 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I found this article at cracked.com a good read. It's a bit long and uses
a bit vulgar style in some parts, but I warmly recommend you to read it.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
It's not a debunking article per se, but more of an opinion of why the
conspiracy theorists are nuts. Especially the second page makes good points
about why keeping a huge conspiracy like that is basically impossible: There
simply are way too many people involved and too many witnesses who could
blow up the whole thing with simple evidence (eg. by showing a paycheck by
the government to keep them quiet).
The conspiracy theorists claim that all the people involved, who would
could blow up the whole conspiracy, were paid by the government to keep
quiet. As the article aptly puts it, how much money would *you* take in
order to keep quiet about the murder of your family, friends or co-workers?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's not a debunking article per se, but more of an opinion of why the
> conspiracy theorists are nuts. Especially the second page makes good points
> about why keeping a huge conspiracy like that is basically impossible: There
> simply are way too many people involved and too many witnesses who could
> blow up the whole thing with simple evidence (eg. by showing a paycheck by
> the government to keep them quiet).
>
> The conspiracy theorists claim that all the people involved, who would
> could blow up the whole conspiracy, were paid by the government to keep
> quiet. As the article aptly puts it, how much money would *you* take in
> order to keep quiet about the murder of your family, friends or co-workers?
More interestingly, it explains *why* people want to believe such
ludicrous claims: for the personal glory.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> More interestingly, it explains *why* people want to believe such
> ludicrous claims: for the personal glory.
Yeah. If what that article claims is true, the author of the Loose Change
"documentary" originally didn't even believe in the conspiracy, but simply
did the first version of the film just for fun and experiment, by deliberately
picking up certain material and ignoring the rest, just to see how it would
turn out. Only after he was offered glory and cash was it that he started
making it a serious attempt at a convincing (and outright deceiving) movie.
I suppose he succeeded big time. He got his fame, followers, TV time and
money.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> More interestingly, it explains *why* people want to believe such
>> ludicrous claims: for the personal glory.
>
> Yeah. If what that article claims is true, the author of the Loose Change
> "documentary" originally didn't even believe in the conspiracy, but simply
> did the first version of the film just for fun and experiment, by deliberately
> picking up certain material and ignoring the rest, just to see how it would
> turn out. Only after he was offered glory and cash was it that he started
> making it a serious attempt at a convincing (and outright deceiving) movie.
>
> I suppose he succeeded big time. He got his fame, followers, TV time and
> money.
I wasn't there, I didn't see what happened, but it seems like a
plausible story to me.
Of course, making up nonesense to get attention isn't new. (How many
forgers and con artists have claimed to have telekenesis?) The
interesting question is why the followers want to believe this stuff.
And again, it comes down to glory: Of all the sheeple here, only *I* and
my elite friends know The Truth. We are the modern Illunimati.
http://www.xkcd.com/610/
I wonder if that's why all the Editor Wars happened?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> It's not a debunking article per se, but more of an opinion of why the
>> conspiracy theorists are nuts. Especially the second page makes good
>> points
>> about why keeping a huge conspiracy like that is basically impossible:
>> There
>> simply are way too many people involved and too many witnesses who could
>> blow up the whole thing with simple evidence (eg. by showing a
>> paycheck by
>> the government to keep them quiet).
>>
>> The conspiracy theorists claim that all the people involved, who would
>> could blow up the whole conspiracy, were paid by the government to keep
>> quiet. As the article aptly puts it, how much money would *you* take in
>> order to keep quiet about the murder of your family, friends or
>> co-workers?
>
> More interestingly, it explains *why* people want to believe such
> ludicrous claims: for the personal glory.
Well, its not just that. I don't have a link, but someone pointed out
that "most" conspiracy theories all have a common thread of ideas. In
essence, if you fall for one, you are more open to falling for the next,
and since that has thread into others, you can fall for it easier, and
so on. Once you start accepting certain patterns as feasible, you start
finding that all conspiracies have similar patterns. For believers, this
reinforces the patterns, for skeptics, it just makes them wonder who the
frak people can believe the BS, including, in some cases, 3-4 different
conspiracies that can't logically be happening at the same time, run by
the same people, without undermining all of them in the process.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> More interestingly, it explains *why* people want to believe such
>> ludicrous claims: for the personal glory.
>
> Yeah. If what that article claims is true, the author of the Loose Change
> "documentary" originally didn't even believe in the conspiracy, but simply
> did the first version of the film just for fun and experiment, by deliberately
> picking up certain material and ignoring the rest, just to see how it would
> turn out. Only after he was offered glory and cash was it that he started
> making it a serious attempt at a convincing (and outright deceiving) movie.
>
> I suppose he succeeded big time. He got his fame, followers, TV time and
> money.
>
Example of the "professionals" that do this:
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/05/ghostbusters-ed-and-lorraine-warren.html
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/05/ghostbusters-ed-and-lorraine-warren_29.html
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/06/ghostbusters-part-iii-bs-in-connecticut.html
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/07/ghostbusters-part-iv-ed-and-lorraine.html
Guys site is dedicated to digging these wackos up, and, when possible,
dissecting the facts. Got to love this one too, from there (The must be
putting something in the water, I am sure, but its not the rainbows I am
worried about. lol):
http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/07/conspiracy-monday-beware-sprinkler.html
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Well, its not just that. I don't have a link, but someone pointed out
> that "most" conspiracy theories all have a common thread of ideas. In
> essence, if you fall for one, you are more open to falling for the next,
> and since that has thread into others, you can fall for it easier, and
> so on.
That seems to be true. I have yet to meet the person who is, for example,
a strong believer in the Moon landing hoax theories, but does not believe
for a second that there was a conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, or the other
way around. For some reason these two conspiracy theories seem to go hand
in hand: If someone believes in one, there's an almost 100% probability that
he believes in the other too.
And this is not just the nutjobs in their basements who believe in black
helicopters, Roswell UFOs and the Kennedy assasination conspiracies. These
are just regular, normal people.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Guys site is dedicated to digging these wackos up, and, when possible,
> dissecting the facts. Got to love this one too, from there (The must be
> putting something in the water, I am sure, but its not the rainbows I am
> worried about. lol):
It's the fluoride.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Well, its not just that. I don't have a link, but someone pointed out
>> that "most" conspiracy theories all have a common thread of ideas. In
>> essence, if you fall for one, you are more open to falling for the next,
>> and since that has thread into others, you can fall for it easier, and
>> so on.
>
> That seems to be true. I have yet to meet the person who is, for example,
> a strong believer in the Moon landing hoax theories, but does not believe
> for a second that there was a conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks, or the other
> way around. For some reason these two conspiracy theories seem to go hand
> in hand: If someone believes in one, there's an almost 100% probability that
> he believes in the other too.
>
> And this is not just the nutjobs in their basements who believe in black
> helicopters, Roswell UFOs and the Kennedy assasination conspiracies. These
> are just regular, normal people.
>
Yeah. The regular "normal" people like the nut that wrote how he hated
what the left did to Palin, who was a nice wack.. uh, normal person like
him, but he doesn't trust the right either, so he feels he has been left
out in the middle. Well.. the regular "normal" people like this are
precisely what scared the hell out of me that she *might* actually end
up as VP. lol Like living in a world where everyone is Forest Gump, only
none of them sound like it, until they start talking about some aspect
of politics, education, etc., at which point you can see their brains
dribbling out their ears.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I found this article at cracked.com a good read. It's a bit long and uses
> a bit vulgar style in some parts, but I warmly recommend you to read it.
>
> http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
>
> It's not a debunking article per se, but more of an opinion of why the
> conspiracy theorists are nuts. Especially the second page makes good points
> about why keeping a huge conspiracy like that is basically impossible: There
> simply are way too many people involved and too many witnesses who could
> blow up the whole thing with simple evidence (eg. by showing a paycheck by
> the government to keep them quiet).
>
> The conspiracy theorists claim that all the people involved, who would
> could blow up the whole conspiracy, were paid by the government to keep
> quiet. As the article aptly puts it, how much money would *you* take in
> order to keep quiet about the murder of your family, friends or co-workers?
Aside from a handful of people who think that our federal government is
always up to something evil, no matter who is in office, a small number
of people were afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to such a degree
that they believe him capable of anything evil. In all fairness,
conspiracy theories about Clinton abounded during his time in office as
well.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I found this article at cracked.com a good read. It's a bit long and uses
> a bit vulgar style in some parts, but I warmly recommend you to read it.
>
> http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
>
> It's not a debunking article per se, but more of an opinion of why the
> conspiracy theorists are nuts. Especially the second page makes good points
> about why keeping a huge conspiracy like that is basically impossible: There
> simply are way too many people involved and too many witnesses who could
> blow up the whole thing with simple evidence (eg. by showing a paycheck by
> the government to keep them quiet).
>
> The conspiracy theorists claim that all the people involved, who would
> could blow up the whole conspiracy, were paid by the government to keep
> quiet. As the article aptly puts it, how much money would *you* take in
> order to keep quiet about the murder of your family, friends or co-workers?
>
> --
> - Warp
True statement: There are plenty of bona fide wackos out there alleging all
sorts of crazy conspiracies.
False statement: Anyone proposing that one or more persons in authority might be
abusing that authority and misusing the sometimes legitimate need for government
secrecy to obscure their misdeeds is automatically just one of those wackos.
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-7-2009 13:56, John VanSickle wrote:
> Aside from a handful of people who think that our federal government is
> always up to something evil, no matter who is in office, a small number
> of people were afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to such a degree
> that they believe him capable of anything evil. In all fairness,
> conspiracy theories about Clinton abounded during his time in office as
> well.
IIRC there was a clear hatred in the republican party when Clinton came
in office right from the start. At least from where I live it seemed as
if they could not admit they had been defeated in the election and every
means to correct that was justified. With Bush you had the same problem,
but now in reverse. So I assumed that was the normal state of US
government presumably because if they would stop fighting they might
have to take decisions. US policy never seems to amaze because I have
not seen much hatred or personals attacks on Obama yet. The only
exception may be Dick Cheney, but he is desperately trying to stay out
of prison, so he does not count that much in my opinion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> US policy never seems to amaze because I have
> not seen much hatred or personals attacks on Obama yet.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
etc.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-7-2009 20:59, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> US policy never seems to amaze because I have
>> not seen much hatred or personals attacks on Obama yet.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
>
> etc.
>
None of these seem to come directly from the republican party and most
if not all date from during the campaign. So there is no reason to
change my conclusion that the republican party has accepted Obama as
their president and are not using foul play to remove him from power
and/or cripple the administration simply because he is from that other
party. Also McCain's reaction when confronted with a xenophobe supporter
during the campaign points to a more 'mature' attitude by both parties.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> So there is no reason to
> change my conclusion that the republican party has accepted Obama as
> their president and are not using foul play to remove him from power
> and/or cripple the administration simply because he is from that other
> party.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/17/health-care-and-the-tea-partie
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/20/obama_pushes_back_against_talk.html
Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama even
at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.
--
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 07/30/09 14:15, andrel wrote:
> None of these seem to come directly from the republican party and most
> if not all date from during the campaign. So there is no reason to
The Republican Party may not be doing it directly, but issues of his
being a citizen via birth haven't gone away. One soldier recently
managed to get himself undeployed from Iraq on the basis of his
challenging whether Obama is the commander in chief, because he doesn't
believe Obama is a natural born citizen.
And as for the Muslim issue, wasn't that something Hilary was
responsible for?
--
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass. M.Twain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/30/09 18:00, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> being a citizen via birth haven't gone away. One soldier recently
> managed to get himself undeployed from Iraq on the basis of his
Actually, I meant Afghanistan.
--
To call a man an ass is to insult the jackass. M.Twain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Aside from a handful of people who think that our federal government is
> always up to something evil, no matter who is in office, a small number
> of people were afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to such a degree
> that they believe him capable of anything evil. In all fairness,
> conspiracy theories about Clinton abounded during his time in office as
> well.
>
> Regards,
> John
I think Bush was a borderline idiot, and Cheney, and other around him,
where pushing the agendas in some really stupid ways, with what "is" a
clear goal of making the country more like what a small minority of
loonies want it to be, as his supposed "advisors". Do I qualify? lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 30-7-2009 20:59, Warp wrote:
>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> US policy never seems to amaze because I have not seen much hatred or
>>> personals attacks on Obama yet.
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
>>
>> etc.
>>
> None of these seem to come directly from the republican party and most
> if not all date from during the campaign. So there is no reason to
> change my conclusion that the republican party has accepted Obama as
> their president and are not using foul play to remove him from power
> and/or cripple the administration simply because he is from that other
> party. Also McCain's reaction when confronted with a xenophobe supporter
> during the campaign points to a more 'mature' attitude by both parties.
>
There is a Youtube on this issue, which I don't have a link to. Someone
from Huffpo (man that place is a weird mix of fact based stuff and pure
bullshit, but that is a different issue), where one of their reporters
tries to get a clear answer from people on "if" Obama was born in the
US. It was only like 5-6 people, but one tried damn hard to *not* be
interviewed, most of the others waffled a lot, and wouldn't answer,
except to babble, in a few cases, about, "Its being looked into", and
only one admitted that he "accepted" the truth, only he also claimed
that Obama was trying to systematically destroy the country with his
policies.
Some times you don't need conspiracy, just paranoia, combined with
rampant delusion, and a blind refusal to accept reality, all topped with
a hint of lime (without the m).
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-7-2009 22:08, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> So there is no reason to change my conclusion that the republican
>> party has accepted Obama as their president and are not using foul
>> play to remove him from power and/or cripple the administration simply
>> because he is from that other party.
>
> http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/17/health-care-and-the-tea-partie
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/20/obama_pushes_back_against_talk.html
There may be some retrospective(*) religious inspired idea that health
care for poor people is inherently bad for the country but to me this
sort of 'reasoning' does indeed make no sense.
> Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama
> even at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.
I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e.
almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make
sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly
americans', and what is the news value of that?
*) first you have an idea and then you try to find a religious sounding
reasoning for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> bullshit, but that is a different issue), where one of their reporters
> tries to get a clear answer from people on "if" Obama was born in the
Yes. Someone asked "Is he a citizen?" Answer: "No, he shouldn't be
president because he wasn't born here." Then they asked "So he's an illegal
immigrant? We should deport him back to Kenya?" All of a sudden, there's
much more waffling.
Sort of like the pro-life protesters, when you ask "so we should put the
mothers in jail, right?"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I think Bush was a borderline idiot
Much as we like to insult politicians, I doubt Bush was even close to
being a borderline idiot; my understanding is that 'idiot' is (or was,
back in the day) a clearly delineated statement of particular mental
ability reserved for people with genuinely *really low* IQs. And, to
reference wikipedia, "In the early 1900s, Dr. Henry H. Goddard proposed
a classification system for mental retardation based on the Binet-Simon
concept of mental age. Individuals with the lowest mental age level
(less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbiciles had a
mental age of three to 7 years., and morons had a mental age of seven to
ten years. IQ, or intelligence quotient, is determined by dividing a
person's mental age, as determined by standardized tests, by
chronological age. The term "idiot" is sometimes used to refer to people
having an IQ below 30."
So...yeah.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:12:40 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e.
>almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make
>sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly
>americans', and what is the news value of that?
I've recently found Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" on British TV.
Very funny and it gives me a lot more respect for Americans. (Well some of them,
anyway :) )
There are some clips that you can see, here.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:12:40 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e.
>> almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make
>> sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly
>> americans', and what is the news value of that?
>
> I've recently found Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" on British TV.
> Very funny and it gives me a lot more respect for Americans. (Well some of them,
> anyway :) )
>
> There are some clips that you can see, here.
>
> http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Another good one from the same channel:
http://www.colbertnation.com/home
Its 100% Poe, which is why the truly stupid conservatives sometimes
actually think he is on their side. No, seriously.. some of them haven't
got the message from their fellow nuts that he is not, and actually
agree with the over the top gibberish he puts out. Its bizarre. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> bullshit, but that is a different issue), where one of their reporters
>> tries to get a clear answer from people on "if" Obama was born in the
>
> Yes. Someone asked "Is he a citizen?" Answer: "No, he shouldn't be
> president because he wasn't born here." Then they asked "So he's an
> illegal immigrant? We should deport him back to Kenya?" All of a
> sudden, there's much more waffling.
>
> Sort of like the pro-life protesters, when you ask "so we should put the
> mothers in jail, right?"
>
Yeah. Never mind that, much as in the case of some of the stuff they
want to ban on the pro-life side, the answer is both completely wrong,
but their theories on what constitute "born in", or "citizen", are not
even correct. I like how someone points out that McCain was born in
Panama. Mind, it was a US occupied part, at the time, but it still
wasn't a state in the union, and so.. does it really qualify? Same
irrelevancy. One or more of his parents where citizens, so it wouldn't
matter if he was born of fracking Mars, he is still a citizen. But,
since all the evidence is that Obama either "was" born in Hawaii, or his
family managed to bribe a dozen news papers, and the Hawaiian
government, somehow, to lie about it 35+ years ago, its bullshit anyway.
If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
Its all quite absurd.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> I think Bush was a borderline idiot
>
> Much as we like to insult politicians, I doubt Bush was even close to
> being a borderline idiot; my understanding is that 'idiot' is (or was,
> back in the day) a clearly delineated statement of particular mental
> ability reserved for people with genuinely *really low* IQs. And, to
> reference wikipedia, "In the early 1900s, Dr. Henry H. Goddard proposed
> a classification system for mental retardation based on the Binet-Simon
> concept of mental age. Individuals with the lowest mental age level
> (less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbiciles had a
> mental age of three to 7 years., and morons had a mental age of seven to
> ten years. IQ, or intelligence quotient, is determined by dividing a
> person's mental age, as determined by standardized tests, by
> chronological age. The term "idiot" is sometimes used to refer to people
> having an IQ below 30."
>
> So...yeah.
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
People that believe in IQs are idiots too. lol
But seriously, I think the rules on that are just a bit flawed. Its
possible to be well educated, very good within the scope of your own
little world, knowledgeable about a narrow number of things, and still a
total half wit when dealing with things "outside" your understanding.
Bush's understanding seemed to be limited to right wing Bible, war
heroes from old movie plots, and big business. Everything else, he was
clueless about.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
them.
In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
what the word is saying.
When you say, eg. 'he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent'
it sounds like you don't mean "physically" in the literal sense, but
figuratively. Like it was some kind of figurative speech for something
else. I don't think that's what you mean.
(That's the only possible meaning because you are clearly not quoting
anybody nor using some kind of slang or obscure word (requiring explanation
for those who don't know it) or alias.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/31/09 16:47, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
>> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
>
> I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
> seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
> them.
>
> In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
> that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
> what the word is saying.
I really doubt that grammar rules suggest this. I think you mean an
often used meme/convention.
In any case, it's a matter of interpretation. His usage of quotation
marks for 'physically' is strictly to point out that he's using the same
words as the opposing side (i.e. that it is not merely his
interpretation). In one sense, that is close to the ideal usage.
> (That's the only possible meaning because you are clearly not quoting
> anybody nor using some kind of slang or obscure word (requiring explanation
> for those who don't know it) or alias.)
My understanding was that he _was_ quoting a number of people. He just
didn't state who.
--
Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day. Teach him to use the Net
and he won't bother you for weeks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I really doubt that grammar rules suggest this.
It's definitely grammar rules, yes.
> In any case, it's a matter of interpretation. His usage of quotation
> marks for 'physically' is strictly to point out that he's using the same
> words as the opposing side (i.e. that it is not merely his
> interpretation). In one sense, that is close to the ideal usage.
If that's what he meant. But since he put "do" in quote marks too, I somehow
think he's using the same conventions he uses in every other post, which is
to incorrectly put quote marks around words he's trying to emphasize.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> IQ, or intelligence quotient, is determined by
>> dividing a person's mental age, as determined by standardized tests,
>> by chronological age.
> People that believe in IQs are idiots too. lol
Why? What about a basically statistical measure of relative mental age
is problematic?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> But,
> since all the evidence is that Obama either "was" born in Hawaii, or his
> family managed to bribe a dozen news papers, and the Hawaiian
> government, somehow, to lie about it 35+ years ago, its bullshit anyway.
> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
Just for nitpicking's sake, it was *McCain* who was geographically born on the
North American continent (of which Central America is considered the
southernmost part), while Obama was *not* born on the continent, but an island
thousands of mile soff-shore, right in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, which
is considered to be geographically a part of Oceania.
So if nationality was defined by region of birth, then Obama would be an
Australian... :P
(As a side note, why do you use "double quotes" for *emphasis*? It's a bit
irritating, as double quotes are usually used for quoting, or when a word isn't
to be taken literally, and stuff like that.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Bush's understanding seemed to be limited to right wing Bible, war
> heroes from old movie plots, and big business. Everything else, he was
> clueless about.
As for "big business", I heard that he was rather clueless about that as well...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
>> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
>
> I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
> seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
> them.
>
Then don't be. I typed the bloody thing five minutes before leaving for
work, so didn't notice the problem.
> In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
> that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
> what the word is saying.
>
Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired of
people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the post.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired of
> people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the post.
You should understand that it really distracts from your point. It actually
makes it difficult to understand, like if you consistently used the wrong
tense for verbs or used "he" when you meant "she".
(I know when my wife gets talking fast and forgets that "he" and "she" are
different words in English, it becomes really hard to follow who she's
talking about.)
--
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:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Tim Cook wrote:
>>> IQ, or intelligence quotient, is determined by dividing a person's
>>> mental age, as determined by standardized tests, by chronological age.
>
>> People that believe in IQs are idiots too. lol
>
> Why? What about a basically statistical measure of relative mental age
> is problematic?
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
The fact that it isn't a statistical measure of relative mental ages, so
much as a statistical representation of how much one conforms to a
specific set of social parameters and ideas, which have jack to do with
*actually* being intelligent. I am sure Rosie O'Donald could pass a
Mensa test, but I wouldn't trust her with almost anything that didn't
involve knowing an endless mess of useless trivia. Until/unless someone
finds a valid means to separate measures of mental development from the
social memes and mores of the culture they are being tested in, its not
a valid test of anything, other than general forms of conformity to
arbitrary definitions of "intelligence". Yes, it can be, within a narrow
set of definition. But, ironically, *my* definitions are probably
nothing at all like the definitions used by the sort of people that Bush
surrounded himself with. In fact, I am fairly sure it wouldn't be, since
I have seen the sort he appointed when governor in Texas, the sort
around him during his presidency, and the sort of people that *continue*
to get elected in his home state, and there is nothing about these
people that doesn't smell of ignorance, general disinterest in facts,
mental incapacity to tell the difference between gibberish and facts,
*or* a real lack of capacity to even *understand* most of the stuff that
scientists, educators and even, in some cases, the general public, in
most other parts of the country, recognize is just crazy ass stupid.
There are a small number of states that are *known* for wacky, silly,
absurd, ignorance, and making things up to support ideologies, often in
direct face of facts that contradict *all* of their premises, in the
last 5-10 years, Texas has risen from like 10th on that list to #1, and
its a pretty short list to start with.
Put simply, nothing I saw of Bush, while in office, indicated to me
someone who cared about facts that contradicted him, much cared about
beliefs that differed from his, though he made the common mistake of
equation having such to being "enough like me that it doesn't matter",
while shoving everyone else into the "Well, they don't have any, even if
they do have any.", camp, and he presumed, like all such black and
whitists, that everyone with faith was on *his* side, by definition. And
things just go down hill from there, starting with his conclusion that
he didn't need actual science advice from scientists, but theologians,
or people that where theologians first, and **very poor** scientists
second, would be better, especially if they worked for some company he
trusted. Oh, and of course, if you dared try to point out how dead wrong
he was on *anything*, well.. your website would oddly be found not too
long after, replacing birth control information with abstinence
information, or you would just find yourself handed last pay check, and
someone with more "proper" ideology, i.e., clueless nonsense views,
would get appointed to replace you.
Until IQ tests can test for capacity to handle situations where the
default suppositions of the test are actually invalid, and you are
required to figure out what changed, so you can derive the *correct*
answer, all such tests will ever test is if you meet some 'standard'
which is based on the lowest common knowledge of that level of
development, and that knowledge will be *entirely* arbitrary. Given that
*many* people manage to successfully bluff their ways through degrees at
major colleges, only to then go on an write books filled with logical
fallacies, incorrect facts, unscientific thinking, pure sophistry, and
even completely **wrong** analysis of data from their own field (and
this includes insane things like Behe managing to get his own field of
mathematics so wrong that if he where calculating the direction and
speed of a bus it would be going the opposite direction, at the speed of
light, by the time he got done doing the math wrong), its fairly obvious
that possessing knowledge, an understanding of the social norms of
society, and even enough intelligence to pass college tests, never mind
IQ tests, means ***absolutely nothing***, when talking about whether or
not the person in question can think themselves out of a wet paper bag,
even if you granted them a pair of scissors, a flashlight, and an
instruction book on "how to cut things".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Bush's understanding seemed to be limited to right wing Bible, war
>> heroes from old movie plots, and big business. Everything else, he was
>> clueless about.
>
> As for "big business", I heard that he was rather clueless about that as well...
>
Depends. Was it about making profit, or actually running one properly? lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired
>> of people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the
>> post.
>
> You should understand that it really distracts from your point. It
> actually makes it difficult to understand, like if you consistently used
> the wrong tense for verbs or used "he" when you meant "she".
>
> (I know when my wife gets talking fast and forgets that "he" and "she"
> are different words in English, it becomes really hard to follow who
> she's talking about.)
>
Yeah, well. Like I said, I am trying to quit. But, its like my version
of cigerettes. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Until/unless someone
> finds a valid means to separate measures of mental development from the
> social memes and mores of the culture they are being tested in, its not
> a valid test of anything, other than general forms of conformity to
> arbitrary definitions of "intelligence".
IQ tests do include sections such as repeating ever-lengthening strings
of numbers which is pretty unrelated to conforming to social norms and
measures nothing but short-term memory capacity, a bit like playing
Simon. And sections with pattern-based problem-solving with no
additional data. At some point, *all* definitions are arbitrary, and if
(assuming that "if", there) the measures of mental development are used
entirely within the culture of which the subject is a member, why does
it need to be separated?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> >> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
> >> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
> >
> > I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
> > seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
> > them.
> >
> Then don't be. I typed the bloody thing five minutes before leaving for
> work, so didn't notice the problem.
I am going to sound like a jerk again, but I have always wondered if
some people just type their message as fast and carelessly as they can,
and only *then* they go through it and correct all the spelling and
grammatical mistakes. That feels a bit counter-productive to me. Why not
write it properly right away? That would save time and effort.
> > In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
> > that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
> > what the word is saying.
> >
> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired of
> people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the post.
But since I'm not whining about the content of your post that means that
I have nothing to object to it. Isn't that a good thing?-)
Besides, this is exactly the second time I object about someone here
misusing quotes in the history of the server. Hardly seems constant whining.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> The fact that it isn't a statistical measure of relative mental ages, so
> much as a statistical representation of how much one conforms to a
> specific set of social parameters and ideas, which have jack to do with
> *actually* being intelligent.
I really think that's more a biased "political correctness" ideology
speaking than anything that has been extensively and scientifically studied.
An IQ test *does* tell something about the mental difference between
people. In some cases it might indicate natural talent, in other cases
it might indicate the result of learning and training, but nevertheless
it does indicate some differences between people.
Many PC advocates don't like the idea that some people might be truely
more intelligent than others, as they have this utopistic view of the world
where everyone is equal and any differences between people are artificial
and only lead to discrimination.
However, just because they *say* that IQ tests are BS and that IQ
differences between people are an artificial construct doesn't make it so.
Some people might not like it that others are more intelligent than them,
but that doesn't change the facts of life.
> Until/unless someone
> finds a valid means to separate measures of mental development from the
> social memes and mores of the culture they are being tested in, its not
> a valid test of anything, other than general forms of conformity to
> arbitrary definitions of "intelligence".
That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
*anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
> *anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
> more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
> the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
> tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
EVERY case!".
Yes, an IQ test is not perfect, nor do we fully understand every
intricate detail of how the brain works or all the qualitative factors
of 'intelligence'. This doesn't mean we should look the other way
instead of using the most efficient tool for getting a reasonably
accurate comparison of individuals, so those who genuinely need
assistance due to mental disability can get it.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
> prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
> which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
> in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
> EVERY case!".
I liked the analogy someone used:
In average women have bigger breasts than men. Just because *some* men
have bigger breasts than *some* women doesn't change the fact.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>>>> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
>>>> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
>>> I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
>>> seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
>>> them.
>>>
>> Then don't be. I typed the bloody thing five minutes before leaving for
>> work, so didn't notice the problem.
>
> I am going to sound like a jerk again, but I have always wondered if
> some people just type their message as fast and carelessly as they can,
> and only *then* they go through it and correct all the spelling and
> grammatical mistakes. That feels a bit counter-productive to me. Why not
> write it properly right away? That would save time and effort.
>
Sounds good, but.. Well, frankly, as I said, in this case I was in a
rush to go out the door. If I took that sort of time, I wouldn't have
made it to work on time, or would have had to come back later, and hope
the power didn't go out, etc., losing the message. :p And, just because
I don't stutter any more, doesn't mean I don't think, never mind type,
the same as I used to. lol
>>> In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
>>> that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
>>> what the word is saying.
>>>
>> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired of
>> people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the post.
>
> But since I'm not whining about the content of your post that means that
> I have nothing to object to it. Isn't that a good thing?-)
>
> Besides, this is exactly the second time I object about someone here
> misusing quotes in the history of the server. Hardly seems constant whining.
>
I am probably the same someone. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Until/unless someone finds a valid means to separate measures of
>> mental development from the social memes and mores of the culture they
>> are being tested in, its not a valid test of anything, other than
>> general forms of conformity to arbitrary definitions of "intelligence".
>
> IQ tests do include sections such as repeating ever-lengthening strings
> of numbers which is pretty unrelated to conforming to social norms and
> measures nothing but short-term memory capacity, a bit like playing
> Simon. And sections with pattern-based problem-solving with no
> additional data. At some point, *all* definitions are arbitrary, and if
> (assuming that "if", there) the measures of mental development are used
> entirely within the culture of which the subject is a member, why does
> it need to be separated?
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Yeah. Seen those. I almost always consistently fail at them. lol Problem
with those is that they are the *same* issue. If you know the *correct*
solutions, fine, you use them, and its simple. If you don't, then your
smart, thinking, mind, tries to work out the solution, and even can't
figure it out, since you don't hit on the one *correct* method, or you
come up with some solution that seems to work, but is actually *wrong*.
Such tests are not capable of deciphering *why*, or *how* you concluded
that you had a valid solution, so can't accurately determine if it was
because you a)failed to guess the right one, b) didn't learn to see that
*common* solution, for that common problem, or c) over thought the
problem. All it can say is, "you got it, or you failed to get it". That
is, less than worthless. Least 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.
But, yeah. To some extent you are correct. The problem is, imho, the
*valid* parts of that test shouldn't be all that useful for anyone over
the age of 9, and even then, it doesn't say why the person isn't
advanced to that point, whether or not its innate, or fixable, nor
whether they will, by age 11, manage to overcome the gap, and render the
test worthless, if you see what I mean. And, most importantly, none of
it tells you if they can really think things through critically enough
that they won't be basing their policies are 45 on their daily
horoscope, visits to a guru, or conversations with an imaginary friend,
or that they will actually understand even the "general" concepts of
most things well enough to not end up believing the exact opposite of
what the evidence points to, instead of respecting the opinions of
people that have made it their life's work to have a bloody clue what
they are talking about.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
>> *anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
>> more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
>> the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
>> tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
>
> I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
> prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
> which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
> in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
> EVERY case!".
>
> Yes, an IQ test is not perfect, nor do we fully understand every
> intricate detail of how the brain works or all the qualitative factors
> of 'intelligence'. This doesn't mean we should look the other way
> instead of using the most efficient tool for getting a reasonably
> accurate comparison of individuals, so those who genuinely need
> assistance due to mental disability can get it.
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
No, it means we need to use it for what it is useful for, and not
exaggerate that, and when we find a disparity in development, we figure
out *why*, not just pigeon hole the person in the "they are genius", or
"they are special ed", category. This isn't what happens though.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> No, it means we need to use it for what it is useful for, and not
> exaggerate that, and when we find a disparity in development, we figure
> out *why*, not just pigeon hole the person in the "they are genius", or
> "they are special ed", category. This isn't what happens though.
Point, but <whine>that costs money!</whine>
*Taxpayer* money, most often, being the sticking point there.
Plus you need a whole gaggle of qualified people for each individual
case, at this point in our knowledge of "why" brain things happen, to
get a decent understanding of how to not just stuff them in a proverbial
little box. And nobody wants to pay for that.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Aside from a handful of people who think that our federal government is
> always up to something evil, no matter who is in office, a small number
> of people were afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to such a degree
> that they believe him capable of anything evil. In all fairness,
> conspiracy theories about Clinton abounded during his time in office as
> well.
Never plead malice where incompetence will do.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama
> even at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.
I don't see why. In my opinion, the Beer Summit was one of the smartest
things I've ever heard of a President doing.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sounds good, but.. Well, frankly, as I said, in this case I was in a
> rush to go out the door. If I took that sort of time, I wouldn't have
> made it to work on time, or would have had to come back later, and hope
> the power didn't go out, etc., losing the message. :p And, just because
> I don't stutter any more, doesn't mean I don't think, never mind type,
> the same as I used to. lol
That's why I had to give up checking this group before work ;)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama
> even at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.
Actually, they say "Defeat Obama for the good of America." They do
honestly believe that Obama's policies will do far more harm than good.
The anti-Bush people said the same about Bush and his policies, as well.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
