 |
"jacobisrael"
<jacob1srae1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>lojbab makes the false
presumption that most "Whites" think that
>playing niggerball with niggers is somehow "glamorous"?
lojbab said nothing at all
about "whites", since lojbab's
comment had
nothing at all to do with race, but rather with human beings of the
standard American culture. The nincompoop of course understands
nothing about human beings, since it is a subhuman racist slime.
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org>
wrote in message news:tludouot89n3qn1g5f62iq797qodgdfifk@4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight@polbox.com>
wrote:
> >> I see many translations all of which use the word "nation" or
> >> "nations". It is YOU, the LIAR that thinks that those
translations
> >> are wrong and that they all should say "race". But YOU are
indeed a
> >> LIAR, speaking the words of the serpent, your master, who is the
> >> Prince of Lies.
> >
> >The Greek word "ethnos" is translated as follows by Strong's:
> >
> >G1484
> >???????
> >ethnos
> >eth'-nos
> >Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe;
> >specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): -
> >Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
> >
> >So it can be both a "nation" and a "people".
>
> We know precisely what the word ethnos means, nincompoop. It is used
> directly as an English word, both as itself and in its derivations:
> ethnologist and ethnic (group). An "ethnos" is an "ethnic
group",
> which means a group of people sharing a culture and heritage.
"Ethnos" is a Greek word, not an English word. As this translation shows,
it means "race".
> Heritage means history more than it does genetics - DNA testing has
> been around for a couple of decades, but historically people have
> determined ethnicity primarily by what people SAY they are, and
> secondarily by who their documented parents are (which of course
> ignores adoption and bastardy and cuckoldry).
>
Who said anything about "heritage"? "Ethnos" is Greek for
"race".
> >But what is meant by "people"? RACE, of course.
>
> Tribe, as the definition explicitly stated.
It equated "race" to "tribe", thus either English word would be
appropriate.
>
> Caucasians are not a single "tribe". Nor are orientals, nor are
> Amerinds, nor are Negroids. Each of the "colors" is MANY tribes.
> Using the word "race" to translate "ethnos", especially when all
the
> Biblical translations do NOT use the word "race", is to inject the LIE
> that the Bible is talking about something to do with skin color (i.e.
> the modern concept of "race".
>
Injecting the term "skin color" is a straw man argument which you set up just so
you could knock it down. Not even the definition of "race" that you
provided mentions "skin color" as a criteria for "race", so why else
would you do this other than to have the opportunity to argue with yourself?
> >The following is an example of its use as "nation":
> >
> >John 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that
> >year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
> >John 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather
> >together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
> >
> >The "children of God" are the Israelites who were scattered among all
> >NATIONS,
>
> What a nincompoop. You really love to ignore context, don't you. Who
> said this? It was not Christ.
Is your specialty today "straw man arguments"? Who suggested that
Christ said this? You? Again, your argument is with yourself.
> >[46] But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > what things Jesus had done.
> >[47] Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
> >[48] If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the
> > Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
> >[49] And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
> >[50] Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die
> > for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
> >[51] And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >[52] And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather
> > together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
>
> The text in verse 51 makes clear that Caiaphas, who was a Pharisee
> (and therefore a Jew) was speaking not for himself BUT "for the
> nation" (i.e. the nation of Jews which he had the position to speak
> for.)
>
So you agree that "ethnos" also means "nation". What a
breakthrough.
> And thus we see that the "he" in verse 52 is Caiaphas, and that he is
> presuming in his role of high priest to speak for all of the children
> of God, repeating the formula "not for that nation only BUT" Now
> clearly, by your nincompoop ideas, the Jew Caiaphas is NOT speaking
> for the "White Christian Israelites", so your interpretation makes no
> sense.
>
Wow. Three straw man arguments in one post. Whoever said anything about this
jew speaking for "White Christian Israelites"? Only you.
> >but this is obviously not the same as the following, where it means
> >"people" or "race":
> >
> >Joh 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called
> >Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
> >Joh 18:34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did
> >others tell it thee of me?
> >Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief
> >priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
>
> Notice that Pilate is referring to the JEWISH nation, because he
> considers all the people of Judea to be Jews.
Notice that the word "nation" is translated from the Greek word
"ethnos" which you already acknowledged above also means "race".
To this very day, the physical characteristics of jews and Israelites are so different
that it's impossible not to notice them, even after jews have spent billions of dollars on
face lifts and nose bobs in a futile attempt to look normal.
And you wonder why Pilate realized what a silly mistake he'd just made?
> That is WHY he asks
> "Art thou King of the Jews?" and not "Art thou King of the White
> Christian Israelites?" (as if anyone in those days considered anyone
> to be an "Israelite".
Since the Holy Bible is all about Israelites, and since the term "Israelite" is
used throughout the Holy Bible, and since Paul said "I say then, Hath God cast away
his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe
of Benjamin", it would appear that your aversion to the word is the looming prospect
that you must ultimately recognize Israelites as a RACE.
Why else would you deny Holy Scripture like this?
>
> >Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
> >were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
> >delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
> >
> >Pilate obviously wasn't referring to a country when he said "thine own
> >nation". He was simply presuming that Jesus was the same RACE as the
jews,
> >and Jesus PROVED that He was NOT by reminding Pilate that if He had been a
> >jew, the jews certainly wouldn't have been demanding He be crucified.
>
> That is NOT what he said to Pilate. He said that if he were a king,
> his servants would fight. There have been MANY kings that have been
> killed by their subjects.
Christ wasn't killed by His "subjects". He was killed by the JEWS, who
were His "subject's" arch enemies and had been for millennia.
>
> >1Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy
> >nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who
> >hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light
> >
> >In this Scripture, "generation" is translated from "genos"
which means
> >"stock":
> >
> >G1085
> >??????
> >genos
> >ghen'-os
> >From G1096; "kin" (abstractly or concretely, literally or figuratively,
> >individually or collectively): - born, country (-man), diversity,
> >generation, kind (-red), nation, offspring, stock.
> >
> >So this is clearly a different use of "ethnos" than "nation".
>
> People of a nation or tribe or ethnos were presumed to share common
> ancestry.
>
You can't even read your own definitions, which show that you've got this exactly
backwards.
First, it must be established that a "people" have a common ancestor.
Only THEN can they be considered to be of the same "stock". Nothing
is "presumed" here (other than your false statement, that is). Using the
term "genos" and "ethnos" in the same sentence to refer to the same
people is proof enough that the connotation of "ethnos" is "race"
rather than "nation".
> >The reference to "peculiar [ethnos]" must mean "peculiar
race".
>
> Not in the sense of skin color. But merely in the sense of
> "ethnicity".
>
Beep. Straw Man Argument Alert. Straw Man Argument Alert.
This is your fourth one. Who's talking about "skin color". This
"sense of ethnicity" you mention is just a futile attempt to avoid mentioning
the big r-word: RACE.
> >Race
> >RACE, n. [L. radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides
> >in origin with rod, ray, radiate, &c.]
> >
> >1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent
> >who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely.
> >Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race
> >of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis
> >or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, &c.
> >
> >Hence the long race of Alban fathers come.
> >
> >2. A generation; a family of descendants. A race of youthful and unhandled
> >colts.
> >
> >3. A particular breed; as a race of mules; a race of horses; a race of
> >sheep.
>
> I have no idea what dictionary you pulled this from. Here is
> Mirriam-Webster:
> >Main Entry: 3race
> >Function: noun
> >Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
> >Date: 1580
> >1 : a breeding stock of animals
> >2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b
> > : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests,
> > habits, or characteristics <the English race>
> >3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species;
> > also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a
> > group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are
> > transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a
> > distinct human type
> >4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
> >5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength
>
> Meaning 2a is the one associated with ethnos. The Jews are an
> "ethnos". Christians are NOT an "ethnos".
>
Oh, MAN! All this time you've argued that jews are NOT a race, and now you're
arguing that they ARE? Are you starting to feel strongly both ways again?
Are you a closet "RACIST"? Have you been a "RACIST" all along,
knowing that jews are a RACE, but not wanting the world to know?
Yes, of course, jews are "meaning 2a", which means RACE. They are also
"meaning 3c", which also means race, but we'll let you ponder this alarming
admission first.
> Meaning 3c is the one usually intended for "race" when referring to
> "whites" and "blacks", and has NOTHING to do with
"ethnos".
>
My, your fifth straw man argument. Nobody but you is arguing "whites"
"blacks", "skin color", etc. We're talking about the definition
of race which YOU posted.
"Ethnos" is the Greek word for "race", according to Strong's. It
doesn't specify which subsection of "race" it refers to, does it? So where
do you get this idea that "Meaning 3c ... has NOTHING to do with
'ethnos'"?
Out of thin air, actually, because this is precisely what it does mean.
"Ethnos" is a broad term which means a number of things, as already mentioned
above.
On September 13, 2002, "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:11c4ou0om43k0aflka48hoq2eijrfag02p@4ax.com...
> >> When foreigners adopted the ways of Israel NOT
> >> through force, but by realization that the Lord was God, and kept the
> >> covenant of Moses, then they were regardless racial birth inheritors
> >> of the covenant. And the Lord explicitly SAYS this in a passage I
> >> quoted to you a couple of days ago.
> >
> >Absolutely not. You could not have quoted any such thing, because it
> >doesn't exist. Here's what Christ said about Israelites:
> >
> >He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
> >Israel." Matthew 15:24
> >
> >"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go
> >not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter
> >ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye
> >go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10:5-9
>
> But then later, He DID extend His commission for the disciples to go
> to ALL nations.
>
DEAD WRONG! Christ did not lie, He did not make mistakes, and He did
not have to correct himself.
John Knight <FmanifestoKnight@netscape.net>
wrote:
John Knight <johnknight@cox.net> wrote:
John Knight <jwknight@polbox.com> wrote:
People take note. In multiply posting this message, the nincompoop
has let slip 3 of his addresses that he can use when he gets kicked
off his current ISP.
lojbab
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:4i2nlu8k5dfo0ahgti324ml6399l07tep8@4ax.com...
> "Shadow Dancer" <insomniac@winterslight.org> wrote:
> >I understood the number to be closer to 15 million...but that may have
> >included gays, cripples, and the elderly, too.
>
> 6 million is the number of Jews alone. The nincompoop is in the right
> ballpark for the total numbers killed by the Nazis in WWII. The total
> killed in WWII in all theaters has estimated as high as 85 million,
> with most estimates in the 50-60 million range. The Soviet Union lost
> 20-40 million (on top of perhaps a similar number killed or starved by
> Stalin in the decade before the war but not considered part of the
> war).
>
> http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/statistics.htm
>
> gives one statistical breakdown of the deaths.
>
> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm gives several estimates
> broken down and with sources. It also compares with other mass
> murders of the century and of history.
>
> lojbab
> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
wrote:
> >
> >I doubt that you have much of an income, since you are an ex-con,
> >which would keep you out of most high paying jobs. Besides, if you
> >had a lot of income, you wouldn't have the time to post so much.
> >You'd be WORKING.
> "John Knight" <jwknight@polbox.com>
wrote:
> >> Please, then, allow me: John falls into a noticibly distinct group --
> >> nominal Christians who are nowhere near ready to go in for all
> >> that Jesus stuff -- mercy and charity and self-sacrifice and
> >> loving those who hate you -- they're by temperament far more
> >> comfortable with the Old Testament ambiance, all that smiting
> >> and abominating and all-around tribalistic xenophobia. Reflexively
> >> exclusive, not inclusive, by nature, they look about for something to
> >> support their us-vs-them tendencies, and it's obvious where that's
> >> to be found. Only problem: YWH clearly wasn't talking to us.
> >> As a matter of fact, YWH spends a great deal of time warning the
> >> Chosen against the likes of us. So what's a bigot to do when
> >> faced with such roaring cognitive dissonance?
> >>
> >> You've seen the answer to that. Not pretty, is it?
> >>
> >> -- cary
>
> >Sooo, you want to stick to the "New Testament" and throw out the
> > "Old", cary? Why exactly would that be? Would you mind
explaining
> > that? No?
>
> Can't understand English as usual, nincompoop? Cary said quite
> clearly that it was YOU who seemed to be insisting on the Old
> Testament rules that YOU (and almost all of the 2 billion Christians,
> barring only those such as the Jews for Jesus) do not keep.
>
So, here we are, back to you "feeling strongly both ways" again, eh, lojbab?
Once again, your argument is with yourself, not with White Christian Israelites.
Cary says: "they're by temperament far more comfortable with the Old
Testament ambiance", and you, a "liberal", then
"interpret" this to mean exactly the opposite:
"Cary said quite clearly that it was YOU who
seemed to be insisting on the Old
Testament rules that YOU do not keep"
Do you ever get embarassed when you make these 180 degree contradictory
statements? Or do you just not know that you do this? Are you this STUPID, or
this much pre-programmed?
Cary is accusing White Christian Israelites of sticking too close to the Old Testament,
and you "interpret" this to mean that he's accusing Israelites of NOT
"insisting on the Old Testament rules".
Do you even notice that your "difference of opinion" is with
yourself?
> >Now comes Harvard educated Noel Ignatiev, an academic at Harvard's W.E.B.
> >DuBois Institute for African-American Research. Dr. Ignatiev is the founder
> >of a journal, Race Traitor, which has as its motto, "treason to whiteness is
> >loyalty to humanity."
> >
> >The journal's purpose is "to abolish the white race."
>
> A sound idea. There is no such thing as the "white race" except in
> the minds of certain nutcases who seek a racial explanation of
> everything.
>
> It appears that Dr. Ignatiev is attempting to provoke controversy and
> make a name for himself and his ideas through his provocative
> expression.
>
> I can't say that I support him, but I don't think he is "wrong" is the
> way the nincompoop is always "wrong".
>
Are you "feeling strongly both ways", again?
Do you feel strongly that he has "A sound idea", as well as feeling strongly
that you "can't say that [you] support him"?
You just DID say that you support him by saying that he has a sound idea.
How can one mind become so confused?
Do you have any idea how?
It's called "jewish brainwashing". You can't even identify a
"White Race" at the same time that you claim that it's "a sound idea"
to abolish what you don't think exists, because the jews feed you, their good little
Pavlov Doggie, an electronic biscuit whenever you repeat these intentionally
conflicting, inflammatory, ridiculous, and confusing statements.
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org>
wrote in message
news:pgnimucbnm8jdg9qhujq4cf6bcl16krpcv@4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight@polbox.com>
wrote:
> >We have selective censorship. And we have jews controlling the major
"news"
> >sources who put an incredible bias on every word they write [read: they
> >LIE].
>
> Read: YOU lie.
>
> >Pornography is permissible, but the Word of God is not.
>
> False. Liar.
>
This is exactly how our courts are ruling, as we speak. How can you call
this a "lie"?
> >Our
> >jewish-controlled courts routinely punish White children for acting like
> >Christians
>
> False. Liar.
Not even once? You're not following the "news"very closely, are you?
Or is
this selective women's intuition?
>
> >but some stupid nigger kid can publish a song about killing cops
> >and raping his mother with impunity.
>
> So can a white kid. It is called "freedom of speech". Don't
like it?
> Then leave, and we won't miss you.
We'd rather reclaim this Christian nation and oust the jewish trash.
>
> >Not one single adultery law has ever been repealed, but the last
prosecution
> >under this law was more than half a century ago.
>
> Good.
>
Thanks for that admission that you support the "right of women to commit
adultery"--making you an accomplice to a serious crime.
> >Cu.ts
>
> It's just as obscene and sinful when you leave the letter out. God
> knows what is in your heart.
And we know what's in God's heart when He prescribes stoning of the whores
and harlots, don't we?
>
> >like Shere Hite brag on national TV: "70% of American wives commit
> >adultery within 5 years of getting married".
>
> Probably similar numbers for men, but you ignore that.
>
Men don't get pregnant.
> >Is this just feminazi braggadocio? No. Barbara Rothman notes in
Recreating
> >Motherhood "Some physicians doing tissue typing for organ donations
estimate
> >that maybe 20% of people are not genetically related to the men claiming
> >fatherhood."
>
> So much for racial purity. Just think: 20% of your ancestors may not
> have been the father that is recorded in the genealogy.
>
Just because a woman is an adulteress, a whore and a harlot doesn't mean
she's a race traitor too );
> >If we upheld adultery laws
>
> then the laws would be thrown out as unconstitutional.
>
Absolutely no way. You truly are a kook. The reason no adultery law has
been repealed is because they ARE constitutional. Even this pathetic gaggle
of jews and feminazis in the "supreme" court couldn't twist this pretzel
that far, which is why no adultery law has ever been brought before them.
They are not only constitutional, but a Christian nation which fails to
uphold this one Commandment from God is doomed to failure. Your "belief"
that you have some kind of a "right to commit adultery" is truly pathetic.
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:ak1omukevlv4e2ij17uvii0n7ucnl6ejpj@4ax.com... > "John Knight"
<jwknight@polbox.com> wrote: > >Just because a feminazi and a
"liberal" agree with each other that school > >prayer was never banned
doesn't mean that school prayer was never banned: > > > >1962: Engel v.
Vitale. The Court ruled that public > >school officials could not require pupils to
recite a slate- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >composed prayer at the start of each
school day, even if the > >prayer was nondenominational and pupils who so desired
> >could be excused from reciting it, because such official > >state sanction
of religious unerances was an unconsitu- > >tional attempt to establish religion.
> > The underlined are the key words. > > >This was called "BANNING
SCHOOL PRAYER". > > Then it was called that in error, because school prayer was
not > banned. > > >It violated almost two centuries of "case law" to
the contrary. > > Actually, it did not. Several state courts had previously banned
> school prayer, some of them over a century earlier. >
awwww, isn't this precious?:
"school prayer was not banned"
and
"Several state courts had previously banned school prayer"
And you wonder why so many Americans detest "liberals"?
Which was it? "school prayer was *not* banned", or "school prayer ...
*had* [been] banned"?
Which do you like better?
It was not banned, but it was banned? or
It was banned, but it was not banned?
Do you feel strongly both ways, lojbab? Do you feel strongly that school prayer was
banned, and that school prayer was not banned?
This little demonstration of women's intuition is exactly why 32% of American 12th
grade girls' responses were not statistically significant, 23% were statistically
significant because they scored lower than if they'd just guessed, and of the 45% that was
statistically significant, the amount by which they scored lower than boys was
statistically significant on 24.4%, by which they scored higher than boys was
statistically significant on 2.6%, and the difference between boys and girls was not
stastically significant on 18%. http://fathersmanifesto.net/timssphysics.htm
Do you feel this strongly about adultery laws? Adultery laws WERE repealed, but
adultery laws were NOT repealed?
Or what about women's intelligence? Do you fell strongly that men are more intelligent
than women, AND that women are more intelligent than men?
This is a keeper.
"I know of many people
who believe that Christianity is something different
from what you appear to believe it is. I don't believe that anyone but God
is authorized to judge what is in our hearts, which is what
determines
whether we are saved through Christ."
This statement was followed up
with:
From: "Bob LeChevalier" lojbab@lojban.org
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,bionet.neuroscience,soc.men,alt.religion.wicca,alt.education,alt.religion
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
> where the "document" in question was Jefferson's rewrite of
the Bible
> that eliminated all the miracles, leaving Christ as merely a great
> teacher of morals and ethics, by which standards, probably many
> Moslems and Wiccans could say "I am a Christian", too.
"This makes the
assumption that those who know nothing guess randomly. IN
reality, we don't know that people guess randomly when faced
with a test
question they do not understand. Indeed, we know that they do not."
These two false, hypocritical
statements summarize what it is about "liberals" educated in the US public
"school" system that makes them so ignorant of the world they live in and the
life's philosophy of our Founding Forefathers who made this a once-great country.
The inability and unwillingness of "liberals" to grasp some of the most basic
concepts can probably never be changed, no matter how much this nation spends for
"education". They are in fact living proof that doubling the cost of
education from 4% to 8% of GDP is most likely a major reason SAT scores plunged 98 points,
the US scored dead last in 17 of 34 TIMSS subjects, and American 12th grade girls scored
lower on one third of the multiple choice questions than if they'd just guessed.
Is it even possible that there
may be some truth to the statement: "Indeed, we know that they do not ... guess
randomly when faced with a test question they do not understand"?
No, there is not. When
American girls failed to correctly answer so many multiple choice questions, and when the
test results show that they did not omit the question and did provide at least some kind
of a response, then we know that they guessed at many of the answers. Is it possible
that their guesses were not random?
The only evidence that they
didn't guess randomly on many questions is the fact that they scored lower on one third of
the TIMSS physics questions than if they had just guessed randomly. This means that
there was some factor that influenced them to answer the questions wrong, so their answers
cannot be considered to be random. Whether this is because they were taught the
wrong thing in the classroom (even though the boys sitting right next to them were taught
the right thing), or because they believed the myth about "women's intuition"
and decided to rely on this rather than answer the question based on what they were
taught, is irrelevant. The fact is that being so consistent in selecting the wrong
answer on this third of the test is the only evidence we have that they didn't guess
randomly.
Of the 38 physics questions
for which the answers were made available to the public, the amount by which girls scored
higher than if they had just guessed was statistically significant on 17 of them, the
amount by which they scored higher or lower than if they had just guessed was not
statistically significant on 12 of them, and the amount by which they scored lower than if
they had just guessed was statistically significant on 9 of them.
Of the 17 questions or 45% of
the test where the amount by which they scored higher than if they'd just guessed and
their responses were statistically significant, they scored significantly lower than boys
on 9 (24% of the test), significantly higher on 1 (2.6% of the test), and the difference
between boys and girls was not statistically significant on 7 of them (18% of the test).
Of the 12 questions or 32% of the test where their response was not statistically
significant, they scored significantly lower than boys on 4 and the difference was not
statistically significant on 8 of them. Of the 9 questions or 24% of the test where
the amount by which they scored significantly lower than if they'd just guessed, they
scored significantly lower than boys on 8 and significantly higher than boys on 1.
On some questions there may
have been a clue that caused them to select one answer over the other, so it could be
argued that guesses on some other questions were also not random. But when their
responses were not statistically significant on almost a third of the test, or 32% of the
questions, we know that at least ONE question didn't provide any clues like this, which
would mean that the only way they were able to provide a response was to guess randomly,
which makes this statement false. It's highly likely that their responses to all 12
questions were based solely on random guesses, which means that we know that they DID
"guess randomly", not that they did not.
Because their responses were
lower than if they'd just guessed or were not statistically significant on 21 questions,
the results of this 55% of the test cannot be used to assess their skills.
| Girls' Responses |
Percent of Test |
| Higher Than Guesses & Statistically Significant |
45% |
Significantly Lower Than Boys
|
24.4% |
Significantly Higher Than Boys
|
2.6% |
Not Significantly Different Than Boys
|
18% |
| Not Statistically Significant or Lower Than Guesses |
55% |
Not Statistically Significant
|
32% |
Lower Than Guesses Is Statistically Significant
|
23% |
The following Table summarizes
the answers to the 38 TIMSS Physics questions for which the
original problems are described. The first column is
the Question Number, the second column describes whether the question was a multiple
choice problem or not, the third column is the percent of girls who scored higher than if
they'd just guessed on the multiple choice questions, the fourth column is whether or not
this difference was statistically significant and by what percentage it exceeded the 3%
standard error, the fifth column is by what percentage boys scored higher than girls (or
with negative numbers, by what percentage girls scored higher than boys), and the sixth
column is whether or not this difference was statistically significant and by what
percentage it exceeded the 3% standard error.
For example, Question G10 was
a multiple choice question where 4.7% of the girls scored lower than if they'd just
guessed. After subtracting the 3% standard error, it was statistically significant that
1.7% of them scored lower than if they'd just guessed. 4.5% more boys than girls got
this question correct, and 1.5% of their responses were statistically significant.
Question H01 was a multiple choice question where girls scored
17% higher than if they'd just guessed, 4.1% more girls than boys got this question
correct, and the amount by which this difference was statistically significant was 1.1%.
It was the only question which was statistically significant and where girls scored
higher than if they'd just guessed where the amount by which girls scored higher than boys
was statistically significant. This was a memorization question. On none of
the questions which involved calculations did girls score higher than boys. All of
the questions
| Question Number |
Multiple Choice? |
Percent Above Guess |
Statistically
Significant? |
Boys>
Girls |
Statistically
Significant? |
G1 |
yes |
0.0% |
no |
2.5% |
no |
2 |
yes |
34.8% |
31.8% |
10.1% |
7.1% |
3 |
yes |
25.5% |
22.5% |
-3.0% |
no |
4 |
yes |
-3.4% |
-0.4% |
9.0% |
6.0% |
5 |
yes |
30.0% |
27.0% |
12.7% |
9.7% |
6 |
yes |
23.0% |
20.0% |
17.9% |
14.9% |
7 |
yes |
-6.7% |
-3.7% |
8.8% |
5.8% |
8 |
yes |
-9.1% |
-6.1% |
3.3% |
0.3% |
9 |
yes |
-7.5% |
-4.5% |
-4.7% |
-1.7% |
10 |
yes |
-4.7% |
-1.7% |
4.5% |
1.5% |
11 |
no |
4.3% |
1.3% |
1.7% |
no |
12 |
no |
8.1% |
5.1% |
10.5% |
7.5% |
13 |
no |
7.3% |
4.3% |
9.2% |
6.2% |
14 |
no |
1.6% |
no |
5.7% |
2.7% |
15 |
no |
2.4% |
no |
7.2% |
4.2% |
16 |
no |
2.9% |
no |
1.0% |
no |
17 |
no |
12.3% |
9.3% |
-1.4% |
no |
18 |
no |
1.1% |
no |
1.4% |
no |
19 |
no |
0.0% |
no |
1.1% |
no |
H1 |
yes |
17.0% |
14.0% |
-4.1% |
-1.1% |
2 |
yes |
13.9% |
10.9% |
-0.4% |
no |
3 |
yes |
-2.4% |
no |
3.3% |
0.3% |
4 |
yes |
-2.2% |
no |
19.8% |
16.8% |
5 |
yes |
10.3% |
7.3% |
-2.8% |
no |
6 |
yes |
4.0% |
1.0% |
9.2% |
6.2% |
7 |
yes |
-15.7% |
-12.7% |
10.6% |
7.6% |
8 |
yes |
-10.3% |
-7.3% |
3.6% |
0.6% |
9 |
yes |
-5.5% |
-2.5% |
8.2% |
5.2% |
10 |
yes |
-14.1% |
-11.1% |
7.3% |
4.3% |
11 |
yes |
- |
- |
- |
- |
12 |
no |
6.2% |
3.2% |
9.9% |
6.9% |
13 |
no |
3.5% |
0.5% |
6.5% |
3.5% |
14 |
no |
1.3% |
no |
1.3% |
no |
15 |
no |
6.8% |
3.8% |
-0.3% |
no |
16 |
no |
1.8% |
no |
-0.5% |
no |
17 |
no |
0.8% |
no |
1.5% |
no |
18 |
no |
0.1% |
no |
1.4% |
no |
19A |
no |
6.0% |
3.0% |
5.5% |
2.5% |
19B |
no |
33.9% |
30.9% |
0.1% |
no |
JDay123@BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>In alt.education Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's,
>Bob LeChevalier wrote...
>>> In fact, it's far more likely that that person is a Jew posing as a
>>>Christian because,
>>>
>>> 1) the statements were antichrist in spirit
>>>
>>> 2) antichrist spirits often try to blend in with Christians as they
>>>did in the first Church where they appeared in their first
>>>manifestations...
>>
>>That is a rather meager bit of evidence that someone is "a Jew posing as a
>>Christian". If they were "posing" or "trying to blend in" they would be
>>unlikely to want to give themselves away by such an overt "antichrist"
>>statement, since obviously such behavior does not make them blend in.
>
>Nevertheless, that person is "more likely" to be a Jew than a
>Christian in my opinion. Why is it that you get so upset when I
>write down my opinion yet you applaud when imposters write down
>their opinions?
Upset? Why would I get upset over something like a Usenet debate?
I disagree with your opinion, because I know many Jews, and I know of no
particular reason why a Jew would pose as a Christian in order to act against
Christianity. Now the JEWS as a people feel that "Jews for Jesus" are
Christians posing as Jews in order to subvert Judaism (and Jewish families).
But there is nothing in their religion compelling Jews to try to convert or
subvert Christianity - they just would rather be left alone and not
evangelized.
I know of many people who believe that Christianity is something different
from what you appear to believe it is. I don't believe that anyone but God
is authorized to judge what is in our hearts, which is what determines
whether we are saved through Christ. Therefore I must assume that a person
who says they are a Christian IS a Christian though he may be a sinner like
all of us in a particular sinful practice or statement that I do not myself
accept as being Christian. Only explicit denial of Christ's divinity is
sufficient for me to reject someone who says he is a Christian as not really
being Christian (e.g. Thomas Jefferson), and even then I don't presume that
God approves of my making that judgement.
Meanwhile, I have no reason to presume that someone who is "antichrist" is
necessarily Jewish (I know several atheists, none of whom is Jewish, who are
far more antichrist and antiChristian than any Jew.)
Finally, I have seen no "imposters" whose opinions I have applauded. The
nincompoop is the only person I have reason to believe MIGHT be an imposter
(because his arguments seem so out of touch with reality that they could be
an elaborate put-on).
No one else I've seen post in this thread or its near-relatives that I've
participated, is falsely claiming to be a Christian, which is what you seem
to mean by "imposter". Only a couple have even claimed to be Christian,
including myself. Others reject Christianity (and make it clear that they
do), or don't indicate one way or another what they personally believe. They
are arguing on this thread because they find it fun to torment the
nincompoop, who has earned that net-torment by his net-behavior.
(If you think one must or should be a Christian to appear on a group that
pertains to Christianity, then Usenet is NOT the medium for you because there
are no such rules and many people who delight in flaunting their disdain for
people who think that there ARE such rules.)
>I think you liberals would take away free speech if
>it were possible, and only allowing cursing, obscenities, and porno
>movies.
Since you by your wording damn me as a "liberal" in the above despite my
denial of that political bent, I assert that YOU have "cursed" - you have
called me a name that you clearly associate with antichrist, and thus called
me in league with Satan. I can imagine no worse a curse than that.
I oppose cursing, and for that matter obscenities, and porno movies (which I
have never viewed much less favored). Furthermore, I have headed a project
for 15 odd years that was started ONLY as a kind of "free speech" movement,
and which has neither interest in outlawing any kind of speech at all, and
has no opinion at all about porno movies.
>>> 3) Jews always point to the Hebrew language as if it's icing on the
>>>cake when making a point. Believe me, I've encountered this many
>>>times
>>
>>Does that mean that John Knight is a Jew, since he often pulls out his
>>Strong's and misuses a Hebrew word in trying to make a point?
>
>No. Jews will tell you that the requirement for being Jewish is to
>have a Jewish mother. I can assure you, Mr. Knight doesn't have a
>Jewish mother.
Do you know his mother? Do you even know his real name? How can you make
such assurances?
BTW, the statement is false. The requirement for being a Jew BY HEREDITY is
to have a Jewish mother. But Jews allow conversion by a non-trivial process
and such Jewish converts are also Jews.
>The Hebrew languange ploy they use is just that, a ploy. Jews use
>that ploy to bluff unwary gentiles (in religious discussions) into
>thinking that translational errors keep them (gentiles) from
>discovering truth.
But the nincompoop has used PRECISELY that ploy. And I can recall no one
else in this thread who has done so except in regard to the Talmud (which
isn't entirely in Hebrew, so I've been told, so there are Hebrew scholars (I
have one visiting me right now in fact) who cannot read all of the Talmud in
the original language.
>The kicker however, is that since the NT was written in Hellenistic
>Greek and not Hebrew, Jews that use the "ploy" must learn Greek and
>study the NT before criticizing the NT, if they subject themselves
>to their own standard. But they don't and won't.
I don't know of any Jew who much CARES what is written in the NT, or who
would have reason to argue on the basis of what is in the NT. If they argue,
it is on the basis of the OT.
>Now below, I've re-quoted what Angilion said. See if you can catch
>the subtle Hebrew language ploy... along with the error:
>
>Angilion said...
>
> "The reason they refer to Hebrew is because it's the language
>used for the Old Testament of the Bible and the language used in
>Jesus' lifetime, where he lived."
>
>...see that? The language they used in Jesus' lifetime wasn't even
>Hebrew way back then, it was Hellenistic Greek (which is different
>from classical Greek).
In the Holy Land, it was Aramaic and Hebrew and Latin and Greek, each by
different people at different times for different purposes. There is no
particular reason to believe that Jesus spoke any languages other than
Aramaic (spoken in Nazereth) and Hebrew (spoken in the temple).
>Perhaps you and Angilion were also ignorant
>of the fact that Galilean gentiles 20 centuries ago didn't speak
>ancient Hebrew either.
So?
>Matthew 4:13-14 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in
>Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon
>and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
>Esaias the prophet, saying,
>
>Mathew 4:15-16 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by
>the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The
>people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat
>in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
>
>In fact, that particular greek dialect was the language of choice
>for the Jews of 332 B.C. who lived in Alexandria Egypt (which was
>the cultural capital of the Greek Empire). Jews occupied 1/4 of
>Alexandria and that was the place where the Hebrew scriptures were
>first translated (into Greek, ~285 B.C.). That's a good 3 centuries
>before Jesus and proves that Hebrew wasn't the language of choice by
>scholars way back then.
That proves no such thing. It proves that Jews in Alexandria spoke Greek as
their native language, so that Hebrew wasn't the language of choice by
Alexandrian Jews way back then.
>However, historical revisionists have that first translation into
>greek dated at "before 100 A.D." Guess why they picked 100 A.D.?
Because there are different estimates of the date, but all of them are before
100 A.D.
>>> 4) ADL type liberal Jews want to disarm America and legalizing
>>>tetrahydrocanabanolis would make that task a great deal easier.
>>
>>What does being armed have to do with being Christian? Do you really think
>>you can defeat Satan with a gun?
>
>If you are "armed" it means that you are fundamentally opposed to
>the Neo-Nazi gun control legislation ADL liberals and other liberals
>are "for".
Which has nothing to do with Christianity, unless you have a Bible verse
commanding that you own a gun.
>To me, this represents a shift away from ADL liberalism towards
>conservative (and Constitutional) values and freedoms. Obviously,
>Jewry must've been putting pressure on the Israeli Rabbinate for
>such a decision to have been made public.
Or maybe most Jews don't have any particular care WHAT the "Israeli
Rabbinate" thinks. Certainly true of most of the Jews I know (since most
Jews I know are not observant; i.e. they do not practice the rituals
associated with Orthodox Jewry).
>>> 6) Real Christians know these things.
>>
>>This "real Christian" knows otherwise.
>
>Well, you should "know better". And so should Angilion.
I know better than to think that "real Christians" are any less sinners than
any other human being.
lojbab
>
>
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >
> > "John Knight" <johnknight@usa.com>
wrote:
> > >Believe me, Parse, you don't need algebra or calculus to calculate the
> > >statistical average for American girls in TIMSS math. Even adjusting
for
> > >guesses doesn't require anything but some very basic probability theory.
> > >
> > >It's as simple as this:
> > >
> > >If you're asked a question which has four multiple choice answers, and you
> > >haven't got a clue what the answer is, what is the probability of getting a
> > >correct answer Since you have once chance in four of getting the right
> > >answer, your probability is 0.25. If you guess on two questions, your
> > >probability is .5, and three it's .75, and four, it's 1.0.
> > >
> > >In other words, over the long run, or over millions of test takers, guessing
> > >on such a question will yield 25% correct answers, or conversely, every
> > >fourth answer will be correct.
> >
> > This makes the assumption that those who know nothing guess
randomly. IN
> > reality, we don't know that people guess randomly when faced with a test
> > question they do not understand. Indeed, we know that they do not.
> >
Wrong. Dead wrong. You could make that argument about one question, but
when the pattern is repeated over and over again, then you can detect a pattern:
American girls scored lower on many questions than if they'd just guessed because they
didn't have a clue about what the answer was. Many of these questions had zero
misses [read: 0% failed to provide an answer at all], which means you're nuts to even
hint that "Indeed, we know that they do not" "guess
randomly".
The ONLY time you could apply that argument is when a large percentage of them answered
correctly, but even then, if 0% failed to respond at all, then some of them HAD to guess.
> > But the assumption becomes totally meaningless if in fact they know
> > SOMETHING. If 100% of them know something, but not enough to solve the
> > problem, then it is quite plausible that 100% of them will get the answer
> > wrong. Thus someone knowing Newtonian physics perfectly will get the wrong
> > answer on a question that uses special relativity theory. A good test
> > designer will know that the Newtonian approximation is a likely error, and
> > will include that answer among the incorrect alternatives.
>
> Then the article makes the shockingly stupid conclusion that NONE of the
> girls who got the answer right understood the problem!
>
If guessing on a multiple choice question would yield 25% correct, but American girls
only got 5% correct, then how would YOU calculate how many of them understood the problem
> >
> > >No algebra. No calculus. A bit of probability theory, and you
already know
> > >that 25% of all students will get the correct answer if they only *guess* on
> > >a four part multiple choice question.
> >
> > But you have no evidence that any kid "guessed" on any problem.
> >
> > >Now here's the hard part:
> > >
> > >Question H04 on TIMSS had four multiple choice answers, so you would think
> > >that no country or age group or race or sex would answer less than 25% of
> > >them correct, right
> >
> > Wrong. I would think that if the question were difficult and well
designed,
> > that this would be quite possible.
> >
> > >How do you think that's possible
> > >
> > >You can probably figure this out with no knowledge of algebra or calculus,
> > >and you already know all the probability theory that might be needed, so
> > >what is your explanation
> >
> > I've given an explanation, and mine explains how on question D12, both boys
> > and girls in the US scored less than 17% and South Africans scored only 6.4%
> > correct.
>
> Isn't it odd that someone who is harping on math ability doesn't seem to
> realize that 17 and 6 are both lower than 25 :)
>
> J
What's your point, J Who exactly do you think made the point that getting 17%
correct on a four part multiple guess problem is a lower score than if everyone just
guessed
What part of that don't you understand (other than the typical and
infinitely STUPID statement by lojbab that no students guessed)
> "John Knight" <johnknight@usa.com>
wrote:
> >> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> > "John Knight" <johnknight@usa.com>
wrote:
> >> > >Believe me, Parse, you don't need algebra or calculus to calculate
the
> >> > >statistical average for American girls in TIMSS math. Even
adjusting for
> >> > >guesses doesn't require anything but some very basic probability
theory.
> >> > >
> >> > >It's as simple as this:
> >> > >
> >> > >If you're asked a question which has four multiple choice answers,
and you
> >> > >haven't got a clue what the answer is, what is the probability of
getting a
> >> > >correct answer Since you have once chance in four of getting
the right
> >> > >answer, your probability is 0.25. If you guess on two
questions, your
> >> > >probability is .5, and three it's .75, and four, it's 1.0.
> >> > >
> >> > >In other words, over the long run, or over millions of test takers,
guessing
> >> > >on such a question will yield 25% correct answers, or conversely,
every
> >> > >fourth answer will be correct.
> >> >
> >> > This makes the assumption that those who know nothing guess randomly.
IN
> >> > reality, we don't know that people guess randomly when faced with a
test
> >> > question they do not understand. Indeed, we know that they do
not.
> >> >
> >
> >Wrong. Dead wrong. You could make that argument about one question,
but
> >when the pattern is repeated over and over again, then you can detect a
> >pattern: American girls scored lower on many questions than if they'd just
> >guessed because they didn't have a clue about what the answer was. Many of
> >these questions had zero misses [read: 0% failed to provide an answer at
> >all], which means you're nuts to even hint that "Indeed, we know that they
> >do not" "guess randomly".
> >
> >The ONLY time you could apply that argument is when a large percentage of
> >them answered correctly, but even then, if 0% failed to respond at all, then
> >some of them HAD to guess.
>
> You have no logical basis to conclude that *any* kid guessed on *any*
> question of TIMSS. There is *no* statistical basis on which to conclude
> same. The number not responding is totally irrelevant.
>
> The best evidence for guessing (which would not prove it, but it would be
> evidence) would be if all of the answers, correct and incorrect, were chosen
> with equal frequency within the expected margins to support a "random"
> selection. This would among other things require one to know how many girls
> selected each answer, and those numbers are not published - only the numbers
> for all American kids. A couple of questions have approximately equal
> distribution among the 4 answers, but not many. And guessing does not
> explain instances where more than half of each gender got the question
> correct, nor D12 where fewer than 17% got the question correct.
>
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
> >> Then the article makes the shockingly stupid conclusion that NONE of the
> >> girls who got the answer right understood the problem!
> >
> >If guessing on a multiple choice question would yield 25% correct, but
> >American girls only got 5% correct, then how would YOU calculate how many of
> >them understood the problem
>
> You can't. There is no data available to make such a calculation, and since
> TIMSS was not trying to measure "understanding the problem", there is no
> reason to fault them for not providing such data (Even if we had a clear
> definition of what you mean by "understood the problem")
Man, you're batting a thousand. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
>
> >> Isn't it odd that someone who is harping on math ability doesn't seem to
> >> realize that 17 and 6 are both lower than 25 :)
> >
> >What's your point, J Who exactly do you think made the point that getting
> >17% correct on a four part multiple guess problem is a lower score than if
> >everyone just guessed
> >
> >What part of that don't you understand (other than the typical and
> >infinitely STUPID statement by lojbab that no students guessed)
>
> You haven't explained how 17% or 6% correct is even possible on a multiple
> choice problem given the assumptions you made about guessing. This disproves
> your assumptions about guessing.
>
> lojbab
Well, now, it's clear as a bell what it is about "liberals" that they're so
incapable of thought, discussion, debate, logic, or even basic communication, and always
feel compelled to resort to ad hominems and character assassination.
You're literally uneducable, lojbab. There's obviously nothing anyone can teach
you about it at this moment in your life, and I doubt if there ever was a time when
you were capable of learning it.
There may not be one other person on this feminized forum who does comprehend that you
managed to 14 LIES or false statements into 4 short paragraphs, but that's exactly what
you did.
This was classic. I *really* appreciate that belly laugh. Whoever could
have guessed that your posts are some of the best comedy around!
> "Shadow Dancer" <insomniac@winterslight.org>
wrote:
> >> nces.ed.gov has almost all of this data, if you just search for it.
The
> >> graphs at
> [many cites to his own pages deleted]
> >>
> >> John Knight
> >
> >Sorry, but I'd rather look at things IN CONTEXT. You see, once again, you
> >used data in such a way as to further your obvious hatred. There's a LOT of
> >material on this site that should have *gone along* with those tables, but
> >if you'd included it, then you would have refuted your own argument.
> >
> >A government entity would never advocate your use of their materials in such
> >a way as to forward your agenda to take this country back into the "dark
> >ages" of discrimination.
>
> It isn't a government entity, and he has probably just put his foot in his
> mouth legally. TIMSS documentation is put out by a private group, and much
> of its material is copyrighted. Since the nincompoop has publicly posted
> this evidence that he makes complete copies of their documents available and
> he surely does not have their permission, I have forwarded a copy of his
> posting to the TIMSS people as well as to his ISP.
>
> (There is a reason why I will not quote the nincompoop's web page cites; I
> have no interest in furthering his abuse of the copyright laws).
>
> lojbab
|
|
Year |
Age9 |
Age13 |
Age17 |
Age9 |
Age13 |
Age17 |
Age9 |
Age13 |
Age17 |
|
|
1973 |
225 |
274 |
310 |
190 |
228 |
270 |
202 |
239 |
277 |
|
|
1978 |
224 |
272 |
306 |
192 |
230 |
268 |
203 |
238 |
276 |
|
|
1982 |
224 |
274 |
304 |
195 |
240 |
272 |
204 |
252 |
277 |
|
|
1986 |
227 |
274 |
308 |
202 |
249 |
279 |
205 |
254 |
283 |
|
|
1990 |
235 |
276 |
310 |
208 |
250 |
289 |
214 |
255 |
284 |
|
|
1992 |
235 |
279 |
312 |
208 |
250 |
286 |
212 |
259 |
292 |
|
|
1994 |
237 |
281 |
312 |
212 |
252 |
286 |
210 |
256 |
291 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1996
237 281 312 212 252 286 215 256 292" |
|
|
|
