CJ it looked like, to me at least, that you loved everybody & everything. Gay, Indigenious, Muslims, as in the "Summer of Love" 1967. I just thought it sounded like that you would, naturally, include the house wrecking grubs, pedo's, terrorists, etc. Or are you prejucist against those people & not the afore mentioned. Would not make you "racist" or at least "a preduced person"?

As an antropologist you well know that it is accepted that there are 4 basic races & numerous sub races. The Australian Aboriginal is, for example; Cacausian, Sub:Australoid or Austroneasian depending on the particular book & which particular migration date is being discussed. So what's your problem.

I believe, as DJ explained & I tried as well, which seemed to be purposely ignored, that not every thing,just because it's not all airyfairy, Love & light, is a racist remark or intended to be. There seems to be the, "I'm holier than thou", "no you not I'm holier than you" competition with some of these radical non-racist extremists.

And, fa f^(% sake, let's just ignore Ngarmada. She is just too weird & I tired of playing with her.

Jayb: << CJ it looked like, to me at least, that you loved everybody & everything. >>

That's one thing you got completely wrong. While I'm not a hater like many who post on these threads, I'm pretty selective about who and what I love. Those that I do love aren't selected on the basis of ethnicity or religion. I certainly don't love any paedophiles or terrorists that I know of, and I have no idea what you mean by "house wrecking grubs". Termites, perhaps?

<< ... it is accepted that there are 4 basic races & numerous sub races >>

Certainly not by the great majority of reputable anthropologists, since about the 1950s or so. More recently, the notion of 'race' as a biologically meaningful category of humans has been completely debunked by the discovery that there is much more genetic variation within the so-called 'races' than there is between them. Do you know the difference between phenotype and genotype?

That's the second major thing you got wrong in that comment.

"Race" does persist as a social construct adhered to by racists, and sometimes by those objectified by them - but mainstream anthropology ditched the concept decades ago. Indeed, one sure way of identifying a contemporary racist - including those who aren't conscious of their racism - is that they talk about people in terms of "races".

David wrote,

""Practitioner: One who practices something, especially an occupation, profession, or technique.
Medical: Of or relating to the study or practice of medicine"

That is broad enough to cover a few occupations relating to medicine. I note also that Ozzie used lower case letters for "Medical Practitioner" not the upper case that he/she used in one post.

The Free Online dictionary gives this definition of a "medical practitioner:

"Noun 1. medical practitioner - someone who practices medicine
medical man
dental practitioner, dentist, tooth doctor - a person qualified to practice dentistry
doc, doctor, physician, Dr., MD, medico - a licensed medical practitioner............................................
medical officer, medic - a medical practitioner in the armed forces"

And so the great question of our time remains unanswered..."

which basically means that a Medical Practitioner is a person who practices Medicine, and in Australia, as in any advanced country, to practice Medicine you need to be registered with the appropriate Medical Board. So have a look at the Medical Practice Act 1992 Sect 4

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/mpa1992128/s4.html

Here it clearly states to be registered as a Medical Practitioner a person needs to have successfully completed a period of internship or training and also have a recognised medical qualification ( be a graduate of a Medical School).

If you want further clarification I suggest you phone one of the Medical Boards and ask them how many nurses, radiographers or general hospital workers they have registered with them.

Your attempt to justify your claim that

David wrote
"You've made a claim about being a "medical practitioner" but that is a very broad field covering doctors, nurses, radiographers and even general hospital workers. "

is simply ridiculous. It would have been more honest had you simply admitted your mistake.

Now for the record, and for about the third time,apart from other Uni degrees I have a Medical degree from an Australian Uni and work as a Medical Practitioner. For David, CJ and Lucy who usually require further clarification (ie too dumb to understand) that means I am a Medical Doctor.
Is there anything here you still don't understand?

I'm shattered CJ, by your comment of my "mangled expression." I agree with Jayb, you are a "prejucist, preduced, antropologist person," if only I knew what it meant.

A 'former academic anthropologist' explains everything. It sounds like an art degree from the 1970's. For what other credible science do you know that has "recently...completely debunked" one of its "meaningful" categories?

Did you study under the former Australian of the year, and author of The Future Eaters, which claims the Maori were eating themselves to starvation? For it must follow they were saved from malnutrition by colonial settlement. Still today I weep for that legacy that impacts upon the inherent physique of the Maori. Imagine the size and health they were in before being dwarfed by that malnutrition three centuries ago. No wonder Jayb comments; "She is just too weird and I tired of playing with her."

Blairbar is a one act performer, if he could not rely on pseudo grammaatic critique as central to his posts, he would have nothing to say.

As an "academic anthropologist" perhaps you could explain why these racist cohorts you and the other neo colonial posters tolerate, extract and virtually rewrite entire posts? Is it beause the barbarians may be coming and you must be ready to pull up the drawbridge of Fortress Australia?

Thanks for the eventual reply, ozzie. If you're not telling porkies, that's really quite scary.

Ngarmada, you're either having a lend or you're off your trolley. About the only thing I agree with Jayb about is that you're tiresome.

I also agree with David Jennings that you seem to be very angry about something to do with 'race', but it's very difficult to ascertain what exactly your problem is. Is English your second language? If so, may I suggest that you try using less complicated prose.

If not, may I suggest it anyway?

P.S. Tim Flannery's not an anthropologist.

I concur CJ, Tim Flannery is neither an anthropologist, nor a palaentologist, nor a climatologist, nor a credible anthropological author. If you can see where I am going with this, his comment retains approximately the same credibility as yours.

As grammatically inferior as my posts may be, I do not write f#@%, although you apparently have no difficulty tolerating it. Then you refer to my comment on one hand as "mangled," and then as "prose." That I am able to read and write 15th century english prose, perhaps indicates my apparent dysfunction.

My anger and frustration with academic liberals such as yourself and David, may result from that double standard of tolerance you both are observed to apply. For I understood a fundamental, and pillar, of scientific endeavour is the rigour of discipline applied for pursuit of truth.

However the ambiguity of tolerance observed of you both, suggests its potential extreme may tolerate such dysfunctional racists beating to a pulp, one of my culture, in an alley, for upsetting their perception of social equilibrium, by simply being different.

It would seem to me, if you retain an unrealistically flawed understanding of the subject you are talking about, you should simply not comment.