Still lean on the quotes I see, LEGO.

<<You claimed that IQ testing of races was not "accurate enough" to measure racial IQ's, because the cognitive metricians had not factored in "environmental conditions" and "different types of intelligences".>>

Where did I say this? I will say, however, that IQ tests don't show a complete picture and are therefore problematic.

<<So, if you accept that IQ testing is "accurate enough" to measure criminal intelligence, then the cognitive metricians must have factored in "environmental conditions" and "different types of intelligence.">>

Not necessarily. What individuals or groups score on tests says nothing about why they scored that? My “accurate enough” referred to cognitive abilities. It said nothing about why such scores are obtained.

You’re really struggling with this, aren’t you?

<<If you have any other explanation as to why you accept that IQ measurement is "accurate enough with criminals IQ's, but not with racial IQ's, then lets hear it.>>

Again, never said that.

<<AJ, you are now rather incredibly claiming that you have always been aware that races have unequal intelligence.>>

I have always acknowledged that they achieve different averages with tests, yes.

<<Gee that's funny. I have been trying to get that through your overly thick head for around 500 pages ...>>

Quotes please.

<<"The Bell Curve" collated 100 years of IQ testing in the USA, and it found that African blacks have lower bell curves of intelligence than whites and Asians.>>

I know. I’ve since read it.

<<Your above statement clearly shows that you think that genes for intelligence [cannot] be shared among entire races of people.>>

Or that it’s very unlikely, given what we currently know, yes.

<<But if you are now saying that different races have different levels of intelligence, then "the Bell Curve" was right.>>

There’s a difference between scores and genetic potential.

<<You have now conceded that races have unequal intelligences. Thank you.>>

Oh, don’t thank me, because it says nothing about how strongly genes play a role on a macro level (if any at all), and that's the issue.

Poor old Adler, he's bein' snowed under.

Actually the Adler Typewriter has been around for years and years and has given thousands of typists, many hours of splendid and proud service during it's long period of operation. In fact I can recall Adler's, Olympia's and Remington's together with other well known brands of manual typewriters, being placed strategically on the various 'charge counters' at any local police station you care to name, in the State of NSW.

And some big fat copper pounding out, on the keyboard, a P.190 form or some other equally banal official document, in the inimitable two finger style, and with each finger stroke, landing upon a key like a small explosion, accompanied by a flash of lightening, bound never to strike the same key twice! Ah they were the days. A gallon of 'white-out', a decent old Adler, you were made I reckon.

Meanwhile, in the latest edition of "Sporting Shooter" magazine (Nov) there is an add for the 'Pardus' lever action shotgun shewing 5 models, barrels ranging from 18 inch to 28 inch and on another page an add for the 'Adler' shewing 4 models; it pays to advertize!!

Here's another bit of general information to warm your hearts, the Adler and the Pardus are chambered for 3 inch shells, 5x3 in the mag means 15 inch storage capacity so 7x2 inch shells should fit.

3 shot semi-automatic shotguns are severely restricted but 3 barrel guns that can fire their contents faster than a 3 shot semi are category A.

Weep ye antis!!

As we have Universal National Gun laws why are some guns banned in NSW, the ACT and WA?

I don't know why IS MISE? But I'm sure you'll tell us?