Doob, if you just wanted him to explain himself, why didn’t you just email him?
All I can say is that Punha seems harmless enough.
I just can’t imagine he intentionaly wants to offend.
I suppose when you have posted as often as he has there is bound to be someone with whom you disagree - I managed it on post number one so he ain’t doing badly in my estimation.
Oh shit. Well, Nacho, you’re right I did say that. And, my First-Ammendment-Loving ass now has to say that highly biased sure as hell includes the racist fringe. It sure doesn’t include ( at least in ** MY BOOK ** ) killers, or people who advocate killing. I did specify the kind of group’s data to which I was referring, and it surely wasn’t Duke.
He’s so far at the end of the bell curve that I’d think that Askia could do a sparkling job without ever seeking his point of view. But then, I’m a left-wing Pacifist Quaker/Jew who’d rather see Askia fail her paper than encourage her to go to a site like that. 
We all have our agendas, and I needed to clarify mine. However, you did use my quote to illustrate the greater point, and for that I thank you.
Cartooniverse
(1) Mankind Quarterly is a well-known racial supremecist and eugenecist journal.
(2) It’s claims regarding race (as others, e.g. Rushton) have been amply and thoroughly refuted through genetics. To continue such claims in the face of the data is to spread ignorance, rather like claiming the world is flat.
(3) The goals of Duke, MQ and the Eugenecist movement are indeed evil in the ordinary usage of the word.
As for why Manny left the link in… Well, he can speak for himself.
In my opinion, providing such a link without comment is neither funny nor particularly enlightening.
Rather like the moron who posted the Ruston et al cite.
All I know is that the link provided by 'Punny has left me with a sharp distaste for the suffix “-oid”.
IMO, it was just a joke that misfired. Relax, people.
But that’s the problem here, you jumped to conclusions based on things I didn’t say. Had I made those statements, you would have been completely justified. Since I didn’t, your point is moot.
Could you explain how you can see someone as “beneath contempt” based on chat seasons without him saying anything objectionable? Because Nacho4Sara’s assumtion seemed rather reasonable based on the contect of your remark. The assumption certainly didn’t seem so off the mark that it deserved rebuke.
Point taken, apology refused. It makes me very sad to think that such a trivial misunderstanding (and that is what it really is - friedo was right is claiming that this should have been taken to e-mail) can lead to posters losing respect for one another, but so be it.
I’m still waiting to here Punha’s explanation.
Guys, you’re assuming again. I’m actually not upset at all, I’d just like to clear a slight misunderstanding.
Nacho4Sara, I wanted to clarify with you, that’s all. Did I lose respect for you? Not a bit. I just hate open ends, and that seemed to dangle a bit to me.
beakerxf, I said that I didn’t specify. There are things that I could specify about, I simply chose not to. That’s my prerogative. Omission of detail does not explicitly imply absence of said detail. Certainly, an intentionally vauge statement, such as the one I made, should be noted as such, and inquired upon. It’s the assuming that really gets to me.
Basically, it was me posting without using as much of my brain as I should have. I apologize to manny and everyone else who had to look at that, and to the SDMB as a whole. I honestly thought at first that it was an extension of Duke University’s site.
My intent was to find useful material to help the OPer with his/her project. Evidently I didn’t examine the site long enough, else I would have realized the source was not Duke University but David Duke.
Actually, I didn’t. I scrolled down to the actual report to skim it and make sure it pertained somewhat to askia’s General Question. I figured s/he would be able to make sense of what I didn’t understand, as it’s his/her project and not mine.
I originally thought, as I stated previously, that it was an extension of Duke University’s website, and as such would be scholarly. I noted the other works cited in the report and assumed those proved its scholarship.
Again, I apologize sincerely for posting that link.
And lastly, I want to thank those who came here in my defense. Your support here means more to me than I can express in words.
MHO here, simply from knowing Pat in person, I am willing to bet the reason he took a few days to respond here is because he truly did make the mistake he said above, and was mortified. Pat plays the part of the flighty 19 year old, and in part he is, but I have talked with him IRL, and he is deeper and more mature than most of y’all will believe. He also comes across as kinda flakey, and he definitely is a post whore, but I’m proud to consider him a friend. He has apologised, and I suggest he has done nothing else to warrent our not giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I’m with weirddave on this one.
I’ve looked at the Duke site, and although there were some graphics on the top of the page, if you weren’t paying attention to them, they’re not that obvious. (They save the most graphic stuff for the home page.) The bulk of the page is a text-and-links intensive document that takes the form of a scholarly article. All in all, an easy mistake to make.
I’ve also had the privilege of knowing punha for the past several months, here, in chat, on AIM, and on one other board. He is generally respectful of others’ opinions and beliefs, and I have yet to see him say anything out of malice. I have no problems believing this was an accident on his part.
And what 19-year-old isn’t flighty? (D&R)
Robin
Firstly, many thanks to msrobyn and weirddave for their support:)
Saturday I slept into the afternoon, having been up for various reasons until roughly dawn. I went home, prepared for the dopefest at Ruby Tuesdays, and was gone from around 6 until I got home at 2 am or so. I was notified of this pit thread’s existence last night at Rudy Tuesdays, and I admitted there that it was a mistake on my part, as those who were in attendance, listening to me and within earshot would be able to tell you.
I got up this morning around . . . 1? 2? I don’t remember, to be honest. I wasn’t able to get online until I got to school today (both sisters needing the online connection for schoolwork, and being in a family of six one does not often get much online time when one is home and has no schoolwork to do) and shortly thereafter posted to this thread. That’s mainly why I didn’t post until so late today.
However, I did see Collounsbury’s post following mine and I was really ashamed of myself for not reading that page further and seeing the bias and the report itself.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by iampunha *
**
I was one of those who went to that site and had to look at that. (To check what all the fuss in here was about)
I had never heard of this David Duke (what a name… snicker) before. Anyway, I scanned the site, dismissed it as ethnic editorial, which I have no use for. Dylan filled me in on some of the stuff the site doesn’t talk about and a ray of understanding finally set in. I learned something.
I thank you for your apology, but there is no need here. An ignorance was unmade as a result of your error and I’ve enough faith in my ability to be discerning in my assimilation of information not to be outrageously offended if I read something that I think is well… stupid.
On the other hand, if you ever wanted to try argue that this stuff has merit, I’d begin to ignore you. Which, as you have stated, was not your intention.
(that being said, considering the context of the thread, I’m relieved that it was an error.)
I wanted to apologize for getting pissy with you in absentia. Perfectly understandable error.
Apology gladly accepted and let’s hope this is the last post in this thread so it can die a quiet death.
Sorry to bump it up again, against your wishes, iampunha, but I humbly think you are deserving of a few apologies. picmr, I wish more people would take to the example that you have set.
Connor
And here I was, ready to defend iampunha (as much as it kills me) because I assumed he was implying that if you think acedemic performance is determined by race, then maybe you belong at the David Duke site (how DID he get .org status!) rather than the SDMB.
It was all an innocent mistake, thank god. I just hate to be wrong about people.
Simply: he registered the duke.org domain name before someone else did. There’s no pre-requisite for obtaining a .org domain (although registrants are encouraged to be an actual organization when registering it).