[mburbank]

Porky; You rushed to attributre the quote to Churchill because you thought I didn't know who said it. It made you feel superior, which is sad, because I do know who said it, and it wasn't Churchill. It's just an example of the way your tiny porcine brain works. You think you now more than other people about subject, but it turns out all you know is the 'common knowledge', something which is generally wrong.

Of course you don't care. If you did care, it would be harder to be so full of yourself.

The New York Times is often fallible, especially lately. One need only look at the Judith Miller stories on WMD to see how easily their staff is misled. For instance in your article (Thanks for pointing out the button I missed) , the author makes his bizarre statement on personlity being hereditable without attributing it to Chagnon. Since that statement is highly contoversial and is in no way proven, that's an error any editor should have caught at any paper, liberal, conservative or small town. Likewise, citing Chagnon without mentioning that he is very poorly thought of academically and ethically (He's believed to have given the Yanamamo the 'gift' of measles) .

What's a moralist? is it the same thing as a Liberal? Can't you post some vague derogatory definition when you bring in a new term? Chagnon doesn't bother me because I'm politically correct (again, do you just mean liberal here? You could save yourself some time) I'm bothered by his lck of adherence to widely accepted reseacrh methodology.

When you say Moral activist, do you just mean liberal? It seems to me your haunted by a ot of boogeymen. I'd suggest it's just one boogeyman. You might sleep easier knowing that. Who is 'Sponsel" and what is he admitting? Is he a Chgnon suporter or detractor? If he's supporter, why the misleading use of the word 'admits'. If he's detractor, what are his objections? Do you actually have any idea who 'Sponsel' is?

It's very easy and very legitimate to point out structural differences in tatsebuds and pigmentation. It's irresponsible to look at personality and behavior, something we understand far, far, far less about then the comparatively simple actions of the nervous system and pigmentation. It's very bad science and it deliberately relies on it's readers ignornace of the terms under discussion. I don't even get to if I think it's all racist clap trap or not, because I'm not even looking at his conclusions yet. His initial premiss is flawed. Badly. He's mixing biology (a hard science) and Anthropology (a soft science)

It's typical for a lout such as yourself to assume my objections are based on being a Liberal Moralist Moral Activist because you don't know shit from shinola, you are a blowhard, and you have an inflated notion of your own intelligence.

Here's a thought: Maybe, just maybe there are people who have opinions different than yours and it's not because they are namby pamby tree hugging hippies. I'm sure it's comforting living in a world of straw men and imagining the whole world is against you and your few but proud common sense embracing real men. Why it would me more comforting then realizing you are in the majority and you firmly hold the reigns of power England and the USA is beyond me, but go ahead and keep worrying about Moralist Boogedys changing your nursery rhymes. Honestly.

If you need to believe that your lilly white self is superior to all the many varieties of froggy little brown men your country once owned, just do it, but for God's sake, stop your put upon squealing. The wold's trough is squarely under your massive snout. Chow down and shut up.