"So, an african woman has a child with a white man. Is the child African?
What if the mans parents were also mixed race?
What if the African woman had a white grandfather?"
- If it can be seen that the child is not a "clear-cut" case, in other words based on his skin colour alone, it is not clear that he is an African, then the parents of the child can decide his classification (assuming he is under 18). How many times must I repeat this? Don't you guys read what I post?
"So we then resort to classification based on measurements of hair curliness and the shape of the kids nose?"
- No. There is none of that. Your insistence of ridiculous technicalities will not work.
"Remember Capetonian688 - you have already said the "skin must be black". Can the child have Nordic bone structure and a black skin and then qualify?
Or is it also permissible to have African facial features and a whiter skin?
Is there a middle ground where the two compensate?"
- If the skin is black, he is African. If it is less than black, and it is thus clear that he is mixed race, then refer to procedure above.
You people make it seem that there are millions of cases like the above (i.e. doubtful race). As I said: there are very few cases. And because there are very few cases, your reasoning for nullifying skin colour as indication for racial classification, loses weight.
"What about the 5% - do they not count?"
- I already explained many times now, what to do in those cases.
"I suppose since whites account for 5% of the population they do not count either?"
- On what grounds do you say that "they do not count"? I do not understand your statement "do not count". What do you mean?
"People over the age of 70 may account for 5% of the population - again they do not count by your definition."
- My definition has got nothing to do with "do not count". My definition indicates when to use skin colour as racial classification, and when to use alternate methods. "Do not count" has got nothing to do with the procedure. No-one is exempted from the racial classification procedure.
"When someone repairs your car, 95% will be good enough for you - you do not really need the other 5% of the car sprayed."
- Again, it has nothing to do with "good enough" or "not good enough". Do not make warped statements on things I did not say or imply. Please do not do this again. I am sharp enough to pick it up and will action on it each time it is tried on me.
It seems you love to make a warped statement based on a false implication of what I have said, and then continue analysing that in many following sentences. Because your original statement based on what I said, was false, all else that follows in your post, based on it, is nonsense. So I just have to point out to you the fact that your original statement ("count / do not count") in this case was false, and not have to explain any of the rest of your sentences that are based on that. So please do not ask me to explain any of the rest of your sentences, i.e. use phrases like "still waiting for your explanation of WHO are qualified to determine if person is good enough for African classification" (this was your last sentence). I already refuted your first statement, so the rest are nullified. Please do not attempt this. But you are not the only one that is trying this.
)
On the taxpayers money 
