🚀 go-pugleaf

Outta Sight <outamind@there.net> wrote:
>>>>Nothing in what you quote about how "non-blacks" would be identified.
>>>
>>>How would you identify "non-blacks" lojbab?  Please relate to us how
>>>you know your answer to be factual with one or more provable cites.
>>
>>I'm not one who claims that they CAN be identified.
>
>You also can not answer a direct question. Shall we start over? The
>interest is in your abilities (or,perhaps, your inabilities).

Obtuse, aren't you?  If I statedly don't claim the ability, then
inability is the obvious presumption that one should make.
 
>How would you identify "non-blacks" lojbab?

I wouldn't.  Pure and simple.

There is nothing in the article that says that the conference
operators would do so either.  By saying a meeting is for blacks only,
they may be expecting self-selection, and might or might not care
whether someone you might consider "white" attended

> Please relate to us how
>you know your answer to be factual with one or more provable cites.

If you could force me to make a judgement, I would not claim that any
answer I gave would be "factual", since race is not a factual
categorization.  There are no valid cites that would prove what is not
factual.

lojbab
-- 
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org