On Apr 22, 2:59=A0pm, help bot <nomorech...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 8:33 am, samsloan <samhsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Larry Parr is missing the big case
>
> =A0 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.
>
> =A0 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.
>
> =A0 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.
>
> =A0 What about checkers...or Chinese chess. =A0Can'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
>
> =A0 Polygamous? =A0So, 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.
>
> =A0 I always hate it when a writer leaves out key links
> to his "surveys" and deep research. =A0I was especially
> interested to know the exact percentages, but... .
>
> > Here in the US it is not allowed. We only have girlfriends.
>
> =A0 Nonsense. =A0Lots of wealthy men have many wives;
> they just have them one after another, instead of at
> the same time.
A tiny minority.
And most western females have many, many boyfriends, overlapping with
each other's occurance --without even having done any activity to
aquire that status (unlike the minority of men).
So if you're concerned with serial philandering you should be focusing
on the teen females.
>
> > 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.
>
> =A0 Interesting. =A0So, none of Mr. Sloan's ancestors are
> related to one another. =A0This raises an interesting
> question: how then does he know they really are
> his ancestors?
>
> > None of them were involved in any funny religions.
>
> =A0 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. =A0WOW.
>
> > They were all straight-line Methodists or Presbyterians. Some were
preac=
hers.
>
> > 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.
>
> =A0 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?
>
> =A0 I think this is wrong-headed thinking. =A0Were it not
> for these "over-achievers", those men who had no
> children at all would very likely have gotten in on
> the action.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
|
