Sherwick

no, you answered that you made up all the other %ages, e.g. the 99% numbers. so, you're saying that you made up this one as well?

TLS, I notice you aren't telling us where you got the 75% number from.

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sherwick Wrote: > Yup it's there: "Problems of Mixed Race Couples" > number "8) The divorce rate of inter-racial > marriages is 75%. It is believed that many who > engage in mixed unions have profound emotional > problems and/or are drug users. Often they seek > to > mock society's norms or are in rebellion against > their parents." > Other marvelous 'facts' from this page are: "7) > The low I.O. of Negroes has been scientifically > proven to be hereditary. Low-I.Q. people breed > only more low-I.Q. offspring and usually have > large numbers of offspring, further > polluting the White gene pool." and "5) When an > interracial baby is conceived, a White family > line, thousands of years old, has instantly ceased > to exist." Hmmmm.... strange how TLS posted this > exact (yet false) percentage, but did NOT get it > from the Stormfront site... > WHAT A COINCIDENCE! ::o > > The fact that somewhere on the Internet there is a > 75% Stat that relates in some way to Mixed-Race > people or children? > > Do me a favour! lol > > p.s My opinion of you sinks further and further > Sherwick. > > You are VERY transparent, I'm afraid. > > You quote a lot of disgusting text from a Site > I've never heard of because it is on the same page > where a "75%" is mentioned, though THIS 75% figure > as NOTHING to do with mine,,and then BY > ASSOCIATION you attempt to UNsubtlety credit me > with those views from a Site that I have never > ever seen. > > PATHETIC MON AMI! Pathetic? You said that you read that 75% of mixed race partnerships fail. Then you deny you said it. Now that's pathetic.

Ah, good spot Ted (again methinks!). So TLS: 1. You did in fact refer to 75% of Mixed Raced Partnerships failing. 2. Where did you get this 75% numebr from?

where did you get the 75% from???

OK, Tony. I'll make this simple. WHERE DID YOU GET THE 75% NUMBER FROM???

Yup it's there: "Problems of Mixed Race Couples" number "8) The divorce rate of inter-racial marriages is 75%. It is believed that many who engage in mixed unions have profound emotional problems and/or are drug users. Often they seek to mock society's norms or are in rebellion against their parents." Other marvelous 'facts' from this page are: "7) The low I.O. of Negroes has been scientifically proven to be hereditary. Low-I.Q. people breed only more low-I.Q. offspring and usually have large numbers of offspring, further polluting the White gene pool." and "5) When an interracial baby is conceived, a White family line, thousands of years old, has instantly ceased to exist." Hmmmm.... strange how TLS posted this exact (yet false) percentage, but did NOT get it from the Stormfront site... WHAT A COINCIDENCE! ::o

bigbadwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thats exactly the type of treacherous tone I'd > expect from a daily mail reader Sherwick, Mosely > would be proud. :))

bigbadwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can't you two just settle this by having a dual, > pistols or swords? Yes, fine by me. As long as I can have the pistol while TLS has the sword. :)

I go to Uomo on LL. I think the guy in there is called Frank. He's very good as is the price.

whichever way you go it will be a nightmare... unless you go in the middle of the night.

Your figures aren't 'guestimates'. They are completely MADE-UP, i.e. FABRICATED, in order to SUIT YOUR AGENDA.

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > taper Wrote: > Google "inter-racial-marriages, stormfront" and > you'll find it. i'm not linking to that filth. > > SHAMEFUL...TRULY SHAMEFUL taper. > > You do not need to provide any link to that filth > at all. > > Just cut 'n paste the offending lines to proove > you did not invent this and lie about the whole > thing. > > Thats ALL you have to do taper. You've got a nerve calling anyone else SHAMEFUL, I can tell yoU!

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > taper: I've already prooved that you totally, > deliberately, misinterpreted something I had > written earlier which was scandalous. > > This, potentially, is much worse it that you have > CLEARLY stated that I must view Stormfront ( which > I don't) in order to cast that slime that Sean > often refers to. As my "75%" figure was wildly > inaccurate, as opposed to the correct figure of > 8%/9% then you said that I must have got that > crazy figure from there as you have seen it on > there. > > Simply cut 'n paste the offending line(s) on there > so the World can see that it WAS there and you did > not invent it and lie, which I'm beginning to > heavily suspect. > > Obviously if you did lie (with all its > implications) then that not only covers you in > that slime but also a large dollop would fall on > Huguenot, Sherwick et al who, not only, believed > you but were only too pleased to make comments, > thereafter, accordingly including Sherwick's "I > suspected etc..".. > > WOULDN'T IT E THE MOST ENORMOUS GIGGLE IF YOU WERE > LYING!! > > Anyway, there are many on here who are not exactly > slow in coming forward to provide Quotes or Stats > to proove or disproove something so if any of > these Guys would like to provide and cut 'n paste > this erroneous figure from Stormfront that taper > has DEFINTELY seen then please go ahead and do > so. > > A DEAFENING silence might ensue here as taper, > remarkably, will find himself "too busy" to > re-produce that figure from Stormfront. > > Over to you taper. Tony, what are you ranting about? You've been 'caught' making up statistics to support your arguments time and time again. Surely, this much must be obvious to you by now?

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, the full quote by TLS was "As you know millions > died in the last 2 World Wars fighting for Freedom > for Britain and the British people. > > 99% of them were White/British, which was > representative of British Society then." Interestingly wiki lists total UK WW 2 casualties as 449,800 (382,700 military and 67,100 civilian) and total UK WW 1 casualties as 994,138 (885,138 military and 109,000 civilian), giving 1.5 million in total for both world wars. Whilst every single death in both wars is a tragedy (as my relatives died too), it's hardly the 'millions' that TLS claimed. Yet again TLS is making stuff up. What a surprise.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And another thing: Seven Runs! How the @#$%& do > you loose a 20-20 match by seven runs when you?ve > built a proper opening partnership after 9 overs, > have another six recognised world class batsmen to > come in and basically just have to tick it over at > seven an over to win? > > I realise the ball wasn?t coming on, it was a slow > wicket and the bowling attack was doing a good job > with the spinners and some fine death bowling but > still Jaques, I?m pup?s nuts, Kallis had it in him > to knock off another eight. I blame Dumminy (sp?) not Kallis.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only source I found for that statistic was > Stormfront (is that where you got your care > data?). Alas, I suspect that Tony does get much of his 'data' from Stormfront. :(

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'mixed race' bleating is a red herring, and if > there are morekids I'm homes I'll warrant because > people are more likely to meet each other across > racial divides in inner cities than in home > counties housing estates and will consequently > have more economic and social woes than their > suburban 'unmixed' counterparts. > > Becase of course a dry statistic is essentially > meanngless without further analysis, even a made > up one ;) Absolutely. Reminds me of a very important lesson I was taught in Stats class in Uni: the lecturer displayed stats that showed that in the 1960s, afro-carribeans had a higher birt -rate than whites. He then asked the class why this was so. Of course this class (including me) gave all the usual stupid reasons, e.g. afro-carribeans like sex more etc. etc. The teacher (a white English male) then gave the real reason: it was a fact that huge majority of afro-carribean people coming to the UK in the 1960s were in their 20s - therefore when they came here they were at exactly the right age to have children, which is what they did. The cohort of whites though included all whites in the UK, and therefore, of all age groups. The cohort of afro-carribeans also included all ACs in the UK, but a very high percentage of the total cohort were in their 20s. This was the only reason why the birth rates differed (and this was proven by isolating whites in the same age-group)!

I'll point out at this stage, for no particular reason, that Tiger Woods' parents were mixed race, and Tiger Woods himself is in a mixed race relationship. >:D< Also, no one has answered whether it is indeed good for genes to have mixed raced parents?

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just takes time, I mean when she threw the heavy > Sky Remote Control and missed my eye by a Quarter > of an inch in the old days I thought she was being > a typically "stereotypical" aggressive Jamaican > Woman, that I had read about, I think you'll find that she was just being a WOMAN! (prepares to get flamed!) ::o

Just wondering, as far as 'evolution' is concerned, isn't it 'better' to mix genes with different races? I seem to recall reading about this. As far as I am concerned, it won't be a surprise to Tony but I've barely ever had a partner in the past from my own race or culture - however this wasn't planned by me - it's just the way it turned out. My wife is also not from my race or culture and we get on great! :)) The vast majority of my extended family also do not have partners from their own race or culture. However, whilst we are in the main of different races and religions and born in different continents, what we do share is a strong identity with liberal & democratic values (note: not necessarily Western ones).

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Look, there's nothing wrong with spending your > every weekend visiting distant postcodes of London > with a clipboard and a selection of > differently-coloured felt tip pens, noting the > ethnic make-up of the area. That's totally normal, > and definitely won't send you a little bit crazy. > > > I saw a black student and a white student on the > bus together today having a laugh, but I could > tell that each was yearning for a closer cultural > affinity. They weren't too impressed with me > making some notes on the matter though. It was > only when I asked them if they got their clothes > off the market things got a bit nasty, though. > They weren't to know I was only after information > for my survey on the retail habits of indigenous > and immigrant peoples. > > Never mind, such field research is vital, and I > shall not be downhearted. >:D<

::oIt isn't a dictionary is it? Make sure that no words are missing like 'aardvark' and also, make sure you don't accidently burn the only copy you have.

Word must be getting around that Waitrose is coming to ED!

prepare to be more and more astonished the older you get.