Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1136777507

From: "Glen Todd" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] "Recreational genetics", race and relatedness
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 20:31:47 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>

> I think you got some "private" e-mails that were probably
> meant for the list, since I find that hitting "reply" to
> your message sends my reply to your address-instead of to
> the DNA list.

That's generally a problem in setting up the email client. I've had to
troubleshoot this for people several times.

> And, guess what P.C. police: "Race" is! So, get over it! As
> genetics has shown, it's not very important in differentiating
> human beings-but, that notwithstanding, it exists. I've yet to
> see one participant in Charles Kerchner's DNAPrint Log complain
> that that company's biogeographical test failed to correctly
> identify his or her majority ancestry (i.e., "race").

Exactly so.

> Somebody tell Ms. Nash not to worry. And, I say that as one tested
> positive for THREE racial ("biogeographical") categories!

I wonder if they have a category for 'horrible puns'?


This thread: