On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote:


Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet
I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to
take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of
this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his
dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic
cable package at home in his mom's basement.


I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in
history at the same age.
And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have
depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major
was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time
taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time.
Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same
as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by
students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and
producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and
results in the same, but...it doesn't.


Dance Mr Bojangles.
You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience
so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at
GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me
$100 a point and I will make at least five grand.
Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes.


I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval
european history, what the "kid" was studying.

Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps
the desire to get the **** out of Europe..

And perhaps you might
enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by
blacks to more fully integrate this country.

That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to
narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries.
I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly
rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would
I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the
main thrust of the piece?
It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may
have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight
along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack
by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo
Soldiers coming across the plain.



Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of
the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70
you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history
major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of
knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where
are your academic discussions?


You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few
bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at
5 and never left.

Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked
you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this
country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with
the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers.

I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed
you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on
in high school.


1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English,
literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by
writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and
participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of
examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing
more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you
would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had
to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and
then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by
four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other
universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you
know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have
read.

2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that
had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high
school. The question had more to do with your understanding of the
Frontier Thesis and whether you knew enough history in regard to that
Thesis and to its application in modern times to societal integration.
This is the sort of question a contemporary student of U.S. history
might be asked on a final exam, to see if he/she really understood the
study materials and could apply them. You don't get that ability,
usually, by reading a helter-skelter list of books that sound
interesting to you.

You may well be a "student of history," as you claim, but that doesn't
mean you have completed the academic requirements to be anything more
than a guy who has read some books, or that you have the background to
show you know more than someone with a B.A. and M.A. in history and a
lifetime of study and writing in the field.

On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote:


Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet
I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to
take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of
this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his
dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic
cable package at home in his mom's basement.


I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in
history at the same age.
And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have
depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major
was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time
taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time.
Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same
as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by
students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and
producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and
results in the same, but...it doesn't.


Dance Mr Bojangles.
You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience
so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at
GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me
$100 a point and I will make at least five grand.
Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes.


I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval
european history, what the "kid" was studying.

Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps
the desire to get the **** out of Europe..

And perhaps you might
enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by
blacks to more fully integrate this country.

That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to
narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries.
I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly
rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would
I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the
main thrust of the piece?
It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may
have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight
along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack
by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo
Soldiers coming across the plain.



Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of
the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70
you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history
major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of
knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where
are your academic discussions?


You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few
bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at
5 and never left.

Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked
you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this
country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with
the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers.

I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed
you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on
in high school.


1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English,
literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by
writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and
participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of
examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing
more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you
would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had
to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and
then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by
four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other
universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you
know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have
read.

2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that
had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high
school.

You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek.

1:14 PMIts Me
- show quoted text -
You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek.
......

Oh that's ok. The double standard wad pretty evident when he wouldn't give me a legitimate reason for why I should vote for Hillary or support the DNC.

He acted like I was really stupid for asking...

On 12/28/16 2:14 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote:


Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet
I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to
take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of
this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his
dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic
cable package at home in his mom's basement.


I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in
history at the same age.
And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have
depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major
was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time
taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time.
Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same
as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by
students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and
producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and
results in the same, but...it doesn't.


Dance Mr Bojangles.
You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience
so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at
GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me
$100 a point and I will make at least five grand.
Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes.


I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval
european history, what the "kid" was studying.

Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps
the desire to get the **** out of Europe..

And perhaps you might
enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by
blacks to more fully integrate this country.

That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to
narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries.
I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly
rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would
I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the
main thrust of the piece?
It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may
have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight
along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack
by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo
Soldiers coming across the plain.



Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of
the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70
you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history
major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of
knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where
are your academic discussions?


You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few
bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at
5 and never left.

Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked
you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this
country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with
the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers.

I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed
you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on
in high school.


1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English,
literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by
writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and
participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of
examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing
more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you
would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had
to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and
then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by
four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other
universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you
know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have
read.

2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that
had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high
school.

You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek.


I asked, asshole, I didn't demand.

On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 2:55:00 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 2:14 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote:


Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet
I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to
take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of
this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his
dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic
cable package at home in his mom's basement.


I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in
history at the same age.
And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have
depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major
was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time
taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time.
Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same
as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by
students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and
producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and
results in the same, but...it doesn't.


Dance Mr Bojangles.
You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience
so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at
GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me
$100 a point and I will make at least five grand.
Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes.


I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval
european history, what the "kid" was studying.

Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps
the desire to get the **** out of Europe..

And perhaps you might
enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by
blacks to more fully integrate this country.

That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to
narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries.
I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly
rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would
I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the
main thrust of the piece?
It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may
have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight
along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack
by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo
Soldiers coming across the plain.



Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of
the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70
you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history
major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of
knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where
are your academic discussions?


You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few
bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at
5 and never left.

Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked
you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this
country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with
the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers.

I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed
you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on
in high school.


1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English,
literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by
writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and
participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of
examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing
more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you
would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had
to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and
then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by
four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other
universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you
know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have
read.

2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that
had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high
school.

You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek.


I asked, asshole, I didn't demand.

Heh. When John does the same as you, you accuse him of demanding answers and you tell him he's not in charge. Same shoe, different foot.

On 12/28/16 3:13 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 2:55:00 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 2:14 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote:


Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet
I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to
take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of
this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his
dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic
cable package at home in his mom's basement.


I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in
history at the same age.
And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have
depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major
was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time
taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time.
Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same
as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by
students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and
producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and
results in the same, but...it doesn't.


Dance Mr Bojangles.
You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience
so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at
GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me
$100 a point and I will make at least five grand.
Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes.


I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval
european history, what the "kid" was studying.

Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps
the desire to get the **** out of Europe..

And perhaps you might
enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by
blacks to more fully integrate this country.

That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to
narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries.
I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly
rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would
I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the
main thrust of the piece?
It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may
have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight
along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack
by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo
Soldiers coming across the plain.



Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of
the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70
you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history
major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of
knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where
are your academic discussions?


You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few
bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at
5 and never left.

Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked
you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this
country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with
the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers.

I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed
you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on
in high school.


1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English,
literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by
writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and
participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of
examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing
more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you
would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had
to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and
then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by
four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other
universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you
know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have
read.

2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that
had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high
school.

You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek.


I asked, asshole, I didn't demand.

Heh. When John does the same as you, you accuse him of demanding answers and you tell him he's not in charge. Same shoe, different foot.


Johnny the Racist demands. Well, he did when I read his posts, which I
haven't done for some time.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:17:15 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 12/28/16 3:13 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 2:55:00 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 2:14 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 1:30:17 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/28/16 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:54:29 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/28/16 11:35 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:13:07 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 9:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:00:35 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/27/16 4:19 PM, wrote:


Did you actually read the post you are responding to? I certainly bet
I know more about US history than a GW graduate who did not have to
take a single US history course to get his BA. Where did he get all of
this knowledge? Smoking dope and watching the History channel in his
dorm room? He could have saved the fifty grand and just bought a basic
cable package at home in his mom's basement.


I doubt at 22 you knew as much about history as a college grad in
history at the same age.
And as for whether he/she studied U.S. history, well that would have
depended upon the cycle and sequence taken for the major. If your major
was medieval history of Europe, you wouldn't have spent a lot of time
taking courses about the United States. Or maybe any time.
Reading random books and papers, as you apparently did, ain't the same
as following a course of study taught by professors and discussed by
students discussing similar material in a classroom setting and
producing college-level papers. You may think it is the same, and
results in the same, but...it doesn't.


Dance Mr Bojangles.
You don't seem to give me any credit for 50 years of life experience
so the bet stands as is. If this kid does not take American history at
GW, I will sit for the test and he can sit for the same one. Give me
$100 a point and I will make at least five grand.
Make it easy, just use two of those 50 question Face book quizzes.


I'd love to see your test results after a senior level exam on medieval
european history, what the "kid" was studying.

Having exactly NOTHING to do with American history other than perhaps
the desire to get the **** out of Europe..

And perhaps you might
enlighten us as to how the Frontier Thesis could have been used by
blacks to more fully integrate this country.

That was just Turner's opinion and widely criticized as being far to
narrow of an opinion by many, including his contemporaries.
I gave you my opinion about the integration of blacks and you roundly
rejected it without actually dealing with any of the points. Why would
I hypothesize about someone else's theory when that was not even the
main thrust of the piece?
It is true that blacks had more opportunity in the west but that may
have just been that they had the common enemy of the natives to fight
along side the whites. If you were a settler in Kansas, under attack
by indians, you certainly were happy to see a troop of Buffalo
Soldiers coming across the plain.



Once again, I doubt at 22 you knew as much history as a college grad of
the same age who was a history major. There's no way to prove that at 70
you have the rigorous education in history as a current graduate history
major of 22. That you may have read a pile of books is not proof of
knowledge. Where are your papers? Where are your presentations? Where
are your academic discussions?


You certainly put a lot of credence on the pontificating of a few
bloviating academics who have never done anything but go to school at
5 and never left.

Also, I didn't ask you for a critique of the Frontier Thesis. I asked
you how it could have been used by blacks to more fully integrate this
country. The question is a modern one and really has little to do with
the expansion of the west, per se, or the Buffalo Soldiers.

I wasn't sure where you were going with that brain fart but I assumed
you thought I would be impressed by something I read and reported on
in high school.


1. In college in subjects such as political science, history, English,
literature, et cetera, you demonstrate command of subject matter by
writing papers, preparing and presenting presentations, and
participating in discussions, and by taking various kinds of
examinations. This is what the students do. You may think it is nothing
more than the "pontificating of a few bloviating academics," but you
would be wrong. Again. Before my wife could get her doctorate, she had
to pass a three day written exam in her field - three days in a row -and
then after that she had to take an all-day oral exam given to her by
four or maybe five faculty members, including two from other
universities, to defend her dissertation. You have to show what you
know. That's a bit more work than typing up a list of books you may have
read.

2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that
had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high
school.

You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek.


I asked, asshole, I didn't demand.

Heh. When John does the same as you, you accuse him of demanding answers and you tell him he's not in charge. Same shoe, different foot.


Johnny the Racist demands. Well, he did when I read his posts, which I
haven't done for some time.

Funny how you respond to so many of them.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:54:57 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:



2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that
had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high
school.

You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek.


I asked, asshole, I didn't demand.

You asked me to create a case for something based on a theory I did
not agree with. I gave you the best case I could make for how the
exceptionalism created by the pioneering experience would affect the
advancement of black people and I gave it to you. Pioneers were less
likely to have prejudices against black people.
If I step back and look at Turner a century later, I see a different
thing. That pioneering spirit and independence that exists is still
concentrated outside the big cities in flyover country. The people in
the cities, like you, are reaching back to Europe for the model of how
you want the democracy to go on. You want an all powerful government,
more akin to a monarchy than a democracy.
Is Trump the outcome of that experience Turner says molded our
democracy?

On 12/29/16 1:44 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:54:57 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:



2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that
had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high
school.

You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek.


I asked, asshole, I didn't demand.

You asked me to create a case for something based on a theory I did
not agree with. I gave you the best case I could make for how the
exceptionalism created by the pioneering experience would affect the
advancement of black people and I gave it to you. Pioneers were less
likely to have prejudices against black people.
If I step back and look at Turner a century later, I see a different
thing. That pioneering spirit and independence that exists is still
concentrated outside the big cities in flyover country. The people in
the cities, like you, are reaching back to Europe for the model of how
you want the democracy to go on. You want an all powerful government,
more akin to a monarchy than a democracy.
Is Trump the outcome of that experience Turner says molded our
democracy?


Actually, I was referring to how the white man's expansion of the west,
as outlined by Turner, caused the end of native American society and
culture, for the most part. The white man went everywhere, leaving no
stone unturned, as it were. There were no reasonable places for the
native Americans to hide. Had the blacks been able to do this in the
40s, 50s, and 60s, going everywhere, as it were, and leaving no areas
unintegrated, we would have today a far different less much less
segregated society, because "white flight" would have been
meaningless...there would be black faces everywhere. HUD tried to do
some of this in the 1970s and 1980s, but the attempts to require
inclusion of lower income properties in or adjacent to "fancy"
subdivisions was only modestly successful.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:02:14 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/29/16 1:44 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 14:54:57 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:



2. No, I'm not. I asked you - twice - a fairly specific question that
had nothing to do with something you read and reported on in high
school.

You obviously don't understand that you aren't in charge here, and can't demand answers that you seek.


I asked, asshole, I didn't demand.

You asked me to create a case for something based on a theory I did
not agree with. I gave you the best case I could make for how the
exceptionalism created by the pioneering experience would affect the
advancement of black people and I gave it to you. Pioneers were less
likely to have prejudices against black people.
If I step back and look at Turner a century later, I see a different
thing. That pioneering spirit and independence that exists is still
concentrated outside the big cities in flyover country. The people in
the cities, like you, are reaching back to Europe for the model of how
you want the democracy to go on. You want an all powerful government,
more akin to a monarchy than a democracy.
Is Trump the outcome of that experience Turner says molded our
democracy?


Actually, I was referring to how the white man's expansion of the west,
as outlined by Turner, caused the end of native American society and
culture, for the most part. The white man went everywhere, leaving no
stone unturned, as it were. There were no reasonable places for the
native Americans to hide. Had the blacks been able to do this in the
40s, 50s, and 60s, going everywhere, as it were, and leaving no areas
unintegrated, we would have today a far different less much less
segregated society, because "white flight" would have been
meaningless...there would be black faces everywhere. HUD tried to do
some of this in the 1970s and 1980s, but the attempts to require
inclusion of lower income properties in or adjacent to "fancy"
subdivisions was only modestly successful.

To start with this has little to do with Turner's thesis. The black
people who did have the pioneering spirit, did go west. That has
nothing to do with the government building "projects" in the suburbs.
Don't you think economic issues have as much to do with this as skin
color? Nobody living in a rich neighborhood wants a title 9 housing
project next door. You also have the problem that there is no welfare
money to be had out in the hinterlands. We have already had this
conversation when I suggested LBJ caused a lot of these problems by
piling the welfare money up in the big cities and now we see the
result. That is where the concentrations of poverty are.