No, I am not going to think about it. I probably would not score all that high anyway. Too bad there isn't an inventory for antagonism. I bet you would get a very high score on that. You are really back in form. The long vacation from here must have restored something that was depleted. Or perhaps whatever else you were doing came to an end. That is of course total speculation.
---In [email protected], <authfriend@...> wrote : P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., "to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability"). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In [email protected], <authfriend@...> wrote : ---In [email protected], <anartaxius@...> wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial "we"?) Now that you've defined what you mean by "stupidest" and "smartest," the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In [email protected], <authfriend@...> wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define "stupidest" (and now "smartest") that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder? ---In [email protected], <anartaxius@...> wrote : I was not around today, but we want to keep FFL. My suggestion was only at the potential heels of despotic moderation of FFL. Those who dislike this site as it is now could think of going over to The Peak, as it was expressly created to avoid this place as it is now. People stay here because it is more intellectually stimulating, in spite of the fact there is one person here that is stupider than all the others. The 'stupidest person' here is really a symbol, like that of the 'unknown soldier', it expresses a principle, not a personality. There is also the smartest person here, but he/she has not posted in a while, and it's not me, it's not Barry, it's not Judy, and it certainly was not Robin. Perhaps that is a figment of my imagination, but someone in a group is always the brightest star in the heavens.
