brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at
Wed Sep 4 21:34:50 EST 2002

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at> wrote in message
news:2i5anust3tn13mhtsj3h5llhv4k5qo5sjd at
> "John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
> >> > Note that Jehudi was a son [read: descendant] of the Cushi:
> >>
> >> No, John look back at your own quote. It is not "the Cushi" which would
> >> probably indicate membership in the tribe, but simply Cushi, used as a
> >name.
> >
> >First you argue that "Yhudiy" is just another way to spell "Yhudah",
> No it is not "just another way".  It is in particular THE way that the
> word is spelled when used as a patronymic.
> >even though it has two different Strong's numbers
> Strong's numbers reflect differences in the English at least as much
> as they represent differences in the Hebrew or Greek.
> >and represents two entirely different and separate races,
> No evidence of that.
> >and now you have "Cushi" which even Strong's
> >states is a patronymic from "Cush", and you deny the relationship?
> Oh certainly it is a patronymic of Cush.
> But
> 1) you can't use the one patronymic and ignore the other, as you try
> to do.
> 2) the patronymic when applied to an entire people clearly indicates
> the ancestry of the people. When applied as an individual's given name
> it could have many other explanations, including a matronymic or
> adoptive relationship.
> The inability to figure individual names is why you will have trouble
> explaining "Cushi the Benjaminite" from Psalms.
> >> Now the person would probably not have gotten this name, if there were
> >> some reference intended to the Cushites, but that could simply be that
> >> someone had kidded him about being "as dark as a Cushite", or talking
> >a
> >> Chsuite or anything else, and the name stuck.If the author had intended
> >> say that this servant of the king was a Cushite, he would have done so,
> >
> >First you argued that Mordecai's genealogy was listed because "genealogy
> >always important in this region", and now you're arguing that it's
> >meaningless.
> Genealogy is important; etymology of individual names is usually
> unexplained.  Etymology of group names is easier - being based EITHER
> on patronyms (Jehudi = biblical Jews) or geographical (Ashkenazi =
> dwellers in the land of Ashkenaz).  I find it hilarious that you
> insist on interpreting Ashkenazi as a patronymic when there is a known
> alternative explanation, and you interpret Cushi as a patronymic, when
> not preceded by "the", but refuse to consider Jehudi as a patronymic
> under the same conditions, EVEN WHEN CENTURIES OF BIBLICAL
> >If they had intended to call him a "Cushi" [the equivalent to calling
> >Powell a nigger]
> More likely it is like those fellow students who last weeked called my
> daughter African-American because of how dark her tan got last summer.
> We're still waiting for your explanation of Cushi the Benjaminite.
> lojbab

We heard about that.  But they called her nigger.  And they called her
nigger because she's nigger, not because of some phony baloney "tan".  They
know she's nigger because her father "thinks" and smells [read: mostly
smells] like nigger. And they didn't use the jewish code word
"African-American", because niggers aren't accepted in Africa and they
aren't accepted in America.  If you want an accurate jewish code word as an
alternative to nigger, try "wop-wop" [read: without papers -- without

But nigger is better.

It's an insult to nigger for you to call him [hyphenated-American], because
they know the instant you do that, the next thing you'll want him to do is
go off to some phony baloney jewish war someplace, or pay taxes, or get a
job, or quit drugs, or stop dealing, just like honkeys.  And the LAST thing
nigger wants to be accused of is being a or like a honkey, or to be caught
in the back of the bus reading a book, like some honkey or chink.

The POINT is:  if you substitute "Cushi" for all the races above, it fits
like a glove, gramatically.

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list