Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

[Guest guest]

The IQ's were in Time magazine? I missed out on that.

Can you tell me what the IQ's of Gore and Bush are? Enquiring minds want to

know. (I'm

still trying to get a handle on what is " average " , " below average " , " above

average " , and

I'd be curious to know where our glorious president fits in.)

Cheers,

nz

[Guest guest]

I read that he had co-sponsored some kind of federal legislation that is

being credited as being some kind of spawner of the 'Net. I don't

know-any man who hires a woman to tell him how a man should act is a

fartknocker in my book. Mike.

Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA

> > lunacy)

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 6/25/01 7:44:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> > > watts_pete@h... writes:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > . Wouldnt mind you seeing you head to head in debate

> > > either.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Actually, my little diversion with Mikey exemplifies precisely

> how

> > to win a

> > > debate, which so-called " scientific creationists " know well.

> > Learned

> > > evolutionary biologists naively assume they can just ascend to

> the

> > podium

> > > armed with facts and the scientific method, only to find

> > themselves soundly

> > > trounced by an opponent who -- altho he advocates a position

> even

> > more

> > > lunatic than those I have been propounding to Mike, and which

> are

> > equally as

> > > incoherent -- is highly skilled in the arts of rhetoric,

> oratory,

> > and

> > > manipulating lofty concepts in ways that SOUND impressive, but

> are

> > sheer

> > > nonsense. (What these clowns do to the Second law of

> > Thermodynamics would

> > > render it impossible to conceive and give birth to a child.)

> > >

> > > Truth has little to do with winning a debate. Or prevailing in

> > court.

> > >

> > > --Mona--

> > >

[Guest guest]

I am sure the mental patients who have permanent neurological damage will be

happy to know that the future is safe for the next generation of nutcases.

Mike.

Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

>

> > I read that he had co-sponsored some kind of federal legislation

> that is

> > being credited as being some kind of spawner of the 'Net. I don't

> > know-any man who hires a woman to tell him how a man should act is a

> > fartknocker in my book. Mike.

>

> As said to me a while back, I think it's fair to say you aint a

> very PC kinda guy Mike.

>

> *Almost* agree with you completely about what you said about psych

> meds. With the newer antippsychotics tardive dyskinesia is likely to

> be a much less serious problem in future.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Many people portray and perceive the president as being a dummy,

but he went to and graduated from an ivy league college, didn't he? I

didn't think you could do that and be stupid at the same time. Mike.

Well, yes, I think you could.

At my college (upscale small liberal arts) my best friend's car was

keyed with the word " spic. " She was Native American. There were a

LOT of very f*%^king stupid people there.

> Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA

lunacy)

>

>

>

> He may

> > well have coined the word " internet " , I dont know - however what

I do

> > know is that whatever ppl might think of his politics, he has

more

> > brains in his left pinkie than Dubya has in his whole carcass.

> >

> > P.

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

At 09:28 PM 6/27/01 -0400, wrote:

>The IQ's were in Time magazine? I missed out on that.

>

>Can you tell me what the IQ's of Gore and Bush are? Enquiring minds want

to know. (I'm

>still trying to get a handle on what is " average " , " below average " , " above

average " , and

>I'd be curious to know where our glorious president fits in.)

The 'average' IQ is defined as 100. I think the majority of people

are in the 90-110 range or so (the distribution is a 'bell curve'

centered around 100). I think a genious is defined as someone in the

top two percentiles (someone whose IQ is greater than 98 percent of

the population), at least that's what Mensa has as a requirememt for

membership. This corresponds to an IQ of somewhere in the 120-130 range,

depending on the test.

I think IQ does have some quite rough correlations to other measures

of 'success' in life, but the main thing I've heard that IQ measures is

the ability to take IQ tests.

The figures quoted of various presidents and candidates show them all

to be smart, which is not surprising, but a similar though pejorative

word comes to mind to describe them: cunning.

>

>Cheers,

>

>nz

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 10:22 AM 6/28/01 -0400, you wrote:

>At 09:28 PM 6/27/01 -0400, wrote:

> >The IQ's were in Time magazine? I missed out on that.

> >

> >Can you tell me what the IQ's of Gore and Bush are? Enquiring minds want

>to know. (I'm

> >still trying to get a handle on what is " average " , " below average " , " above

>average " , and

> >I'd be curious to know where our glorious president fits in.)

>

> The 'average' IQ is defined as 100. I think the majority of people

>are in the 90-110 range or so (the distribution is a 'bell curve'

>centered around 100).

I know that that's how they were normed originally, but I've heard

from several sources that the average IQ score has been creeping

up over the decades. Supposedly the average IQ score is now

around 120.

FWIW.

[Guest guest]

> I know that that's how they were normed originally, but I've heard

> from several sources that the average IQ score has been creeping

> up over the decades. Supposedly the average IQ score is now

> around 120.

This sounds familiar and plausible, but *that* much? Can anyone

confirm this w sources? If true I'll have to re-evalute the issue when

discussing it from now on.

P.

[Guest guest]

> I think to be deemed a genius in intelligence, your IQ must exceed

140 ,

> or maybe it's 160. Mike.

Whatever. Another arbitrary psychologists' definition. IQ may have a

scientific credibility for partiucalr purposes, but I think it shows

how most ppl's work that many are interested in a trite fact like that

psychologists start using the word " genius " at a certain point, rather

than the science which is that IQ is a bell curve and any cutoff

points other than what is the mid-point are arbitrary.

[Guest guest]

Many people portray and perceive the president as being a dummy, but he went to and graduated from an ivy league college, didn't he? I didn't think you could do that and be stupid at the same time. Mike.

Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

He may > well have coined the word "internet", I dont know - however what I do > know is that whatever ppl might think of his politics, he has more > brains in his left pinkie than Dubya has in his whole carcass.> > P.> >

[Guest guest]

I think to be deemed a genius in intelligence, your IQ must exceed 140 ,

or maybe it's 160. Mike.

Re: Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

> At 09:28 PM 6/27/01 -0400, wrote:

> >The IQ's were in Time magazine? I missed out on that.

> >

> >Can you tell me what the IQ's of Gore and Bush are? Enquiring minds want

> to know. (I'm

> >still trying to get a handle on what is " average " , " below average " ,

" above

> average " , and

> >I'd be curious to know where our glorious president fits in.)

>

> The 'average' IQ is defined as 100. I think the majority of people

> are in the 90-110 range or so (the distribution is a 'bell curve'

> centered around 100). I think a genious is defined as someone in the

> top two percentiles (someone whose IQ is greater than 98 percent of

> the population), at least that's what Mensa has as a requirememt for

> membership. This corresponds to an IQ of somewhere in the 120-130 range,

> depending on the test.

> I think IQ does have some quite rough correlations to other measures

> of 'success' in life, but the main thing I've heard that IQ measures is

> the ability to take IQ tests.

> The figures quoted of various presidents and candidates show them all

> to be smart, which is not surprising, but a similar though pejorative

> word comes to mind to describe them: cunning.

>

> >

> >Cheers,

> >

> >nz

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Sorry to say this Mike.

But in Europe most people think of your president as equal of a two year child with a machine gun.

Nobody think they can trust him.

The big question is, how is it possible for the only superpower of the world to elect a moron for president?

Beats me.

Bjørn

Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

He may > well have coined the word "internet", I dont know - however what I do > know is that whatever ppl might think of his politics, he has more > brains in his left pinkie than Dubya has in his whole carcass.> > P.> >

[Guest guest]

> Sorry to say this Mike.

>

> But in Europe most people think of your president as equal of a two

year child with a machine gun.

> Nobody think they can trust him.

>

> The big question is, how is it possible for the only superpower of

the world to elect a moron for president?

Did they though?

[Guest guest]

A. Who cares if Europeans like the US president?

B Can they think Bush is stupid and Clinton is not stupid?

C It is quite possible for the USA to elect a poor president, it has been

done plenty of times before-besides, is anyone suggesting that Europeans

have never had poor leaders? Mike.

Re: Debating Skill(was Further Akron AA lunacy)

> Sorry to say this Mike.

>

> But in Europe most people think of your president as equal of a two

year child with a machine gun.

> Nobody think they can trust him.

>

> The big question is, how is it possible for the only superpower of

the world to elect a moron for president?

Did they though?