit, feces,menses etc., but to see a
> girl in a bikini would defile their purity.
> Which is why some UK councils are offering certain religious groups
> their own exclusive times for using the swimming pools, in 'modest'
> dress, with whites excluded. In this way they can protect themselves
> from the calamity of being defiled by the sight of white girls in
> bikinis.
> It's a re-run of Ireland in the 1950s and  my heart goes out to these
> tragic victims of religious abuse.
> (Don't have link to that story, but read it a few months ago.)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article74568.ece

?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-421414/You-swim-wear-Muslim-dress.html

+
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014344.php

No end to it; Amazing what a few bombs can do to the British. The IRA
showed the Mulims how to get anything they want from the British. The
Brits always cave in if you bomb them.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article75735.ece

In article , august@kororaa.com says...
> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:41:32 +0100, August West wrote:
> >
> >> Fevric J Glandules <fevric@invalid.invalid> writes:
> >> 
> >>> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/2/429
> >>>
> >>> "Racial Differences in Bone Density between Young Adult Black and 
> >>>  White Subjects Persist after Adjustment for Anthropometric, Lifestyle,
> >>>  and Biochemical Differences".
> >> 
> >> Although I question the broad use of "black" here: a SA Bushman or
> >> Kenyan maasai, has substantially different body types from yer average
> >> Nigerian Igbo.
> >
> > Californian study, innit, so "black" means "African American" which means
> > "people most of whose great^n-grandparents lived in sub-Saharan Africa".
> 
> More closely drawn that that, even: Western sub-Saharan Africa.
> 

An area that nonetheless has more human genetic diversity than the 
entirety of Europe.

-- 
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:45:06 +0100, Bing Trotsky wrote:

>> > Californian study, innit, so "black" means "African American" which means
>> > "people most of whose great^n-grandparents lived in sub-Saharan Africa".
>> 
>> More closely drawn that that, even: Western sub-Saharan Africa.
>
> An area that nonetheless has more human genetic diversity than the 
> entirety of Europe.

And?  I may be hard of thinking, but I don't see what that proves.

Back to the initial claim:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/54909/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

"Twenty-six male swimmers (13 Blacks, 13 Whites) matched for age, weight,
 and stature were subjects in the comparison of anthropometric
 characteristics and horizontal and vertical buoyancies. Subjects were
 tested in a swimming pool in the horizontal position. The time necessary
 for the body to return to the vertical position defined horizontal
 buoyancy. Vertical buoyancy was the hydrostatic lift necessary to maintain
 the subject immersed to the nose. The results indicated similarities in
 arm span, trunk flexibility, and full inspiration and exhalation of Black
 and White subjects. However, there were differences in body fat
 distribution (P  0.05) and buoyancies (P  0.01), with Whites storing more
 fat and having better buoyancy than Blacks. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 9:87-92"

From that well-known hotbed of racism, the Institut National de la
Jeunesse et des Sports in Cameroon.

-- 
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

In article <g8f10r$5c4$1@aioe.org>, fevric@invalid.invalid says...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:45:06 +0100, Bing Trotsky wrote:
> 
> >> > Californian study, innit, so "black" means "African American" which means
> >> > "people most of whose great^n-grandparents lived in sub-Saharan Africa".
> >> 
> >> More closely drawn that that, even: Western sub-Saharan Africa.
> >
> > An area that nonetheless has more human genetic diversity than the 
> > entirety of Europe.
> 
> And?  I m