|
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You tell us. You're the expect when it comes to low IQ. I "expect" I am. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: As to your first comment, I believe Albert Einstein summed it up best, when asked if he could recall, verbatim, a fairly simple mathematical formula. He responded by asking the inquirer why anyone would memorize such a thing when it could be obtained so easily from a printed reference. The difference between educated people and those without the benefit of same is that the scholar knows where to look to find answers to his dilemmas. Please do let us know when you find the answers to yours. We found the answer to ours, Jon, on November 2. (Sorry, but that was just too nice a straight-line to pass up.) Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message In article . net, Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message they find any intelligence, please let us know. Stanford-Binet: 144 Wechsler: 130 Not a genius, but not bad either. Better than your BS "study" quoted for any of the Kerry states. Not my study, and you're IQ is a bit low for this ng. Yeah I know. Doesn't Bubbles claim 170 or something? And didn't Jaxoff claim to be a member of Mensa? LOL. You might want to consider taking a remedial course or two. Are you implying that IQ can be altered by remediation? Even Mr. Poodle has a higher IQ. I'm inclined to wonder exactly what IQ numbers you've posted over the years. If your inability to debate is any indication, you may want to keep them close to the vest. Max |
"DSK" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: Not a genius, but not bad either. But it doesn't do you much good, does it... you're still dumb enough to claim... repeatedly... that I am a "liberal." What do IQ scores from my youth have to do with such an assessment? One has only to be modestly perceptive to glean that you are substantially left-of-center in your particular brand of political dogma. I'll bet even Bubbles or Jon could arrive at that particular conclusion, Cleopatra. Max |
Maxprop wrote:
.... One has only to be modestly perceptive to glean that you are substantially left-of-center in your particular brand of political dogma. Post some of my dogmatic views that are substantially "left of center" Max. Your bluff is being called... not for the first time either. You haven't answered this, because you can't. Until you quote my statements of my "left of center" or "liberal" views, you're just an empty head flapping an empty mouth. DSK |
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ...
PA is above CO., Does that make me smarter than Gilligan? The numbers are a hoax. Follow the links on this page for more information. http://snurl.com/stateIQ OzOne wrote in message ... On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:07:54 GMT, "Maxprop" scribbled thusly: Actually, This says it all http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm State Avg. IQ 2004 1 Connecticut 113 Kerry 2 Massachusetts 111 Kerry 3 New Jersey 111 Kerry 4 New York 109 Kerry 5 Rhode Island 107 Kerry 6 Hawaii 106 Kerry 7 Maryland 105 Kerry 8 New Hampshire 105 Kerry 9 Illinois 104 Kerry 10 Delaware 103 Kerry 11 Minnesota 102 Kerry 12 Vermont 102 Kerry 13 Washington 102 Kerry 14 California 101 Kerry 15 Pennsylvania 101 Kerry 16 Maine 100 Kerry 17 Virginia 100 Bush 18 Wisconsin 100 Kerry 19 Colorado 99 Bush 20 Iowa 99 Bush 21 Michigan 99 Kerry 22 Nevada 99 Bush 23 Ohio 99 Bush 24 Oregon 99 Kerry 25 Alaska 98 Bush 26 Florida 98 Bush 27 Missouri 98 Bush 28 Kansas 96 Bush 29 Nebraska 95 Bush 30 Arizona 94 Bush 31 Indiana 94 Bush 32 Tennessee 94 Bush 33 North Carolina 93 Bush 34 West Virginia 93 Bush 35 Arkansas 92 Bush 36 Georgia 92 Bush 37 Kentucky 92 Bush 38 New Mexico 92 Bush 39 North Dakota 92 Bush 40 Texas 92 Bush 41 Alabama 90 Bush 42 Louisiana 90 Bush 43 Montana 90 Bush 44 Oklahoma 90 Bush 45 South Dakota 90 Bush 46 South Carolina 89 Bush 47 Wyoming 89 Bush 48 Idaho 87 Bush 49 Utah 87 Bush 50 Mississippi 85 Bush This is pretty amazing bull****, considering that less than 2% of Americans undergo any sort of testing to ascertain intelligence. Waaaay back when, US school kids were given Stanford Binet or Wechsler IQ assessment scores via testing, but that practice stopped eons ago, mostly because such scores were grossly inaccurate or even prejudicial. So where did this info originate (above). In some liberal's wildest imagination, no doubt. State some facts, Oz, not garbage. This help? http://sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm Max OR Do you want the survey by state on the percentage of people with college degrees....guess what.....it comes to the same conclusion.....those states with less degrees voted republican. http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Oh darn, I wanted to rub it in Gilly's nose a bit, he can be such a
smart ass at times. Scotty "rasqual" wrote "Scott Vernon" wrote PA is above CO., Does that make me smarter than Gilligan? The numbers are a hoax. Follow the links on this page for more information. http://snurl.com/stateIQ |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: Are you implying that IQ can be altered by remediation? No, but in your case, anything would help. I'm inclined to wonder exactly what IQ numbers you've posted over the years. If your inability to debate is any indication, you may want to keep them close to the vest. Sorry, but I'm a grownup. I don't need to brag. Feel free though. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You tell us. You're the expect when it comes to low IQ. I "expect" I am. No expectations. You are clearly the winner of low IQs. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: Did you know that hair and eye color are also good predictors of intelligence, Jon? Well, actually they aren't, but the Nazi's believed it to be so. Well, so you're telling us that you keep your eyes closed and are bald. Ok. Blue eyes and a full, beautiful head of hair. How about you, Jon? Same, but not as ugly. g -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: We found the answer to ours, Jon, on November 2. Here are the answers you found... people in the military ask only three things. 1) They only be called to duty when there is clear need (BushCo lied). 2) They be given the arms and the protection they need to do their job (BushCo failed). 3) They and their families are taken care of should they be injured or killed (BushCo doesn't). I'm glad you like the answer. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Dave wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:30:09 +1100, OzOne said: So for the average Joe, it holds true, hard word can overcome lower IQ to a great extent. Hey look at Shrub. I don't think anyone would mistake his opponent for a towering intellect either. Joe's opponent? The local trash collector? Or, are you talking about Kerry, who is certainly your intellectual superior. g -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"Dave" wrote in message On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:05:17 GMT, "Maxprop" said: To take an anecdotal example, my daughter attended an elementary school where the minimum criterion for admission was a very high IQ score, regardless of the parents' wealth. She then attended a private prep school where the parents' money was at least a significant admission factor for many students and the average IQ was much lower. The two groups were just about on a par in their college records of both admissions and performance. Your example appears to support my contention rather than your own. Regardless, the contention of the radical left that SAT/ACT scores correlates with IQ is bogus, and laughable. I don't think so, Max. What it shows is that extraordinary teaching efforts can compensate to a considerable degree for lack of native ability. The high IQ group performed well without the small classes, exceptionally good teachers and extra individual tutoring paid for by parents. Perhaps I'm not seeing something here. Your anecdote implies that two groups of disparate average IQ scored equally well on the entrance exams. That would seem to support the notion that IQ and SAT scores do not necessarily correlate, regardless of the underlying reasons. Max |
OzOne wrote in message On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:08:00 GMT, "Maxprop" scribbled thusly: OzOne wrote in message On 10 Nov 2004 11:05:26 -0600, Dave scribbled thusly: To take an anecdotal example, my daughter attended an elementary school where the minimum criterion for admission was a very high IQ score, regardless of the parents' wealth. She then attended a private prep school where the parents' money was at least a significant admission factor for many students and the average IQ was much lower. The two groups were just about on a par in their college records of both admissions and performance. Yep, one group had brains, the other a work ethic passed from their successful parents. So how does this support your contention that SAT/ACT scores correlate with IQ????? Two groups with disparate IQ averages, and both scored roughly the same on the tests. Did the significance of this escape you? Max Has it escaped you that you don't need a high IQ to do well at school? It's all about application. I don't believe this. No, it has not escaped my notice, but that's not what this discussion is about. We're discussing the relationship between IQ and SAT/ACT scores, not extraneous factors that can mean success in school or on the tests. Jeez, let's start from the beginning: The website you provided has contended a direct correlation between IQ and SAT/ACT scores. But the anecdote related by Dave would indicate that IQ may have little or nothing to do with success on the exams. Two groups, one with a higher average IQ, the other with a lower average IQ, both scoring equally well on the entrance exams. That could conceivably be used as an example of why the Kerry states really might not have higher IQs, rather other extraneous factors leading to high SAT/ACT scores. Thus my contention is correct: the website purporting to show the relative IQs of the various states is bogus, if using college entrance exam scores as the basis of those state IQ ratings. (whew) Got it? Max |
OzOne wrote in message it holds true, hard word can overcome lower IQ to a great extent. If hard word(s) can indeed overcome lower IQ, then there's hope for you liberals yet. Max :-) |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: Blue eyes and a full, beautiful head of hair. How about you, Jon? Same, but not as ugly. g Then you must be one great looking dude. :-) Max |
"Maxprop" wrote in message "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You tell us. You're the expect when it comes to low IQ. I "expect" I am. Cute, Jon, to cut your original misspelling and attribute it to moi. Max |
OzOne wrote in message Maybe I could wander down the front and do some fishing.... Ah, drowning worms and killing bluegill. A great American tradition. You'd fit in well here. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" Sorry, but I'm a grownup. I don't need to brag. Feel free though. Are you listening, Bubbles? Max |
"DSK" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: .... One has only to be modestly perceptive to glean that you are substantially left-of-center in your particular brand of political dogma. Post some of my dogmatic views that are substantially "left of center" Max. Your bluff is being called... not for the first time either. You haven't answered this, because you can't. Okay, Douggie. I'm not going to drag exact quotes from Google, but I'll paraphrase or characterize some of the points you've made. 1) When I was disputing the way welfare has traditionally been used as a selling point for the dems during campaigns, you accused me of Neaderthalic illogic, antihumanitarianism, lacking in compassion, etc. Conservatives, while recognizing that some individuals simply cannot help themselves, also subscribe to the belief that too many use welfare as a reason to avoid becoming productive. 2) You've constantly decried the "tax cuts for only the very wealthy," seemingly ignoring the fact that the very wealthy constitute roughly 10% of the population but pay roughly 30% of the nations revenue. Those numbers alone would lead one to the conclusion that that segment of the population is overtaxed. Your rancor at such tax cuts would indicate your belief in *redistribution of wealth,* which is page 3 of the socialist manifesto. 3) You've resorted to name-calling when I advocated semi-privatization of Social Security. Most conservatives believe that SS won't endure at its current status, rather needing some sort of overhaul to enable future generations to retire viably. Not to mention the fact that "investing" in SS is about as poor an investment as one can possibly make. The government is an extremely poor manager of one's funds. Shall I continue? Or will you simply take the Clintonian out with "Deny, deny, deny?" Until you quote my statements of my "left of center" or "liberal" views, you're just an empty head flapping an empty mouth. Don't hold your breath for quotes. You've gotten all I care to provide, the operative word being "care." Max |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: Blue eyes and a full, beautiful head of hair. How about you, Jon? Same, but not as ugly. g Then you must be one great looking dude. :-) Talk to Horass. He likes guys. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
|
"Horvath" wrote in message
... Same, but not as ugly. g Then you must be one great looking dude. :-) Talk to Horass. He likes guys. I have to gay-up everything! Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Post some of my dogmatic views that are substantially "left of center"
Max. Your bluff is being called... not for the first time either. You haven't answered this, because you can't. Maxprop wrote: Okay, Douggie. I'm not going to drag exact quotes from Google That's just as well. ...1) When I was disputing the way welfare has traditionally been used as a selling point for the dems during campaigns, you accused me of Neaderthalic illogic, antihumanitarianism, lacking in compassion, etc. Opposing inhumanity is "substantially left of center?" ... Conservatives, while recognizing that some individuals simply cannot help themselves, also subscribe to the belief that too many use welfare as a reason to avoid becoming productive. I would somewhat agree, bu you must have missed out on the welfare reform acts of the 1990s. And you can't seem to point to a quote where I am in favor of increasing welfare. Once again you attempt to proclaim some great ideological principle and stub your toe on your own ignorance. ... 2) You've constantly decried the "tax cuts for only the very wealthy," seemingly ignoring the fact that the very wealthy constitute roughly 10% of the population but pay roughly 30% of the nations revenue. I don't ignore that fact at all. The richest 10% of the country owns 50% of the wealth and well over 50% of the income... so that makes paying 30% of the tax burden rather a free ride, doesn't it? Aside from the sound economics, it is immoral to decrease the tax burden on a group well able to bear it, in order to increase the tax burden on those further down the ladder. Next I suppose you are going to angrily denounce me for failing to contribute the "Buy Chateaubriand For a Millionaire" charity drive. ... 3) You've resorted to name-calling when I advocated semi-privatization of Social Security. Not really, I just call you names like "stupid" and "caveman fascist" because they are the closest fit. Privatization of Social Security is a stupid scheme that will benefit the politically well-connected brokers handling gov't retiremnet accounts. You're in favor of that? And you think it's "conservative?" ... Most conservatives believe that SS won't endure at its current status Actually, figures show that SS will be solvent 'till 2040AD or thereabouts. Most "conservatives" have at least a passing familiarity with basic accounting. I'd be in favor of rolling back Social Security, but not handing it over for yet another rob-the-taxpayer scheme to redistribute the wealth. Don't hold your breath for quotes. You've gotten all I care to provide, the operative word being "care." Thanks, you've shown how much you care, Maxxie. And how disconnected from reality you are. I suggest unplugging the Fascist Whacko Fantasy Channel once in a while and watching/reading some real actual news... you know, from planet Earth... DSK |
OzOne wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:53:56 GMT, "Maxprop" scribbled thusly: OzOne wrote in message On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:08:00 GMT, "Maxprop" scribbled thusly: OzOne wrote in message On 10 Nov 2004 11:05:26 -0600, Dave scribbled thusly: To take an anecdotal example, my daughter attended an elementary school where the minimum criterion for admission was a very high IQ score, regardless of the parents' wealth. She then attended a private prep school where the parents' money was at least a significant admission factor for many students and the average IQ was much lower. The two groups were just about on a par in their college records of both admissions and performance. Yep, one group had brains, the other a work ethic passed from their successful parents. So how does this support your contention that SAT/ACT scores correlate with IQ????? Two groups with disparate IQ averages, and both scored roughly the same on the tests. Did the significance of this escape you? Max Has it escaped you that you don't need a high IQ to do well at school? It's all about application. I don't believe this. No, it has not escaped my notice, but that's not what this discussion is about. We're discussing the relationship between IQ and SAT/ACT scores, not extraneous factors that can mean success in school or on the tests. Jeez, let's start from the beginning: The website you provided has contended a direct correlation between IQ and SAT/ACT scores. But the anecdote related by Dave would indicate that IQ may have little or nothing to do with success on the exams. Two groups, one with a higher average IQ, the other with a lower average IQ, both scoring equally well on the entrance exams. That could conceivably be used as an example of why the Kerry states really might not have higher IQs, rather other extraneous factors leading to high SAT/ACT scores. Thus my contention is correct: the website purporting to show the relative IQs of the various states is bogus, if using college entrance exam scores as the basis of those state IQ ratings. (whew) Got it? Max You probably should read this http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-SAT.htm "Claude Steele: Chair of the Department of Psychology at Stanford University since 1997 But is this SAT an IQ test? "It is in a sense an IQ test. The SAT and IQ test correlate very highly. Between the SAT and the IQ, they correlate almost as much as the SAT correlates with a second administration of the SAT, as much as it correlates with itself. So they're very similar tests in content." from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/test/views.html" and this http://www.scienceblog.com/community...e=article&sid= 2297 "Meredith C. Frey and Douglas K. Detterman, researchers at Case Western Reserve University, have shown that students' SAT test scores correlate as highly as, and sometimes higher than, IQ tests correlate with each other. This is strong evidence that the SAT is a de facto intelligence test. Their findings will be published in the June issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the American Psychological Society. While this finding may be surprising to many who take the test, it was no surprise to the researchers. The origins of the SAT can be traced back to intelligence tests that were originally given to screen entrants into the armed forces. Many who study intelligence had suspected that the SAT was an intelligence test though it seems no one had ever investigated the relationship." and this http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-smm021104.php SAT measures more than student performance, research shows it is also a reliable measure of IQ Each year thousands of high school students take the Scholastic Assessment Test, or SAT, hoping to gain admission to the college of their choice. Colleges and universities use SAT scores to help project a prospective student's performance. But research shows there is more to the SAT, that it is really an intelligence test. Interesting reading. I skimmed two of them, but I shall avail myself of them more thoroughly when time permits. However I think the relationship, as stated in these treatises, between SAT scores and IQ is a theoretical one at best, and a casual one at worst. As Dave has pointed out several times, there are myriad other factors that can affect success or failure on such exams. Given a small, well-defined population of similarly raised, similarly-educated individuals, I think that the SAT scores may correlate well with IQ. But the demographics of the total population of students taking such exams is not so narrow, rather widely varied throughout the country and throughout the socio-economic spectra. Reality seldom emulates theory where humans are concerned. Max |
"Dave" wrote in message On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:45:41 GMT, "Maxprop" said: Perhaps I'm not seeing something here. Your anecdote implies that two groups of disparate average IQ scored equally well on the entrance exams. That would seem to support the notion that IQ and SAT scores do not necessarily correlate, regardless of the underlying reasons. Not quite. I'm saying that the correlation that would otherwise exist can be reduced. I suspect that if you had two groups with the same IQs and the same schooling and test preparation, you'd get a high correlation. Problem is that between regions of the country you seldom have the same schooling and test preparation. Okay, I get your message, and am in agreement on all points. I made this same point to Oz a few minutes ago in another thread. Max |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:53:11 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap: I have to gay-up everything! We know. We know. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Horvath" wrote in message
... I have to gay-up everything! We know. We know. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Dave" wrote in message On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:27:12 GMT, "Maxprop" said: Whatever you are, you oppose and hate anything coming from conservative republicans these days. THAT alone would lead any rational individual to conclude that your are anything but a conservative. Have the last word, but count on me to remind you of your true leanings from time to time. :-p I think you've tarred Doug unfairly, Max. I often differ with him, but he's reasonably well-informed, often bringing interesting information and perspective to the discussion. And when he avoids the name-calling he can carry on a perfectly rational dialog. I find his views eclectic, though often a little left of center from my perspective. Doug is bright and well-informed, or at least well-read. Like you, I find his perspective somewhat left of my own, but then he believes me to be a right-wing extremist, a perception I've made no attempt to dispel, mostly for his benefit. He's young enough to become easily irritated with anyone who attempts to classify, or contradict, his political leanings, thus the name-calling and vitriol. I really should abstain from that sort of thing, but I've enjoyed yanking his chain. It's a bad Usenet habit, but so compelling. And fun. Had he responded with more equanimity I probably would have ignored him. Max |
"Dave" wrote in message ... Since we're bragging, let's just say mine did well enough to be asked to teach the SAT course. Bragging?? Your kid is a teacher??? Teachers must be very well paid where you live. If one of my kids decided to become a teacher I would be very dissappointed. Regards Donal -- |
"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... Interesting reading. I skimmed two of them, but I shall avail myself of them more thoroughly when time permits. Jeff, you look like a right plonker when you try to sound "English". However I think the relationship, as stated in these treatises, between SAT scores and IQ is a theoretical one at best, and a casual one at worst. As Dave has pointed out several times, there are myriad other factors that can affect success or failure on such exams. Given a small, well-defined population of similarly raised, similarly-educated individuals, I think that the SAT scores may correlate well with IQ. But the demographics of the total population of students taking such exams is not so narrow, rather widely varied throughout the country and throughout the socio-economic spectra. Reality seldom emulates theory where humans are concerned. Max, the states with the lower IQ's voted for Bush. You, Dave, Loco and Joe all prove that you are typical Bush supporters. How did your state vote? Regards Donal -- |
Opposing inhumanity is "substantially left of center?"
Maxprop wrote: Nope. Accusations of inhumanity, bogus or otherwise, are liberal tools of the trade, however. And you are the final judge of what's bogus, Mr "I believe every million dollar smear campaign Karl Rove can invent"? Gee, that sounds fair. I would somewhat agree, bu you must have missed out on the welfare reform acts of the 1990s. And you can't seem to point to a quote where I am in favor of increasing welfare. Once again you attempt to proclaim some great ideological principle and stub your toe on your own ignorance. The discussion was about Reagan. I don't recall the exact statement, but I was surprise to see you, a self-proclaimed conservative, bashing RR for his stance on welfare. Wrong again. I was bashing Reagan's administration for the easily foreseeable results of it's actions on welfare. Of course, in your world, action doesn't count for much. You believe in faith without wors, don't you? How did W's tax cuts increase the burden on "those further down the ladder?" I'm aware of no one's marginal tax rates having increased by virtue of this act. Liberal lies. I'm relieved to know that the tremendously increased defict of W's administration is all "liberal lies." ... What bothers me are marginal tax rates that penalize one for accumulating wealth. If that were true, then already rich CEOs wouldn't be asking for multi million dollar bonusses (bonii?). Another of your right-wing fairy tale evaporates when examined in reality... but you're not interested, are you? ... I'm in favor of a flat-rate tax, if you hadn't gleaned that by now. I have also "gleaned" that no amount of fact will deter you from your proclaiming your prejudices & fantasies. Social Security, itself, is a stupid scheme. It operates on the premise that people should not be encouraged to fend for themselves. Baloney. ... THAT is a basic tenet of socialism. More baloney. ... The reality is that most people probably won't have a pot to **** in at retirement if left to their own devices. Possibly so, but unlike you, I do not think that the gov't should be meddling other than to prevent fraud by "investment professionals." ... If your money grows at a faster rate than the pathetic returns from SS Here's a clue, Maxxie- there is no "return" from Social Security. It is *not* an investment plan and never was. ... You seem terminally spiteful to anyone who benefits from working for the government. Jealousy? Antipathy toward the wealthy? What is your problem? ???? Where did you dream this up Maxxie? Your hormone pills must not be working, you seem to be a bit over revved. ... Here's a real wake-up call for ya, Cleo: lots of people get rich working for the gummint. And they're doing it with revenues from our tax monies. Yep. I've said many times that the welfare program chiefly benefits those who work for the welfare dept. You must have missed that in your eager hunting for signs that I am a darn libby-rull. .... Your reliance on SS in its current iteration is unwise. Who ever said that *I* was relying on Social Security? Not that it's any of your business. What a ****ing Boy Scout. Get a job in the real world, Cleo. What a great example of how calm & rational you are, also how you never call anybody names. Well, I'm done here. You don't seem to enjoy your fascist whacko fantasy land, so I don't know why you stay rooted in it. You seem determined to remain hopeless. Bye bye, Maxxie. DSK |
If one of my kids decided to become a teacher I would be very dissappointed.
Why is that? It's a good profession and the pay is okay. I have a friend who's making about 55K and has the summers off, or work summers and make 70K. You can do very well at some schools and if you're good at it you can really help some kids. I guess you can make more money other ways but you won't have the emotional rewards. I have great respect for teachers, firemen, policemen, nurses and EMTs and so on. RB |
Donal wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... Interesting reading. I skimmed two of them, but I shall avail myself of them more thoroughly when time permits. Jeff, you look like a right plonker when you try to sound "English". Are you claiming Maxprop and I are the same person??? |
"Donal" wrote in message Jeff, you look like a right plonker when you try to sound "English". Proper English is not the sole province of the Limeys, regardless of what the bloody blokes think. :-) Max |
"Dave" wrote in message On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:02:28 -0000, "Donal" said: Max, the states with the lower IQ's voted for Bush. You, Dave, Loco and Joe all prove that you are typical Bush supporters. Seems to me that what we've proved is that (i) your numbers were bogus in the first place, and (ii) even if they hadn't been bogus you were not drawing the appropriate inferences from them. Don't bother, Dave. This bunch of whiners is the worst I've seen anywhere since the election. They just can't come to grips with the fact that their throw-away candidate lost and W won. It drives them nuts. They spend their increasingly idle time attempting to make the election appear less than it was--a decisive victory. And they will continue to do so for the next four years. They will persist in attempting to denigrate the winner and those who voted for him, and canonize the loser and those who voted for him. It's truly pathetic, considering that their sniveling will absolutely change nothing. But it's their nature to be whiners, malcontents, ugly. I'd feel pity for them were it not for the fact that they present such an obnoxious demeanor in their childish tantrums. You, I, and others have responded to their juvenile spats with reason, logic, and rationality, to no avail. They are not to be consoled, nor placated. Let them whine. They look ridiculously foolish doing so. It's not our fault that they hoist themselves by their own petard. Max |
"Bobsprit" wrote in message If one of my kids decided to become a teacher I would be very dissappointed. Why is that? It's a good profession and the pay is okay. I have a friend who's making about 55K and has the summers off, or work summers and make 70K. You can do very well at some schools and if you're good at it you can really help some kids. I guess you can make more money other ways but you won't have the emotional rewards. I have great respect for teachers, firemen, policemen, nurses and EMTs and so on. Well said, Bubbles. Donal, for some reason, believes teachers are not worthy contributors to society. Or perhaps he believes they don't earn enough to be respectable members of the population. He's wrong on either count. Max |
Seems to me that you're doing a great whining job yourself. I think you win
on whining. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Dave" wrote in message On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:02:28 -0000, "Donal" said: Max, the states with the lower IQ's voted for Bush. You, Dave, Loco and Joe all prove that you are typical Bush supporters. Seems to me that what we've proved is that (i) your numbers were bogus in the first place, and (ii) even if they hadn't been bogus you were not drawing the appropriate inferences from them. Don't bother, Dave. This bunch of whiners is the worst I've seen anywhere since the election. They just can't come to grips with the fact that their throw-away candidate lost and W won. It drives them nuts. They spend their increasingly idle time attempting to make the election appear less than it was--a decisive victory. And they will continue to do so for the next four years. They will persist in attempting to denigrate the winner and those who voted for him, and canonize the loser and those who voted for him. It's truly pathetic, considering that their sniveling will absolutely change nothing. But it's their nature to be whiners, malcontents, ugly. I'd feel pity for them were it not for the fact that they present such an obnoxious demeanor in their childish tantrums. You, I, and others have responded to their juvenile spats with reason, logic, and rationality, to no avail. They are not to be consoled, nor placated. Let them whine. They look ridiculously foolish doing so. It's not our fault that they hoist themselves by their own petard. Max |
"Bobsprit" wrote
Why is that? It's a good profession and the pay is okay. I have a friend who's making about 55K and has the summers off, or work summers and make 70K. You can do very well at some schools and if you're good at it you can really help some kids. I guess you can make more money other ways but you won't have the emotional rewards. Friend of mine taught history in a New England High School. Told the admin's he had to have a beard to do summer research then about May he'd let it be known he planned to tour by motorcycle all summer and was looking for a suitable passenger over 18. Did this for at least 10 years then took up sailing. Not a bad life. New cutie every summer ..... |
"Maxprop" wrote
"Donal" wrote in message Jeff, you look like a right plonker when you try to sound "English". Proper English is not the sole province of the Limeys, regardless of what the bloody blokes think. :-) The only people who seem to know they have an accent are US Southerners. Everybody else believes they speak "the Queen's english" even if the Queen happens to be the Queen of some obscure tribe. I have a verbal So California accent and speak it with Italian body language. That's why I cannot drown (c: |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com