On Apr 22, 8:33 am, samsloan <samhsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Larry Parr is missing the big case
Dog bites man.
> It is known and the sisters have confessed that Papa Polgar used to
> beat them to force them to play chess and study chess and it was
> living Hell to live in that home where they were not allowed to go out
> and associate and play with other kids their ages. Of course, this is
> what made them great chess players. Otherwise, they would be working
> as office secretaries somewhere today.
So then, young women in Hungary who are not
forced to learn learn chess all end up in this same
profession?
> And now, Susan Polgar is applying to her children the same techniques
> that were applied to her, forcing her kids to play chess.
Normally, children who are not happy about the way
they were raised will try something different.
> Problem is
> that her kids are boys who are often not as compliant as girls and the
> youngest one does not like chess and has complained to the
> authorities.
What about checkers...or Chinese chess. Can't he
be forced to learn some other game he does like?
> What Larry Parr is missing is the big Texas case going on right now
> where 416 children were taken from their parents and put into foster
> care solely and entirely because their families were living in or
> associated with a polygamous life style
Polygamous? So, they must like /many/ different
/games/?
> In the vast majority of countries and societies of the world polygamy
> was practiced and in most cases still is.
I always hate it when a writer leaves out key links
to his "surveys" and deep research. I was especially
interested to know the exact percentages, but... .
> Here in the US it is not allowed. We only have girlfriends.
Nonsense. Lots of wealthy men have many wives;
they just have them one after another, instead of at
the same time.
> I have been doing research on my family history and I have found three
> instances of my ancestors who had an unusually large number of
> children.
>
> All of them lived in the 1700s. None of them were related to each
> other.
Interesting. So, none of Mr. Sloan's ancestors are
related to one another. This raises an interesting
question: how then does he know they really are
his ancestors?
> None of them were involved in any funny religions.
I am awed by the fact that Mr. Sloan was able to
determine the religious beliefs of each and every one
of these "unrelated" ancestors of his, so far back in
time. WOW.
> They were all straight-line Methodists or Presbyterians. Some were
preachers.
>
> One of these was Andrew Graham who arrived in America in 1772. He was
> married four times. Three of his wives were named Margaret. He has
> more than 7,000 descendants alive today, which may explain why there
> are so many people nowadays named Graham.
Seven thousand is not very many, if that is the grand
total alive today; consider "Smith", for instance.
> My research tends to show that most men had no children at all and a
> few men had very large numbers of children, some men producing more
> than 20 children.
>
> My question is: Would the human race have survived at all and would
> any of us be alive today had it not been for those few men who
> produced large numbers of children?
I think this is wrong-headed thinking. Were it not
for these "over-achievers", those men who had no
children at all would very likely have gotten in on
the action.
-- help bot
|
