Daily Mail readers show their true colours

[taper]

Yesterday at 11:10 you said:

"I've read several times b4 ( This time I do not recall where) that 75% of Mixed-Raced Partnerships fail, I'm afraid."

Now you say:

"MY "75%" figure that I wrongly gave for BRITISH Mixed-Raced children being in BRITISH CARE/FOSTER";

and

"I was referring to Mixed-Raced Children as YOU were referring to a figure giving DIVORCE rates"

No you weren't. Your 75% reference was about relationships failing. And when I dug around on the net, the only reference I could find to it was on Stormfront. So I wondered whether, by way of helping you to "recall", I might be of some assistance.

Shall we end this thread Tony? You are at your very worst when staggering around race issues and you risk offending a lot of people. The assertions you have made have, where falsifiable, been falsified. Your reputation as EDF's rose-tinted codger of choice is becoming increasingly tarnished. And Welling is no longer looking like an attractive option for this particular white man's flight.

[Sherwick]

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.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Ted Max Wrote:

Tony, this is what you said: that 75% of Mixed-Raced Partnerships fail, I'm afraid."

So your 75% stat did relate to partnerships failing. I'm not sure it changes much but you do seem to be getting confused.

Assuming you are right Ted that means that I did not say that 75% of all children in Foster Care are Mixed-Raced which many have accused me of saying?:))

I'm sure I never said BOTH 75% of Mixed-Raced Partnerships faiil" AND "75% of children in Mixed-Raced relationships end up in care"...so are my detractors wrong in accusing me of the latter Ted?

[Sherwick]

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

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Sherwick Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TLS, I notice you aren't telling us where you got

> the 75% number from.

Look harder SherLOCK I've already answered that, which is more than I can say for many of the questions that I have posed to you, which remain unanswered.

[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?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Sherwick Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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?

You are just getting silly now Sherwick.

I explained SEVERAL times that my 99% figure WAS CORRECT when I mentioned that 99% of people FROM Britain who fought and died in the last 2 World Wars were White/British which was representative of British Society then ( i.e Back in 1914-18 and 1939-45)

Do you dispute that 99% figure then Sherwick?

[Ted Max]

  Quote

Assuming you are right Ted that means that I did not say that 75% of all children in Foster Care are Mixed-Raced which many have accused me of saying?

I'm sure I never said BOTH 75% of Mixed-Raced Partnerships faiil" AND "75% of children in Mixed-Raced relationships end up in care"...so are my detractors wrong in accusing me of the latter Ted?

Tony, I'm going to make this really simple.

Many people have not accused you of saying "75% of children in Mixed-Raced relationships end up in care". In fact nobody has accused you of saying this.

This is a confusion you have created yourself - accidentally I'm sure.

You said two separate things.

1. That there are more mixed race children in care than others.

2. That you had read that 75% of mixed race partnerships fail.

Take a step back and think about this.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Sherwick Wrote:

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?

I'll assist you for the last time M8.

Read my reply at 16.03 and please don't ask again.

Now how about answering some of my questions?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Ted Max Wrote:

Tony, I'm going to make this really simple. Many people have not accused you of saying "75% of children in Mixed-Raced relationships end up in care". In fact nobody has accused you of saying this. This is a confusion you have created yourself - accidentally I'm sure.

You said two separate things. 1. That there are more mixed race children in care than others. 2. That you had read that 75% of mixed race partnerships fail. Take a step back and think about this.

Thank You for bringing some much-needed lucidity on this Ted.

I'm prepared, as I'm not going to trawl through everything, that you are right M8.

Seems a reasonable analysis Ted.

I obviously meant "proportionately" when referring to Mixed-Raced Children in care.

I thought I was accused of saying that I believed that 75% of children in The UK were from Mixed-Raced relationships.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I KNOW I was, wrongly, accused of viewing and taking figures from Stormfront which I am about as "au fait" with as an average other EDF Forumite.

At least I have heard of Stormfront, I have never even heard of "The Truth etc" can I assume that this Site is not Stormfront?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Before I leave to study for work do you want to ask me for the 6th/7th time Sherwick where I got that 75% figure from?

I'll give you the answer for the 6th/7th time if you want me old mucker...:))

[Ted Max]

I obviously meant "proportionately" when referring to Mixed-Raced Children in care.

Then you should have said so, or it looks like an after the event justification. It isn't "obvious" in your original post, I'm afraid.

The same goes for the subtle changing of the words on your 99% stat about the army. You changed the emphasis there after the fact as well.

These are emotive issues, and language is powerful. We need to be careful how we use it, is all I would say.

Also, throwing in stats that you can't back up doesn't help.

That's about it, I think.

[Sherwick]

If you actually bother to read what I have posted (and apparently, to read what YOU have posted), then you'll see that I have anwered all your questions.

Regarding your latest question about ONE of your various '99% figues', this one may be correct, but only to a point.

I say 'only to a point' because your original quote was:

"As you know millions died in the last 2 World Wars fighting for Freedom for Britain and the British people."

This is factually correct.

"99% of them were White/British, which was representative of British Society then."

This is NOT factually correct, because 99% of the millions who died were not white/British. In fact hundreds of thousands of Indians alone died fighting for Freedom for Britain and the British people.

However, I suspect, what you meant to say (but never did) is as follows:

"As you know 1.5 million British 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."

That would have been accurate, but then, that's not what you said.

[Sherwick]

"To answer your question, I don't know where I got "my" 75% figure from"

LOLOL

Anyway, I don't know why you're telling me about a Black racist site. It's just as bad as a White racist site as far as I'm concerned.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Ted Max Wrote:

These are emotive issues, and language is powerful. We need to be careful how we use it, is all I would say.

Also, throwing in stats that you can't back up doesn't help. That's about it, I think.

Good synopsis Ted.

Of course the first point applies to both sides of this, er, discussion...

I've been wrongly accused of "promoting White Purity" // "nasty/nasty/nasty" // " jingoism" // Using Stormfront etc...

All of which, are equally emotive comments but point taken.

I've learned from this that I must gain access to stats or stories that I have heard.

For example, Sherwick asked me to back up that "English Woman Suicide" story and its only through fluke that I found it by mixing up a combination of words on Google. So that story would not have benbelieved if I had not found it.

So points taken.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Sherwick Wrote:

Anyway, I don't know why you're telling me about a Black racist site. It's just as bad as a White racist site as far as I'm concerned.

The whole point is that it is NOT a Black racist Site at all!!

It is an everyday Site and easily, the largest in The UK for The Black Community from The UK, with contributions fromother parts of The African Diaspora.

It WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY open you eyes Sherwick.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Sherwick Wrote:

...That would have been accurate, but then, that's not what you said.

Let me be Mr. Magnaminity and say you are right on this Sherwick...;-)

[Sherwick]

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sherwick Wrote:

> Anyway, I don't know why you're telling me about a

> Black racist site. It's just as bad as a White

> racist site as far as I'm concerned.

>

> The whole point is that it is NOT a Black racist

> Site at all!!

>

> It is an everyday Site and easily, the largest in

> The UK for The Black Community from The UK, with

> contributions fromother parts of The African

> Diaspora.

>

> It WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY open you eyes Sherwick.

If it allows racist material against whites, browns or any other colour IT IS A RACIST SITE IN MY OPINION.

Just as racist as Stormfront or any of the other racist sites.

Anyone who dreams about 'racial purity' is swimming against the tide of history and of the future.

Apart from this, they are swimming against the tide of natural selection.

It's completely absurd, along the lines that flat-earth theory was absurd.

Didn't stop the majority believing in a flat earth though at the time.