Why on earth should "high IQ" be necessary for social function? As I pointed out before, due to the Flynn effect, the average IQ of blacks is now about what it was for whites 50 years ago. Whites functioned fine 50 years ago.

There is absolutely no justification for judging an individual's IQ based on their skin colour because the amount of variation in IQ between individual whites, and likewise between individual blacks, massively outweighs any subtle overall difference between the average of ALL blacks and the average of all whites. If you pick two random white people, there's a very good chance that one has an IQ in the 90-95 range and the other in the 105-110 range, and it would be quite normal for the difference in IQ between two random whites to be over 20 points. If you pick a random white and a random black, the probability of the former's IQ being significantly greater than the latter's just isn't all that great. Most importantly, there are far better ways of making a common-sense non-scientific judgment about IQ (or, at least, about a more general sense of "intelligence", which includes emotional intelligence, diplomacy skills, general & knowledge, common sense, practical know-how, etc. etc., none of which are very well captured by IQ tests) - just a simple conversation would be a good start.

Ginx/Morgan says that he or she doesn't have 'another identity'. Ginx/Morgan claims to be able to read my mind and know my motives.
Morgan-Ginx doesn't deal with the ethics of her/his behaviour.
Let's face it Ginx/Morgan, you enjoy getting stuck into people. this isn't about 'morality'. That is how you get your kicks. You are a bit of a bully, aren't you? - as long as you can remain anonymous, going by the full history of your posts. Of course I am gratifying your desire for attention now, aren't I? I wonder how your mother coped. I think we had just better ignore you, Mr Morgan, and then you may tire of your own behaviour.

Er, let's get something straight here. My name is C.J. Morgan - which is the by which I am generally known in my community. It is also the name under which I trade, vote, join clubs and societies and participate in this forum. I am quite happy to accept responsibility for my ideas and the expression of them.

I don't know Ginx, except via this forum. While I usually find (her?) perspective incisive and amusing, I don't agree with everything s/he writes. It's really quite pathetic for Kanga/Sheila to allege the kind of duplicity her blog mate James engages in upon me. Unlike most people here, I actually post under my real name. and unlike some I only post under one identity.

What's particularly ironic about this persistent pretence by James - and now his blog-mate - is that I actually agree with much of what he has to say.

James has been caught out telling obvious lies and for some reason persists in drawing attention to them, and he's now drawn in his obviously unhinged blog-buddy to keep his various selves in the spotlight.

But maybe that's the real agenda?

Jinx wrote,

"As you wish Mr Sinnamon. As you wish. I will continue as long as you do."

I thought I was the one who was supposed to have 'lost it'.

Jinx, can you perhaps understand how others might conclude that you have lost all sense of proportion over this?

---

The denials of Kanga's allegation by Jinx-Morgan appear very sincere and heartfelt.

But, who is to know for certain that those are not just the words of very convincing liars?

No-one can be any more certain of that than they can be certain about the truth of Morgan's claims against myself.

Normally, unless obvious harm to this forum could be demonstrated, who would care?

---

So, let's just one more time attempt to settle just one of many points that Morgan has proven skilful at weaseling out of so far.

Daggett wrote:

"And just supposing, for argument's sake, it was true that I had set up a different account, and made use of it on the odd occasion.

"So what?..."

"In any case, does a technical transgression of OLO rules--as opposed to personal abuse, insults, blackmail, misrepresentation of your opponent's arguments, repetition of allegations without acknowledgement of the responses from the accused, etc--automatically make a contributor dishonest and without credibility?

"I would suggest that only a narrow-minded pedant, or else a hypocrite, would insist this to be the case."

CJ Morgan wrote:

"Er, James - wizofaus/dnicholson has been quite open about it. ..."

Yes, CJ, wizofaus was "quite open about it" and, perhaps, I was not.

So what?

Can you perhaps understand that many well-meaning and normally honest people may, on occasions, feel the necessity to lie?

It hardly seems, given your conduct on this forum, including your transparent attempt to blackmail me into ceasing my contributions, that you are a person fit to pronounce judgement on others.

James/dagget/et al: "Can you perhaps understand that many well-meaning and normally honest people may, on occasions, feel the necessity to lie?"

So James finally, grudgingly, admits his deception. While the admission is far from gracious, I'm prepared to put his dishonesty and personal attacks behind us for the sake of peace and civilised discussion.

While many people may indeed "feel the necessity to lie on occasions", in my opinion such falsehood undermines communication and therefore detracts from polite debate. My own preference is for people to post in this forum under their real names rather than pseudonyms, because it seems to me that an awful lot of hate mongering is conducted under the cloak of anonymity. However, I accept that there are good and valid reasons why many people prefer to remain anonymous in a public forum such as this.

Mind you, I think the 'semi-anonymity' thing that sparked the sockpuppetry above is crap. Once someone's revealed their own identity in this forum (say, by publishing an article) it's just silly to demand that others pretend that they're anonymous.

Anyway, let's move on.

Oh and redneck, your comment "The concept of equal rights can only apply if everybody is more or less equal in intelligence, trustworthiness, fiscal responsibility, sexual fidelity, age, loyalty, resistance to addictive behaviours, and sanity"

This is nonsense. Of course we vary in all of those traits, but

a) there's no objective way to even measure them, so on who earth gets to be the judge of where we each sit along the scale, and hence what rights we consequently each should have?

b) "more or less" is a uselessly vague qualifier. I have no problem accepting that blacks and whites, on average, do have "more or less equal intelligence" - certainly when compared to say, "geniuses and retards", or "25 yos and 1 yos", or "human beings and chimpanzees".

That there may be some case for "emergency measures" when dealing with particular situations (e.g. Aboriginal child abuse), there is no long term case for justification that Aboriginals should not have equal rights to non-Aborignals. If you believe otherwise, then I can only repeat my previous statement: your beliefs pose a vastly greater threat to Australian values, our cultural identity and social cohesion than the presence of migrants with significantly different cultural backgrounds. However - I will still defend your right to state your beliefs, as the best cure for ignorant and bigoted views is not to silence them, but rather to ensure that the rest of us are well enough informed to see them for what they are.