View Full Version : Genetic variation within races: Greater than people think?
Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
An English guy who got new bone marrow wrote this:
I'm a bone marrow recipient. Doctors told me outright that chances of finding a donor depended on race, and more specifically ethnicity. The consultant asked me if I had any foreign ancestry, I replied just a bit of Irish, and he said that should be OK, but something like Polish heritage would complicate things and lessen my chances. After an initial tissue test, the same doctor told me my tissue type 'looked local', and in the end I ended up with over 100 potential matches on the British database. That's considered a good result. People of mixed race, or even mixed ethnicity often have to make their search for matches global because they don't even find basic matches in Britain, much less perfect ones (I had three perfect matches). One woman I know had a donator from France. I doubt she had French ancestry, so probably NW Europeans can be matches for one another. I'm not exactly sure where the borders of compatability are drawn, but they're specific enough to exclude even partial Polish ancestry (if you're of British Isles blood, that is).
Swedish baby seeks life-saving bone marrow donor
http://www.communityofsweden.com/stories/show-story/?story=17009
I have recently had a half Swedish baby boy called Ollie. He has aplastic anaemia and will die without a bone marrow transplant. We have not yet been able to find a matching donor to save his life.
A Nordic/Swedish/Scandanavian or British match is most likely to match Ollie, but there are too few people on national registries. I write to ask that you help me raise awareness of my son's plight and get as many people as possible to join a registry.
We do not want or need money, we just need to have the luck to find a matching donor for Ollie. Please could you write about Ollie's story in your newsletters, blogs, on your sites. You can also join his facebook group and pass it around via your facebook groups and invite all of yours contacts. You may be the one that puts us in touch with ollie's hero.
We need to make as many people aware as possible that bone marrow donation is not a horrible painful procedure anymore. It's a saliva sample to join and a blood donation type procedure to donate. No hip or spinal surgery.
We need to raise awareness to save his life!
Please feel free to contact me
Many thanks
Ollie's (very desperate) mum
babyollie@mail.com
http://babyollie.webs.com
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=103756629661089&ref=ts
A poor half British and half Swedish, fully "Germanic", child had/has problems finding a match due to being "mixed"?! :o
What are your thoughts on this? Maybe those who consider intra-ethnic relationships to be "interracial" aren't that off about it as previously thought?
EliasAlucard
2011-09-16, 01:12
Something as sensitive and specific as bone marrow is not enough to classify closely related ethnic groups as a different races.
Something as sensitive and specific as bone marrow is not enough to classify closely related ethnic groups as a different races.
why not? Bone Marrows can be very distinct and definately differs amongst even closely related groups.
EliasAlucard
2011-09-16, 01:22
why not? Bone Marrows can be very distinct and definately differs amongst even closely related groups.Because race is more than just bone marrow. Bone marrow is obviously a very sensitive part and has to be very exact. Race is indeed not just skin deep, it's also bone deep. However, race is first and foremost, genetic, everything else is secondary. And subraces may have different bone structure but it doesn't have to mean they are two different races.
The first paragraph you quoted is not in the article you linked and nowhere else on the site.
Where did you get this english guy's declaration from?
Because I assume that when you give a link and a quote, its from there, not out of the blue???
Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
An English guy who got new bone marrow wrote this:
Swedish baby seeks life-saving bone marrow donor
http://www.communityofsweden.com/stories/show-story/?story=17009
A poor half British and half Swedish, fully "Germanic", child had/has problems finding a match due to being "mixed"?! :o
What are your thoughts on this? Maybe those who consider intra-ethnic relationships to be "interracial" aren't that off about it as previously thought?
....
Something as sensitive and specific as bone marrow is not enough to classify closely related ethnic groups as a different races.
I didn't mean that this meant ethnic groups would be different races. The title of the thread says "Genetic variation within races".
The first paragraph you quoted is not in the article you linked and nowhere else on the site.
Where did you get this english guy's declaration from?
Because I assume that when you give a link and a quote, its from there, not out of the blue???
It's written on a forum, by a guy who wrote about his personal experience. Not all have access to the forum. I never claimed that the quote was from any of the articles.
It is an obvious suggestion for me, if you post a link and a quote underneath, that it comes from there. Especially if you post link to high-respected Time magazine and just below quote someone from a racist Germanic forum Skadi (btw how do you know the guy is telling true? have you checked it somehow?)
To make it worse, the article from Time does not suggest what the quote is about- in fact it suggests the opposite. It only differiates 'causcasian race' not a word about polish/french/british.
For me it is lack of professionalism from your side- I will give you benefit of the doubt and hold on with opinion of manipulation and propaganda.
It is an obvious suggestion for me, if you post a link and a quote underneath, that it comes from there. Especially if you post link to high-respected Time magazine and just below quote someone from a racist Germanic forum Skadi (btw how do you know the guy is telling true? have you checked it somehow?)
To make it worse, the article from Time does not suggest what the quote is about- in fact it suggests the opposite. It only differiates 'causcasian race' not a word about polish/french/british.
For me it is lack of professionalism from your side- I will give you benefit of the doubt and hold on with opinion of manipulation and propaganda.
No, the (first) article actually supports what he is saying:
Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background.
Why would it be wrong, considering the last link about the half Swedish and half British baby?
You missed how they define ethnic background.
Anyway, its not the point. The point is, you post a link to article from respected source and underneath post a 'quote' from a racist forum for maniacs.
Its very cheap propaganda or its very unprofessional. Especially if you are a moderator.
You missed how they define ethnic background.
Anyway, its not the point. The point is, you post a link to article from respected source and underneath post a 'quote' from a racist forum for maniacs.
Its very cheap propaganda or its very unprofessional. Especially if you are a moderator.
I found the post when I searched about this subject, and thought it would suit this thread well. Whether he who wrote it is a racist or not, I don't really know. The only thing I really know is that I can't really see anything "racist" about that post of his in particular.
if you still dont understand- the point of your 'quote; enough visibly suggested that Polish people are racially different from (in this case) british people and that only northern-western European can give marrow to each other and belong to one race.
For me, you can spread claims like this how much you want, its not my business and I dont care, but dont suggest that its written by Time magazine, cause the article doe not even suggest that.
---------- Post added 2011-09-16 at 11:39 ----------
hahaha "i dont know if he is a racist"- gluing together articles from mainstream press and quotes from racist forum which do not even register members who are not 'pure' racially. It is pathetic.
if you still dont understand- the main point of your 'quote; however was more than visibly suggested that Polish people are racially different from british people and that only northern-western European can give marrow to each other and belong to one race.
For me, you can spread claims like this how much you want, its not my business and I dont care, but dont suggest that its written by Time magazine, cause the article doe not even suggest that in slightest.
So you're personally offended because you are Polish. Well, it seems to me that it wasn't really himself who talked about Poles, but rather his doctor. The reason is likely due to Poles being a significant immigrant group in Britain, and that whites with non-British ancestry are most likely to have Polish ancestry. And where does he claim that Poles are racially different?
People of mixed race, or even mixed ethnicity often have to make their search for matches global because they don't even find basic matches in Britain, much less perfect ones (I had three perfect matches).
[...]
I'm not exactly sure where the borders of compatability are drawn,
If the Swedes seem to differ from the Brits on this aspect, why is it weird that the Poles do as well?
Jusarius
2011-09-16, 11:45
[B]What are your thoughts on this? Maybe those who consider intra-ethnic relationships to be "interracial" aren't that off about it as previously thought? Immunity is a very complex, adaptive system with hundreds of genes and individually modified gene products affecting it. That's why based on just immunity, different peoples of Europe could perhaps be considered belonging to different races. But it's all about how you define race. It's a human invention, no clear borders can be given. That's why I don't emphasize it very much. There are genetic clusters with bigger differences (e.g. SS Africans vs. Europeans) and many other smaller clusters within those groups. It's up to us where we like to draw the line.
It may not be advantageous to belong to a "mixed" or different cluster from the majority in your society if you are seeking a bone marrow donor. But mixing often gives benefits, too, also for immunity. That's because e.g. different MHC molecules bring about new combinations that may be more efficient at fighting pathogens.
So you're personally offended because you are Polish. Well, it seems to me that it wasn't really himself who talked about Poles, but rather his doctor. The reason is likely due to Poles being a significant immigrant group in Britain, and that whites with non-British ancestry are most likely to have Polish ancestry. And where does he claim that Poles are racially different?
If the Swedes seem to differ from the Brits on this aspect, why is it weird that the Poles do as well?
You are changing subject. I said- I less want to discuss with your theories, I am pretty disgusted by posting a link to Time article and right next to this a quote from racist forum. Especially, when one has no connection with the other whatsoever (only the same subject)
You say it was unintented- so it was not proffesional then. It is an obvious thing for me, that when you post a link and quote next to it, you either mention its from elsewhere or it means its from there.
Another thing is what the article said or what the 'quoted guy' said. I would need to call a psycholgist expert to assess, but for me the conclusion of the guys 'quote' is pretty clear. The article mentioned too that even within the same family its hard to found a donor, so obvious conclusion is, the more genetical similarity, the better chances- but still small.
ps I remember from history attempts of proving that some people in Europe do not belong to the same race and I dont care personally about opinion of idiots, but I dont like spreading it as other idiots without self-critical brain read it and believe it.
You are changing subject. I said- I less want to discuss with your theories, I am pretty disgusted by posting a link to Time article and right next to this a quote from racist forum. Especially, when one has no connection with the other whatsoever (only the same subject)
You say it was unintented- so it was not proffesional then. It is an obvious thing for me, that when you post a link and quote next to it, you either mention its from elsewhere or it means its from there.
Another thing is what the article said or what the 'quoted guy' said. I would need to call a psycholgist expert to assess, but for me the conclusion of the guys 'quote' is pretty clear. The article mentioned too that even within the same family its hard to found a donor, so obvious conclusion is, the more genetical similarity, the better chances- but still small.
ps I remember from history attempts of proving that some people in Europe do not belong to the same race and I dont care personally about opinion of idiots, but I dont like spreading it as other idiots without self-critical brain read it and believe it.
Sigh.
I have recently had a half Swedish baby boy called Ollie. He has aplastic anaemia and will die without a bone marrow transplant. We have not yet been able to find a matching donor to save his life.
A Nordic/Swedish/Scandanavian or British match is most likely to match Ollie, but there are too few people on national registries. I write to ask that you help me raise awareness of my son's plight and get as many people as possible to join a registry.
We do not want or need money, we just need to have the luck to find a matching donor for Ollie. Please could you write about Ollie's story in your newsletters, blogs, on your sites. You can also join his facebook group and pass it around via your facebook groups and invite all of yours contacts. You may be the one that puts us in touch with ollie's hero.
We need to make as many people aware as possible that bone marrow donation is not a horrible painful procedure anymore. It's a saliva sample to join and a blood donation type procedure to donate. No hip or spinal surgery.
We need to raise awareness to save his life!
Please feel free to contact me
Many thanks
Ollie's (very desperate) mum
babyollie@mail.com
http://babyollie.webs.com
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php...9661089&ref=ts
Why would what he is saying be wrong and lying, when you can see a case of it right here in front of you?
If you don't have anything good to say, get out of my thread.
if you still dont understand- the point of your 'quote; enough visibly suggested that Polish people are racially different from (in this case) british people and that only northern-western European can give marrow to each other and belong to one race.
How is this racist? And how is this offensive?
Was Skadi person quoted in Time magazine? No
Was the 'quote' put straight under the link? Yes
Thats about that.
Was Skadi person quoted in Time magazine? No
Was the 'quote' put straight under the link? Yes
Thats about that.
And I also put a text in between, saying "An English guy wrote this". You seemed to have completely missed that. :)
How is this racist? And how is this offensive?
what about this ending conclusion of Vikking:
Maybe those who consider intra-ethnic relationships to be "interracial" aren't that off about it as previously thought?
Anyway, I am off from this thread and home now so i wont be able to answer, I said my opinion and thats it. Thank you.
what about this ending conclusion of Vikking:
Maybe those who consider intra-ethnic relationships to be "interracial" aren't that off about it as previously thought?
And what is wrong with that sentence? There are quotation marks used at the "interracial" part.
Jusarius
2011-09-16, 12:13
Was Skadi person quoted in Time magazine? No
Was the 'quote' put straight under the link? Yes
Ad hominem tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
Ad hominem tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
No, its not ad hominem- it is about proper information.
When you quote, you give a proper source. You check the source and assess it credibility, before stating it as a fact, especially when its a pure sugestion that it comes from Time website not from elsewhere.
I will give you an example.
Just imagine new thread:
------------------------------------------------------------
"Finns like eating raw potatoes"
I found interesting various information about Finnish cuisine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_cuisine
one Finnish guy said:
"I am a Finn, I love raw potatoes. I eat nothing else. All Finns eat raw potatoes."
What do you think about Finnish cuisine?
the end.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I dont really want to explain it anymore, you get it or you dont.
Danielion
2011-09-16, 20:24
Finns have a high toxicity constitution in other words ?
No, its not ad hominem- it is about proper information.
When you quote, you give a proper source. You check the source and assess it credibility, before stating it as a fact, especially when its a pure sugestion that it comes from Time website not from elsewhere.
I will give you an example.
Just imagine new thread:
------------------------------------------------------------
"Finns like eating raw potatoes"
I found interesting various information about Finnish cuisine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_cuisine
one Finnish guy said:
What do you think about Finnish cuisine?
the end.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I dont really want to explain it anymore, you get it or you dont.
You have issues, man. Once again:
An English guy who got new bone marrow wrote this:
Where, where and where did I state that the quote came from Time Magazine? I am free to quote things that are written by "amateurs" on other forums as much as I'd like.
Didn't you say that you were going to leave the thread? You have nothing to contribute here.
I will explain last time.
If you state an anonymous unverified opinion from some forum (, in addition- racist forum- in the context its an important factor) as a medical/ scientific fact , I dont agree here with your definition of objectivism and accuracy. Thats one thing. Plus, posting this opinion as quote directly under link from Time magazine may suggest that it comes from there. Obviosuly, you did not say that it comes from the link- and you did not say that it does not come from the link. You post it underneath and say its a quote and dont give any other source. I think its clear, but I may be wrong.
I told you, I gave you benefit of the doubt and considered that you overlooked it, but you claim that all you did is perfectly right- then i dont see a point to explain it anymore, we have different definitions of some practices. The rest is history.
I will explain last time.
If you state an anonymous unverified opinion from some forum (, in addition- racist forum- in the context its an important factor) as a medical/ scientific fact , I dont agree here with your definition of objectivism and accuracy. Thats one thing. Plus, posting this opinion as quote directly under link from Time magazine may suggest that it comes from there. Obviosuly, you did not say that it comes from the link- and you did not say that it does not come from the link. You post it underneath and say its a quote and dont give any other source. I think its clear, but I may be wrong.
I told you, I gave you benefit of the doubt and considered that you overlooked it, but you claim that all you did is perfectly right- then i dont see a point to explain it anymore, we have different definitions of some practices. The rest is history.
Well, I actually got a rep point from the forum owner, Elias, who said that this was a "supreme thread start". I don't insult people often, but it seems to me as you have some sort of mental retardation. For the third time, I made a large gap in between and wrote this:
An English guy who got new bone marrow wrote this:
If you're not a retard, you can click on the link and see that the quote isn't there.
So I cannot quote others posts, according to your logic. Well, I just quoted yours. Sue me and do not write in the thread anymore.
What are your thoughts on this? Maybe those who consider intra-ethnic relationships to be "interracial" aren't that off about it as previously thought?
This make sense, since bone marrow compatibility is low between individuals from two similar, but separate and homogenous, populations. Poles are one of the most homogenous populations in Europe, so we don't make good bone marrow donors for anyone else but Poles, and maybe some neighboring groups.
But only total dumbasses could see this as a racial issue. If we go that far, then why not call every person on the planet a different race, since we're all unique?
I often wonder what qualifies a population as a race.
Is it any noticeable difference in a population?
Who is the judge?
Who is to say when a different group, race, subspecies, etc, forms? How do you know?
And from what I see, there is no reason not to consider Irish and Russians for example, different races. Their populations look distinct.
So I guess, it is all very much random choice or personal whim.
Who is to say when a different group, race, subspecies, etc, forms? How do you know?
You can use genome-wide genetic structure.
If some members of a group are more similar to some individuals from another group, than to those from their own group, then the two groups can't really be considered anything like separate races.
Using around 300,000 datapoints from around the genome (SNPs), about 70% of Europeans are more similar to people from other European countries than to those from their own country. This makes it very difficult to consider European ethnic groups as different races, even if they show stark differences in terms of certain specific traits, like bone marrow compatibility.
An evaluation of the genetic-matched pair study design using genome-wide SNP data from the European population (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejhg2008266a.html)
And from what I see, there is no reason not to consider Irish and Russians for example, different races. Their populations look distinct.
There's an overlap between Irish and Russians in terms of genome-wide genetic structure. In other words, some Irish are more similar to some Russians, than they are to other Irish. But this never happens between Irish, and, say, Nigerians.
That's not to say that Irish and Nigerians are separate races in everyone's book, because the overall genetic difference between these two groups is still very low. But let's just say that genome-wide genetic structure offers a much stronger argument for considering Irish and Nigerians as belonging to separate races, than Irish and Russians.
EclectYummination
2011-09-17, 11:17
Race is like those bogus psyche personality typings where you can squeeze people into a typology not really necessarily meaning anything, only, since it introduces the physical "hard evidence", like say, hand reading then I guess it's more like that.:p
The below is what I'd like to call an excercise in Scientific thinking.
This make sense, since bone marrow compatibility is low between individuals from two similar, but separate and homogenous, populations. Poles are one of the most homogenous populations in Europe, so we don't make good bone marrow donors for anyone else but Poles, and maybe some neighboring groups.
But only total dumbasses could see this as a racial issue. If we go that far, then why not call every person on the planet a different race, since we're all unique?
Good point re: the "But only total dumbasses could see this as a racial issue", however, in regards to "If we go that far,": There is a validity to looking at that issue -- how the variation that does exist - which is a minute percentage - is situated: group, or individual.
There are all kinds of factors, such as height, allergies, disease, fatness disposition, yet few simple traits such as skin color hair type and eye type are taken to mean that the group option is written in stone.
---------- Post added 2011-09-17 at 06:41 ----------
There was analyses done by a guy more we look at the thing the more various groups within races splinter off into an increasing number of races due to some from anywhere in the world not being at all consistent with either of the races.
So, it doesn't really stop with white black asian, ofcourse. Then, it doesn't stop with Caucasian, SSA, Indigenous American, East Asian (think China, Korea), South Asian (Phillipines, Burma, Vietnam, including India), Australoid (ever here of "Veddoid"?; Oceanic people basically), North Asian (Russian), NE Asian (East Siberian), etc.
Obvious examples within those will always splinter off, such as Indians from South Asia, and not always in ways you think due to ancestry -- they (South Asians in general) posess ancestral alleles for the various genes their are determining skin color even at the derived states (deleterious mutations) indicating lighter skin color, and also especially in the Eastern side have hair straighter than Euros like East Asians do.
Original population, or is this indicating admixture from them both? Or are they ancestral to them both? Caucasoid Asians? Then why the skin colour then? Perhaps the matter is simply traits via each of those due to genetic drift?
Anyway, not matter how much you guys wish to believe in race, this only happens more and more and more -- though it does stop at near humungous extended families level.
At the biological, you may not realise an inexistance in race doesn't contradict that there are differences between people and groups anymoreso than an existance in race does. For instance, SSAs, Indians, Mid-Easterners, and to a lesser extent SE Euros all have sickle cell, but that doesn't mean all members of these groups do.
Even traits for which this is true -- pygmies all are shorter than most Africans, other Africans having heights congruous with most non-Africans except Asia's negritos. Are they another race genomically? If they, then, what about Khoikhoi and San, genetically?
That's my2cents.
Tyrannical
2011-09-17, 13:08
if you still dont understand- the point of your 'quote; enough visibly suggested that Polish people are racially different from (in this case) british people and that only northern-western European can give marrow to each other and belong to one race.
For me, you can spread claims like this how much you want, its not my business and I dont care, but dont suggest that its written by Time magazine, cause the article doe not even suggest that.
---------- Post added 2011-09-16 at 11:39 ----------
hahaha "i dont know if he is a racist"- gluing together articles from mainstream press and quotes from racist forum which do not even register members who are not 'pure' racially. It is pathetic.
You know, the vast majority of pure British would also be incompatible with another Brit.
In the US Blacks often whine about discrimination with organ transplants, but the fact is there is a lower percentage of Black organ donors than White and your best chances for a match is with a close ethnic group.
You know, the vast majority of pure British would also be incompatible with another Brit.
In the US Blacks often whine about discrimination with organ transplants, but the fact is there is a lower percentage of Black organ donors than White and your best chances for a match is with a close ethnic group.
My concern wasnt about compatibility at all. I know about medicine a little and I know that finding a donor is not easy even within the same ethnical group, more, very often its difficult even between cousins.
My concern was of different nature, which I explained before. In brief- about using twisted result of medical fact mixed with para-facts (some anonymous users) to create impression of existing different 'races' within European community.
Another aspect is, for some unknown to me reason Poles have been the main character in this act. Let me be a bit cautious over this issue for historical reasons, but you dont have too, placing Italians or Germans would not be better.
In particular if you look at the final conclusions- first final conclusion of the 'quoted guy' then won's Viking's which goes:
(...)so probably NW Europeans can be matches for one another. I'm not exactly sure where the borders of compatability are drawn, but they're specific enough to exclude even partial Polish ancestry
Maybe those who consider intra-ethnic relationships to be "interracial" aren't that off about it as previously thought?
Germanic race, racial differences, I have heard that before.
[/COLOR]ps I dont want to drag it anymore, how many times do I have to repeat the same? For me, if I was for instance reporting a military conflict in Africa- I would need to go to library, read a bit, then go to the place, talk to both sides, talk to a few people, list it all in article and separate my conclusions from facts.
I would not go and ask first met man with a gun and ask him what he thinks and come back and reported it as a professional writting about war, and to make it worse, claim that its objective and complete review of the conflict and list the guys with the gun opinion as I was talking to government and leaders of opposition.[COLOR="Silver"]
My concern wasnt about compatibility at all. I know about medicine a little and I know that finding a donor is not easy even within the same ethnical group, more, very often its difficult even between cousins.
I never claimed that Europeans were different races:
I didn't mean that this meant ethnic groups would be different races. The title of the thread says "Genetic variation within races".
My concern was of different nature, which I explained before. In brief- about using twisted result of medical fact mixed with para-facts (some anonymous users) to create impression of existing different 'races' within European community.
Another aspect is, for some unknown to me reason Poles have been the main character in this act. Let me be a bit cautious over this issue for historical reasons, but you dont have too, placing Italians or Germans would not be better.
For me, as I detailed, it is lack of professionalism. I assumed it was cause Viking was rushing or did not care, even despite of his connclusion. But he claimed he did on on purpose- thats it then.
I also used an example of a half Swedish/British baby and in case you didn't notice, I put most interest in that case, as I made a comment about it.
ps I dont want to drag it anymore, how many times do I have to repeat the same? For me, if I was for instance reporting a military conflict in Africa- I would need to go to library, read a bit, then go to the place, talk to both sides, talk to a few people, list it all in article and separate my conclusions from facts.
I would not go and ask first met man with a gun and ask him what he thinks and come back and reported it as a professional writting about war, and to make it worse, claim that its objective and complete review of the conflict and list the guys with the gun opinion as I was talking to government and leaders of opposition.
So if I have problems with my bone marrow and will need a new one (I certainly hope that won't happen, as I'm ethnically mixed), I can't tell people about how it went because I'm not a "professional"?
A poor half British and half Swedish, fully "Germanic", child had/has problems finding a match due to being "mixed"?! :o
With "Swedish" they mean a Finnic/Sami/Mongol mixed Norrlänning or Svealänning. :whoco:
With "Swedish" they mean a Finnic/Sami/Mongol mixed Norrlänning or Svealänning. :whoco:
Well, the Central Swedes seem to have much more "British" (North Atlantic) genes.
You can write whatever you want, next time clearly inform who you are quoting and put it right in the context.
In this case:
1. You recall unverified source (how do you know he has ever had transplant at all? how do you know that provided he has- he he is telling the truth?) as a 'source'. Mystake number one
2. You quote this source next to time link- which suggest its from there- even though you inserted info which is meaningless and does not suugest that the quote is not from the article, plus the next link is followed by the quote from the next article.
3 Your source even though admitedly doesnt know anything about the issue, despite of that he draws his conclusion that northern- western europeans are similar and he is only sure tha polish is 'foreign' and the only conclusion of the speach of the guy is this, nothing else. The man had real life threatening issue (according to himself) and his only problem seemed to be talking to nurses about incompatibility of polish donors.
Plus, The swedish and british article you mentioned was contradiction to the quote you posted. The article says people of mixed ethnicity of any two nations are the problem, while the link suggests that there is no problem between any combination in "northern western Europe "(we all know it means Germanic Europe, ding dong Nazi bow down).
Professional approach should state clearly, that there are these and this problems, being a result of this and this thing, and it works this and that way. Not a qoute of of the blue of some anonymous apparent bone recipient whose only message is that northern western europe is another race than polish (i dont know who else yet, probably eastern europe and jews, as always).
I dont have a problem with being different from northern or western or any Europe, I dont like being the same as others anyway, but if we forgot all norcicist and racists attempts to promote illusions of better nordic germanic races i could treat this quote and thread as objective, but somehow these circumstances exist and if you want to deny them, it means you miss the rality or lie.
You can write whatever you want, next time clearly inform who you are quoting and put it right in the context.
In this case:
1. You recall unverified source (how do you know he has ever had transplant at all? how do you know that provided he has- he he is telling the truth?) as a 'source'. Mystake number one
2. You quote this source next to time link- which suggest its from there- even though you inserted info which is meaningless and does not suugest that the quote is not from the article, plus the next link is followed by the quote from the next article.
3 Your source even though admitedly doesnt know anything about the issue, despite of that he draws his conclusion that northern- western europeans are similar and he is only sure tha polish is 'foreign' and the only conclusion of the speach of the guy is this, nothing else. The man had real life threatening issue (according to himself) and his only problem seemed to be talking to nurses about incompatibility of polish donors.
No, he said that he wasn't sure where the lines were drawn. You're apparently in need of glasses.
Plus, The swedish and british article you mentioned was contradiction to the quote you posted. The article says people of mixed ethnicity of any two nations are the problem, while the link suggests that there is no problem between any combination in "northern western Europe "(we all know it means Germanic Europe, ding dong Nazi bow down).
Are the French Germanic? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Professional approach should state clearly, that there are these and this problems, being a result of this and this thing, and it works this and that way. Not a qoute of of the blue of some anonymous apparent bone recipient whose only message is that northern western europe is another race than polish (i dont know who else yet, probably eastern europe and jews, as always).
If you thought that this forum was 100 percent "professional", then I suggest you to go somewhere else, preferrably a blog. Here, regular people discuss things. Oh wait, they often do that on blogs as well.
I dont have a problem with being different from northern or western or any Europe, I dont like being the same as others anyway, but if we forgot all norcicist and racists attempts to promote illusions of better nordic germanic races i could treat this quote and thread as objective, but somehow these circumstances exist and if you want to deny them, it means you miss the rality or lie.
You're delusional. That's all I have to say.
Pallantides
2011-09-17, 15:17
With "Swedish" they mean a Finnic/Sami/Mongol mixed Norrlänning or Svealänning. :whoco:
Mongols in Norrland and Svealand? :|
No, he said that he wasn't sure where the lines were drawn. You're apparently in need of glasses.
Are the French Germanic? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
If you thought that this forum was 100 percent "professional", then I suggest you to go somewhere else, preferrably a blog. Here, regular people discuss things. Oh wait, they often do that on blogs as well.
You're delusional. That's all I have to say.
1 Haha, he wasnt sure? haha That explains a lot.
Well, I can say I am not sure if you ara a thief.
2 the guy mentioned french and irish, and then he said 'northern western europe" it was he who came with northern-western suddenly not me, i am quoting your source, dont blame me for your source's lack of competence
3 professional- ok, so are you suggesting that one shouldnt care about reliability of sources and claims, as it is 'non-professional forum"?
4 Delusional?
you cannot even admit slightest mystake. you drag this discussion into endless debate because you have no balls to say 'yes it was a bit dodgy source' or to say 'yes it wasnt unclear i admit' I t would end this discussion on the page number two, but you instead want to prove me i am stupid and you are flawless.
Lets stay with this conclusion I dont see the point of longer debate. We have different definitions of reality.
If anyone else will relate to that I will answer- I would prefer not, but for now, I dont want too really repeat the same 20 times, i am done. and i have more intsresting things to do. Its all happening in public space, so lets leave it like this, others can judge bytheir own standard and you by yours and me by mine.
2 the guy mentioned french and irish, and then he said 'northern western europe" If you defend his line of logic, justify how he came with northern-western suddenly? It was he who said that not me, i am quoting your source.
French, Irish and British are genetically pretty similar populations. I don't see what any "racist views" would have to do with, or affect, this fact. French is not a Germanic language and the French are not allowed on Skadi either.
3 professional- ok, so are you suggesting that one shouldnt care about reliability of sources and claims, as it is 'non-professional forum"?
I rely on whatever I want, and you're free to rely on whatever you want.
4 Delusional?
Yes, I'm not the only one in this thread who wonders what you're doing and that you're silly.
you cannot even admit slightest mystake. you drag this discussion into endless debate because you have no balls to say 'yes it was a bit dodgy source' or to say 'yes it wasnt unclear i admit' I t would end this discussion on the page number two, but you instead want to prove me i am stupid and you are flawless.
Lets stay with this conclusion I dont see the point of longer debate. We have different definitions of reality.
If anyone else will relate to that I will answer- I would prefer not, but for now, I dont want too really repeat the same 20 times, i am done. and i have more intsresting things to do. Its all happening in public space, so lets leave it like this, others can judge bytheir own standard and you by yours and me by mine.
And you cannot admit even the slightest ad hominem. And I have told you to stop writing in this thread many times, but you just keep coming back.
Dont push me out of the thread cause you want to have the last word.
If you show me any scientific source, any article on line, anything what supports claims of your 'source', which you defend- I am not going to debate with you anymore and admit you are right.
(reminder- the source claims that northern-western europeans countries are 'one race' in context of bone marrow transplantation and Poland is another race).
Please prove how I'm (he's) lying by quoting. Even Polako (but I take it as he isn't "professional" either) wrote in this thread that the Poles and the British were likely incompatible with each other when it came to this bone marrow issue. If you can prove that they are compatible, then you can claim that there have been "lying". Otherwise, no lying has taken place at all, and you're the one who looks like an idiot.
Please prove how I'm (he's) lying by quoting. Even Polako (but I take it as he isn't "professional" either) wrote in this thread that the Poles and the British were likely incompatible with each other when it came to this bone marrow issue. If you can prove that they are compatible, then you can claim that there have been "lying". Otherwise, it hasn't been lying one single bit and you're the one who looks like an idiot.
Quote me where I said that Poles are compatibile with British people about bone marrow?
One sentence? How many times I have to repeat that its not about this?
Your source made a claim mentioned before and you prove it, not me.
Quote me where I said that Poles are compatibile with British people about bone marrow?
One sentence? How many times I have to repeat that its not about this?
Eh?
If you show me any scientific source, any article on line, anything what supports claims of your 'source', which you defend- I am not going to debate with you anymore and admit you are right.
He wrote something that Polako agreed with. And he hasn't claimed that the Poles are a different race from the Brits either, which I have stated repeatedly:
People of mixed race, or even mixed ethnicity
Where does he specifically use the word race about the Poles? What makes you think that he doesn't mean Poles when saying "or even mixed ethnicity"?
to make it clear: my claim is- finding donor is difficult, it may be easier within the same ethnicity, relatively easier with similar ethnicity, but I dont have facts about it.
the 'source' claims: people of northern-western europe can make donors to each other. Poland is absolutely exluded. No facts are known about remaning 30 or 40 countries of Europe.
---------- Post added 2011-09-17 at 15:54 ----------
Eh?
He wrote something that Polako agreed with. And he hasn't claimed that the Poles are a different race from the Brits either, which I have stated repeatedly:
Where does he specifically use the word race about the Poles? What makes you think that he doesn't mean Poles when saying "or even mixed ethnicity"?
eh?
You want me to prove somethin I never claimed. Why should I prove something I dont believe in? The difference between me and your your source is that I dont make any strict claims and he does. I oppose drawing racial lines (it doesnt have to be said directly, but its clear in the context of debate) without facts/
Its easy for me to prove what I claim, cause I claim nothing. I oppose someone claiming something based on (did i take place or not) talking to nurses and own conclusions.
Have you missed that? We have been arguing here about that- I say 'we dont know' and your guy says "I know" and you defend him- so my request from the very beginning is- prove it in a scientific or professional way.
You turn it arund all the time and try to insinuate that I make some claims, where I dont.
to make it clear: my claim is- finding donor is difficult, it may be easier within the same ethnicity, relatively easier with similar ethnicity, but I dont have facts about it.
You're writing the same as he does here. :whoco:
the 'source' claims: people of northern-western europe can make donors to each other. Poland is absolutely exluded. No facts are known about remaning 30 or 40 countries of Europe.
You haven't thought that it's because (some or most) other ethnicities from Northwestern Europe happen to go under "similar ethnicity" for a Brit?
ps you asked when he mentioned poles as race- he doesnt of course it would be ridicolous, i doubt anyone but Mary for a joke would claim it.
I will ask you direct question: Do you think that you could have posted your link and quote clearer? Do you think it would have been more useful and clearer if you added "and I have one guy from internet forum who writes about his experiences".
Yes or no?
ps you asked when he mentioned poles as race- he doesnt of course it would be ridicolous, i doubt anyone but Mary for a joke would claim it.
No, he didn't and you admitted it now.
I will ask you direct question: Do you think that you could have posted your link and quote clearer? Do you think it would have been more useful and clearer if you added "and I have one guy from internet forum who writes about his experiences".
Yes or no?
No, there's a large gap and a defining text in between. I can't actually think of making it anymore clear.
ps this is the guys conclusion
so probably NW Europeans can be matches for one another. I'm not exactly sure where the borders of compatability are drawn, but they're specific enough to exclude even partial Polish ancestry
what does it mean 'can be matches for one another"? does it say what I say- no, I said- finding a donor is difficult even within the same ethnicity. He says its easy between NW Europe.
I say I dont know, he claims he knows (although securing himself "probably" or " not specifically")
ps this is the guys conclusion
what does it mean 'can be matches for one another"? does it say what I say- no, I said- finding a donor is difficult even within the same ethnicity. He says its easy between NW Europe.
I say I dont know, he claims he knows (although securing himself "probably" or " not specifically")
He wrote that he had three perfect matches.
Ok this debate its over for me, no point to repeat the same over and over.
bye and dont drag me into this anymore.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.