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