"Jim Higgins" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:59:08 -0600, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Perhaps Pee-Wee Herman is a bit pedestrian for your tastes,
so here is another one for you.


"I think we're sending our kids a mixed message. Magic Johnson didn't
practice safe sex, and we made him a hero. Pee Wee Herman practiced
safe sex, and we threw him in jail."
--Allegedly from an anonymous editorial in the Shreveport Times.

And here in Australia we have a young (16) oaf who held a party at his
parents' place while they were away, which grew to 500 youths who trashed
the house, pelted Police with bottles, and he declared "It was great. I'd do
it all again". His reward is to be glorified by the press and Feted by
manager Max Markson (already...) and about to embark on a world tour...

On Feb 3, 11:59*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:


Although I don't consider myself a "groupie" of Richard's, I do read all
his post's because I find him very entertaining - in the best sense of
the word - his wit is probably the best in the group, if sometimes
acerbic.

Perhaps Pee-Wee Herman is a bit pedestrian for your tastes,

I know, Iknow, I guess I have this elitist streak in me.

so here is
another one for you.

"We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a
journey that no one can take for us or spare us."

Most fitting, and you certainly know the source, don't you?

I do know the source but question its relationship to rraa.


And for what it is worth, the IQ here is measured out at 150.

I know. Almost EVERYONE here claims to have a superior IQ and I will
say further that I could never claim an IQ that high niether could
0.01% of the population in the world. It just seems odd to me that so
many high IQ people gravitate to rraa. So much brain power all in one
place!

Certainly you are a MENSA member. What is your MENSA number if I may
ask?

In truth, I think there is only one or perhaps two people in this
group who really do have such abilities, one is a MENSA member and you
can tell by the quality of his posts. The other is the one who is
actually capable of challenging him and does so on a regular basis.
Meanwhile I shall be happy with my measly 135, which is still enough
to sort through the regular BS I see here.

Let me know
if that is enough. If I'm not smart enough, or not technical enough for
you, please feel free to filter my messages.

Smart enough? YOU are the on with the 150 IQ! I am not even
intellectually endowed withenough brain power to achieve a PhD. You
could replace Steven Hawking as the Dean of Physics at Cambridge!

Michael Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Would you believe that the largest group of people
with the same IQ are neither above or below average? :-)

It all depends on the fineness of the tool. Present measurement
techniques do indeed have most people at that statistical "average
intelligence". But I liken it to using a meter that has only 10 volt
increments. A lot of different voltages can be covered in gross
increments like that.

Hey Mike, I think you just invented fractal IQ's. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
It all depends on the fineness of the tool. Present measurement
techniques do indeed have most people at that statistical "average
intelligence". But I liken it to using a meter that has only 10 volt
increments. A lot of different voltages can be covered in gross
increments like that.

Hey Mike, I think you just invented fractal IQ's. :-)

Here's a statistics question: How many questions would
there have to be on an IQ test to ensure that no two
people in the world had exactly the same score?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
On Feb 3, 11:59 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:


so here is
another one for you.

"We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a
journey that no one can take for us or spare us."

Most fitting, and you certainly know the source, don't you?

I do know the source but question its relationship to rraa.

You are very very close to some wisdom here, David. That quote is more
applicable here than in most other places.


And for what it is worth, the IQ here is measured out at 150.

I know. Almost EVERYONE here claims to have a superior IQ and I will
say further that I could never claim an IQ that high niether could
0.01% of the population in the world. It just seems odd to me that so
many high IQ people gravitate to rraa. So much brain power all in one
place!

That is what it tested out at. I don't particularly care what it is,
and only brought it up since you decided to characterize it in another
post. I have no need to lie about it.



Certainly you are a MENSA member.

Not even.

In truth, I think there is only one or perhaps two people in this
group who really do have such abilities, one is a MENSA member and you
can tell by the quality of his posts. The other is the one who is
actually capable of challenging him and does so on a regular basis.
Meanwhile I shall be happy with my measly 135, which is still enough
to sort through the regular BS I see here.

Possession of a high IQ is merely a gift, a talent as it were, not
tremendously different than the ability to play a musical instrument
well, to create art, or a fine physical shape for that matter.

What we do with it is what counts. I know people with higher IQ's than
mine who are worthless, and I know some people who were in special
education classes in high school who became degreed - admittedly not in
a science field, but they got the scroll. I have much respect for the
latter.


Let me know
if that is enough. If I'm not smart enough, or not technical enough for
you, please feel free to filter my messages.

Smart enough? YOU are the on with the 150 IQ! I am not even
intellectually endowed withenough brain power to achieve a PhD. You
could replace Steven Hawking as the Dean of Physics at Cambridge!

You mistake the IQ with the achievement. My own talents lie elsewhere.

- 73 de Mmike N3LI -

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Would you believe that the largest group of people
with the same IQ are neither above or below average? :-)

It all depends on the fineness of the tool. Present measurement
techniques do indeed have most people at that statistical "average
intelligence". But I liken it to using a meter that has only 10 volt
increments. A lot of different voltages can be covered in gross
increments like that.

Hey Mike, I think you just invented fractal IQ's. :-)


I better rush out to patent it Cecil! hehe

- 73 d eMike N3LI -

Cecil Moore wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
It all depends on the fineness of the tool. Present measurement
techniques do indeed have most people at that statistical "average
intelligence". But I liken it to using a meter that has only 10 volt
increments. A lot of different voltages can be covered in gross
increments like that.

Hey Mike, I think you just invented fractal IQ's. :-)

Here's a statistics question: How many questions would
there have to be on an IQ test to ensure that no two
people in the world had exactly the same score?

Under the present systems, we'd all be long gone before we ever
finished the test. Billions no doubt.

Of course, we are not talking practicalities here, just some
statistical goofing around.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Jim Higgins wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:42:30 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
It all depends on the fineness of the tool. Present measurement
techniques do indeed have most people at that statistical "average
intelligence". But I liken it to using a meter that has only 10 volt
increments. A lot of different voltages can be covered in gross
increments like that.
Hey Mike, I think you just invented fractal IQ's. :-)
Here's a statistics question: How many questions would
there have to be on an IQ test to ensure that no two
people in the world had exactly the same score?

There is no such number.


And let's not assume that intelligence will always be measured in the
manner it is now.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -