 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 23:16, Chambers wrote:
> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply
> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need
> it. The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.
Yes. And the relevance of that is...?
--
For a while, she had a boyfriend with a wooden leg. Then she broke it off.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 22:57, Chambers wrote:
> I've seen interviews with several people from his staff who talked of
> the pressure exerted on them to present information that fit in with the
> higher-up's views (though it's not clear if the pressure came from Bush
> himself, or if Cheney was trying to keep him misinformed).
Oh sure. However, that doesn't translate to "deluded".
--
For a while, she had a boyfriend with a wooden leg. Then she broke it off.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
> favorite is some twit telling me, "Oh,
> well, that is just the Fibonacci sequence... Well, great, if I used the
> it for anything, I might remember what that was. But, a) I don't, and b)
> someone that has no clue what the sequence looks like in the first place
> isn't stupid, they just don't know what the sequence is, so can't figure
> it out.
Reminds me of this:
Q: How does this sequence continue?
M D M D _ _ _
A: No, it's not "... M D M", it's "... F S S".
Why? But isn't that plain obvois? It's the first letters of the German days of
week ("Montag Dienstag Mittwoch Donnerstag Freitag Samstag Sonntag") :P
Or, to put it in software developers' terms: Hey, the next characters in the
sequence could be *anything* until you show me the specs; after all, it migt
just as well be the output of a random number generator, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 2-8-2009 8:23, John VanSickle wrote:
> > I do, however, see a boatload of
> > Monday-morning quarterbacking.
>
> What on earth is that? Could you explain for us geographically
> challenged people?
From the context I'd guess it's what "couch coaches" typically do on a Monday
morning, after having participated in Sunday's football game in the couch
potato position: They'll team up with their colleagues at work for a round of
"Knowing Better".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3-8-2009 11:53, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:30:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>>> I do the same or so my wife tells me.
>
>
>> Take this advice of another victim of this strange behaviour: stop it.
>> ;) Learn to use phrases like 'he asked me if I would...' in stead of
>> 'will you...' and 'I asked her if...' in stead of 'will you...'. It will
>> make the life of the listener so much easier. Also restrict yourself to
>> the main points and don't act like a tape recorder, that will help the
>> listener also to understand what you find the most important, and it
>> saves time.
>
> I don't recognise myself in that paragraph (maybe it does not translate well). I
> tend to say "he said" and "he did" without mentioning which "he" I mean. But
> with a little effort on the listener's part, mentally shifting subjects when the
> sense is lost, understanding can be obtained :P
> I tend to oscillate between speaking very precisely, as if I were writing a
> functional spec and being too sloppy.
Or perhaps you are not as bad as my wife, she is able to really quote
verbatim (or at least that is what she claims). Quoting both herself and
the other person literally without any indication that it is a quote and
by whom. Which means that if she uses 'you' she can mean either that
other person or herself if she is quoting that other or me if she has
ended the quote. I find it rather confusing at times.
Also sometimes confusing, but what happens to more people, is mentioning
only a first name and leaving to the other person which one of the Johns
you both know is meant.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:03:00 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>Or perhaps you are not as bad as my wife, she is able to really quote
>verbatim (or at least that is what she claims). Quoting both herself and
>the other person literally without any indication that it is a quote and
>by whom. Which means that if she uses 'you' she can mean either that
>other person or herself if she is quoting that other or me if she has
>ended the quote. I find it rather confusing at times.
Ah! A mere male. :) Thus is a common condition for us ;)
>Also sometimes confusing, but what happens to more people, is mentioning
>only a first name and leaving to the other person which one of the Johns
>you both know is meant.
But you know that Jan Wit would never do that and Jan Zwart is doing it all the
time so it must have been Jan who said it. Yes or no? :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 23:16, Chambers wrote:
>> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply
>> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need
>> it. The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.
>
> Yes. And the relevance of that is...?
>
That, at some point, you have to make a decision about who gets which
treatments, taking into consideration all the relevant factors (age,
other conditions, likelihood of success, and cost). Excluding any one
of those factors - even cost - would be irresponsible.
Once you admit that there's a cutoff point somewhere, then it no longer
becomes a question of whether or not certain people will be denied
treatment, but only a question of where that cutoff point is.
Too often, the debate is framed as the "we'll provide treatment for
everyone, no matter what" crowd versus the "we'll provide treatment for
those who can pay for it themselves" crowd. Like most real issues, the
practical solution is one which lies somewhere in the middle.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Q: How does this sequence continue?
>
> M D M D _ _ _
>
> A: No, it's not "... M D M", it's "... F S S".
I've seen plenty of tests that ask you for the pattern, and I get
seriously annoyed that the writers of the test didn't think of *my*
pattern. After all, *mine* is perfectly logical, and describes the
demonstrated sequence exactly... so why *isn't* it the correct answer?
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 22:57, Chambers wrote:
>> I've seen interviews with several people from his staff who talked of
>> the pressure exerted on them to present information that fit in with the
>> higher-up's views (though it's not clear if the pressure came from Bush
>> himself, or if Cheney was trying to keep him misinformed).
>
> Oh sure. However, that doesn't translate to "deluded".
OK, then, maybe "deluded" is a bit strong. "Misinformed," perhaps? Or
even just "biased?"
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Once you admit that there's a cutoff point somewhere, then it no longer
> becomes a question of whether or not certain people will be denied
> treatment, but only a question of where that cutoff point is.
Just like organ transplants.
I think I read somewhere a while ago that Canada just ranks all the
treatments in terms of value per dollar, then adds up the dollars until they
run out of budget, and then says "anyone with these problems below this line
isn't going to get cured", basically. Seems like a reasonable way to go.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:23:55 -0700, Chambers
<Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
>clipka wrote:
>> Q: How does this sequence continue?
>>
>> M D M D _ _ _
>>
>> A: No, it's not "... M D M", it's "... F S S".
>
>I've seen plenty of tests that ask you for the pattern, and I get
>seriously annoyed that the writers of the test didn't think of *my*
>pattern. After all, *mine* is perfectly logical, and describes the
>demonstrated sequence exactly... so why *isn't* it the correct answer?
It is a correct answer but one that the point giver gives zero points for. Thus
showing the meaninglessness of IQ tests.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:23:55 -0700, Chambers
> <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
>
>> clipka wrote:
>>> Q: How does this sequence continue?
>>>
>>> M D M D _ _ _
>>>
>>> A: No, it's not "... M D M", it's "... F S S".
>> I've seen plenty of tests that ask you for the pattern, and I get
>> seriously annoyed that the writers of the test didn't think of *my*
>> pattern. After all, *mine* is perfectly logical, and describes the
>> demonstrated sequence exactly... so why *isn't* it the correct answer?
>
> It is a correct answer but one that the point giver gives zero points for. Thus
> showing the meaninglessness of IQ tests.
The question is about the particular sequence MDMDFSS. Not 'any
sequence that begins with MDMD'. So anything other than 'FSS' is not
*the* correct answer. It is, however, their fault that the sequence
does have other obvious continuations. A bit like saying "1, 2, 3, ...,
what comes next?", it could be 4, it could be 5, it could be 10...
Saying that that shows the meaninglessness of IQ tests implies that IQ
tests are composed entirely of questions where there are multiple valid
(and more obvious) answers. They're not. They *are* generally geared
towards the culture of the person taking them, however. Perhaps they
just need greater specialisation for particular sub-sections of
cultures? ^_^
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:12:46 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>The question is about the particular sequence MDMDFSS. Not 'any
>sequence that begins with MDMD'. So anything other than 'FSS' is not
>*the* correct answer. It is, however, their fault that the sequence
>does have other obvious continuations. A bit like saying "1, 2, 3, ...,
>what comes next?", it could be 4, it could be 5, it could be 10...
>
I beg to differ; the question is about tricking people and showing the absurdity
of improperly defined tests. You might say that the "_ _ _" indicates that there
are only three more letters in the sequence. But the similarity between "_ _ _"
and an ellipsis ("…" or "***" or "-" or multiple m-dashes) is too close to
really diferentiate IMO. As you point out.
"FSS" is the "correct answer" for one set of circumstancies.
>Saying that that shows the meaninglessness of IQ tests implies that IQ
>tests are composed entirely of questions where there are multiple valid
>(and more obvious) answers. They're not. They *are* generally geared
>towards the culture of the person taking them, however. Perhaps they
>just need greater specialisation for particular sub-sections of
>cultures? ^_^
Again I dissagree with what you wrote. When you say that "They *are* generally
geared towards the culture of the person taking them" that is the reply to the
critisim that IQ tests are culturely dependant. It does not take into account
education and different types of brain development. I believe that IQ tests are
a flawed concept. If it were not then you would not be able to better your score
by any significant amout, again IMO.
I suspect that you don't really disagree (-_o)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4-8-2009 0:40, Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:03:00 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> Or perhaps you are not as bad as my wife, she is able to really quote
>> verbatim (or at least that is what she claims). Quoting both herself and
>> the other person literally without any indication that it is a quote and
>> by whom. Which means that if she uses 'you' she can mean either that
>> other person or herself if she is quoting that other or me if she has
>> ended the quote. I find it rather confusing at times.
>
> Ah! A mere male. :) Thus is a common condition for us ;)
Yes a mere male. I can do 4D visualization in my head, but I can't
handle insufficient or conflicting information.
>> Also sometimes confusing, but what happens to more people, is mentioning
>> only a first name and leaving to the other person which one of the Johns
>> you both know is meant.
>
> But you know that Jan Wit would never do that and Jan Zwart is doing it all the
> time so it must have been Jan who said it. Yes or no? :-)
Well no, more like 'Jean called...' and I have a cousin called Jean who
might have called, she has a brother with that name as has of our
neighbours and a close collaborator or two. All might have called and it
is up to me to figure out which one. You can only do that if at some
point she refers to something you already know. In which case there was
no point in mentioning it (for a male). Luckily she is a woman so there
is a good change that somewhere she mentions a couple of things she told
a few times before. Then you only have to hope that it is specific
enough and you can figure it out before she figures out you don't have a
clue who she is talking about.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/09 21:21, Chambers wrote:
> That, at some point, you have to make a decision about who gets which
> treatments, taking into consideration all the relevant factors (age,
> other conditions, likelihood of success, and cost). Excluding any one of
> those factors - even cost - would be irresponsible.
>
> Once you admit that there's a cutoff point somewhere, then it no longer
> becomes a question of whether or not certain people will be denied
> treatment, but only a question of where that cutoff point is.
So, what's the cutoff point in Canada, the UK, and France? Citations
should be included.
And, BTW, are you suggesting that insurance companies don't emulate
cutoff points?
--
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/03/09 21:24, Chambers wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 08/02/09 22:57, Chambers wrote:
>>> I've seen interviews with several people from his staff who talked of
>>> the pressure exerted on them to present information that fit in with the
>>> higher-up's views (though it's not clear if the pressure came from Bush
>>> himself, or if Cheney was trying to keep him misinformed).
>>
>> Oh sure. However, that doesn't translate to "deluded".
>
> OK, then, maybe "deluded" is a bit strong. "Misinformed," perhaps? Or
> even just "biased?"
I have to disagree. He/they weren't insisting that intelligence reports
say what they wanted them to say so that they could
misinform/bias/delude themselves, but so that they could
misinform/delude the public.
--
On a Taxidermist's window:
"We really know our stuff."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Once you admit that there's a cutoff point somewhere, then it no longer
>> becomes a question of whether or not certain people will be denied
>> treatment, but only a question of where that cutoff point is.
>
> So, what's the cutoff point in Canada, the UK, and France? Citations
> should be included.
Why? I'm simply saying that you should consider all factors, not that
any particular cutoff point should be used.
> And, BTW, are you suggesting that insurance companies don't emulate
> cutoff points?
Not at all - I think insurance companies do a great job of figuring out
when it's feasible to pay for something and when it isn't.
I was responding to what you wrote:
"3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care
don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work
hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who
don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being
the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is
not a human right"
I was basically saying that health care is NOT a universal right, but
rather is a privilege which is awarded when money is available. I'm not
saying anything about how often it should be awarded, or how much money
we should make available.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.
I agree. Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.
>
> I agree. Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.
I, for one, don't agree. What's wrong with the concept of a generalised
test to determine an individuals approximate level of mental development?
Of course, I also vehemently disagree with my ex-landlord's position
that anything said by someone who is mentally impaired is invalid
explicitly because they're mentally impaired. That would mean if they
were able to say "one plus one equals two", regardless of understanding,
that must then be treated as false. Which is absurd. (That whole can
of worms had been opened by my incidental use of the phrase "can't we
all just get along," which I still think was in use from the 1960s at
least, not coined by Rodney King, even if he popularised it.)
*cough* Sorry. Ex-landlord had a lot of notions which were of dubious
veracity. Like thinking it'd be better to launch satellites from the
polar regions due to lesser gravity (Earth being an oblate sphereoid)
and thinner atmosphere, instead of as they are, from as close to the
equator as possible to get the momentum boost from the rotating Earth.
And the US Navy's nuclear submarines being able to be completely
remote-controlled if you send them the right access codes (since it was
in some movie). And the US having low-yield nukes (specifically nukes)
that don't produce radiation, or if they do, it decays within days,
instead of a century or so. And file permissions and user accounts in
UNIX being an add-on module that you had to specifically compile,
separate from the filesystem, with (modern) UNIX systems having
programmer-embedded backdoors at the OS level to permit complete access
to everything in case the admin forgot their password...and claiming
that a friend decompiled Windows and, by removing commented code,
decreased the recompiled executable and library size significantly.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> with (modern) UNIX systems having
> programmer-embedded backdoors at the OS level to permit complete access
> to everything in case the admin forgot their password
Well, that one's true. It's called "single-user mode." ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.
>>
>> I agree. Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.
>
> I, for one, don't agree. What's wrong with the concept of a generalised
> test to determine an individuals approximate level of mental development?
Absolutely nothing. However, there's nothing "approximate" about saying
"Your IQ is 174, and his is 168, ergo you are smarter."
An approximation would be fine.
> And the US Navy's nuclear submarines being able to be completely
> remote-controlled if you send them the right access codes (since it was
> in some movie).
The only movie I know of that showed that was Star Trek II ;)
> And the US having low-yield nukes (specifically nukes)
> that don't produce radiation, or if they do, it decays within days,
> instead of a century or so.
Neutron bombs. They kill off the population, and leave the real estate
intact.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> They kill off the population, and leave the real estate
> intact.
Relatively speaking. It's still a G-D nuclear bomb you're talking about,
after all. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> They kill off the population, and leave the real estate intact.
>
> Relatively speaking. It's still a G-D nuclear bomb you're talking about,
> after all. :-)
"Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the
infrastructure intact", current designs have explosive yields in the
kiloton range,[11] the detonation of which would cause heavy destruction
through blast and heat effects. A yield of one kiloton is not high for a
nuclear weapon, but is still nearly two orders of magnitude bigger than
the most powerful conventional bombs."
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:20:04 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>Yes a mere male. I can do 4D visualization in my head, but I can't
>handle insufficient or conflicting information.
>
Oh! Come on, I bet you can do better than that. I use colour and smell as extra
dimensions when I want to go higher than 4. Just think of something rotting
over time. ;)
>
>Well no, more like 'Jean called...' and I have a cousin called Jean who
>might have called, she has a brother with that name as has of our
>neighbours and a close collaborator or two. All might have called and it
>is up to me to figure out which one. You can only do that if at some
>point she refers to something you already know. In which case there was
>no point in mentioning it (for a male). Luckily she is a woman so there
>is a good change that somewhere she mentions a couple of things she told
>a few times before. Then you only have to hope that it is specific
>enough and you can figure it out before she figures out you don't have a
>clue who she is talking about.
"The way of the world" I'm afraid :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:57:02 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>Chambers wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.
>>
>> I agree. Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.
>
>I, for one, don't agree. What's wrong with the concept of a generalised
>test to determine an individuals approximate level of mental development?
There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
development and IQ tests.
Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
favour of the concept of IQ.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
> favour of the concept of IQ.
Why is that funny?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
> development and IQ tests.
...there shouldn't be. :P (The def. listed in the wiki article said
ratio/difference between user score and average score of their age
group...or something like that)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>
>Why is that funny?
Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:01:27 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
>> development and IQ tests.
>
>...there shouldn't be. :P (The def. listed in the wiki article said
>ratio/difference between user score and average score of their age
>group...or something like that)
Well, for people who like that sort of thing that's the sort of thing they like.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>> Why is that funny?
>
> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
I don't find it peculiar at all.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:15:27 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>>> Why is that funny?
>>
>> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
>
>I don't find it peculiar at all.
You must have a high IQ, then.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/06/09 19:51, Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:15:27 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>>>> Why is that funny?
>>> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
>> I don't find it peculiar at all.
>
> You must have a high IQ, then.
Or a low IQ, depending on your perspective.
--
It's not hard to meet expenses, they're everywhere.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:16:17 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>On 08/06/09 19:51, Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:15:27 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>>>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>>>>> Why is that funny?
>>>> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
>>> I don't find it peculiar at all.
>>
>> You must have a high IQ, then.
>
> Or a low IQ, depending on your perspective.
I wouldn't say that.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
