This is also something which SB missing on the other thread where he/she claims that you only need 100 people “to be golden” and then claimed a desire just wanted to be shot down if he were wrong. Well, what was said was :
it would certainly seem much better to put in those terms.
This is making my brain hurt. If I gave you a number, would you quit banging on about whatever the hell it is you’re banging on about? Okay - 129.
Oh, please. Your entire participation in that thread amounted to a phony attempt to use questions to pretend that that one study on race in the US could be generalized to the entire world after we painstakingly explained over and over why it couldn’t. Then you refused to accept the scientifically unquestionable notion that race = subspecies, pretending that was just my and Colibri’s opinion.
I’ve seen you post some reasonable stuff in other threads, but in that one you were either an absolute idiot, a troll, or both.
129 wasn’t even my post.
Perhaps you feel that I was arguing in the thread; and perhaps you feel that my argument was without merit. But that doesn’t mean that I speculated and/or reacted inappropriately when called on it.
You do have problems with comprehension, don’t you? Let’s see -
Now, I may be mistaken here but the last time I looked 129 was between 1 and 155.
You were certainly arguing, and your argument was without merit. And you did react inappropriately by ignoring everything other people had to say or twisting it round to try and support your arguments.
The challenge was to substantiate the claim that I speculated in that thread. All of my posts fell between 1 and 155 (the first and last posts in the thread).
Thus, if I speculated at all, the post in which I did so would have a number between 1 and 155.
However – read carefully here – not all of the posts in the thread were mine.
You do have problems with comprehension, don’t you?
That’s false, but anyway it’s irrelevant.
John Mace claims that I speculated in that thread just like smiling bandit did.
In which post did I do it?
The realproblem with smiling bandits post is that it was by a friend who is only “usually right”. Naturally, if it was his other friend who is “always right” this Pit would be totally unnecessary.
Would that everyone had such a friend.
I talked to the friend I did receive my information from, and he claims I botched it up and he referred only to skeletel maturation relative to animals, and is now very angry at me for being stupid. I once again cannot confirm his idea, and now suspect it is total hogwash. I am a gullible fool for believing it, and doubly stupid for repeating it. I am sorry.
Secondly, I did mean to post more in the hydrogen thing. I sort of lost track and I only remembered about 10 hours later. I am sorry.
Finally, I apologize to everyone. I’m sorry I angered you and wasted your time. Brazil84, I appreciate you taking the flak, but please just let it die. It won’t help me and it will just make trouble for you.
Well, I didn’t post in the GQ thread in question, but I humbly accept your apology nonetheless. 
apology accepted even I have been talking to one of my shrinks about this fiasco
I’d ask him about that bizarre art work of yours.
He’s not ready for the terrifying truth that I can only express through Paint on my computer (and interpretive dance)
I am sorry, but I must. Cite? (for the last part, of course)
Kudos for coming clean on this. And I will say for the 3rd time that I didn’t find your original post all that bad (especially when compared to many others). Brazil84, OTOH, was being a persistent tool for multiple pages in the thread I linked to, and eventually caused **Colibri **to close the thread. S/he is doing you no favor by championing your cause, as s/he is a well established idiot on more than one subject discussed around here.
And this is where you are being a complete idiot again. You can hide behind the fact that you didn’t post in exactly the same manner as SB did, but no one ever said you did. You posted wild speculation by claiming that “race” and “subspecies” were not the same thing. You challenged that over and over and over again. You posted wild speculation over and over and over again that a limited study of racial DNA markers in the US could be generalized and used throughout the world despite the fact that some of us painstakingly explained to you why it couldn’t.
If you want to let yourself off the hook because you didn’t say you heard it from a friend, then bully for you. You are still an idiot, a troll or both.
Now, I was extremely patient with you in the thread in question. I spent a lot of time explaining why you were wrong, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were honestly trying to understand the subject. I will not make that mistake again.
That’s cool by me. We all need to be able to question our assumptions and retract and revise them at need.
Which post number, please? Please tell me which post or posts of mine contained this terrible, horrible speculation you complain of.
Such a simple question. Just a simple number.
In this one?
I don’t know that it was a “terrible, horrible” speculation, but speculation it was. It may not have been extremely wild but it was thrown out there with a very generic assumption that it applies to just about anyone.
I hope this whole experience won’t put you, or anyone else, off the idea of presenting ideas to be confirmed or otherwise, in GQ - the entire purpose of the forum is the provision of factual and definitive answers.
If people are not to post unknown or unconfirmed information there (although with the qualifier that they do actually want it confirmed), then the forum might just as well be shut down.
Yes, you are quite right, I did misread your post. I apologise.
How about post #113, where you seem to think taking a sample of 3,500 from 300,000,000 is statistically the same as taking a sample of 3,500 from 6,000,000,000 while increasing the number of variables. And you still don’t accept it even after John Mace patiently explained it to you.