Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Deborah Harrell]

> William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

> 
> "The first laws giving gay people the right to
> 'marry' are to be 
> unveiled this week in one of the most significant
> changes to Britain's 
> social make-up since the passing of equal
> opportunities legislation in the 1960s.
> 
>   Attempting to show it still has a radical edge,
> the Government will 
> say that all couples who sign up to a committed
> relationship should 
> have the same rights, regardless of sexual
> orientation.


The list of other countries that have civil unions of
varying degrees includes Sweden, Germany and France;
in France, apparently some heterosexual couples are
opting for this status as it is easier to dissolve
than "marriage."  This site has multiple links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

And of course The Netherlands has had full recognition
of SSMs since 2001.

Debbi
Apparently Pet Custody Is The Hot New Topic In Divorce
Law Maru

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[William T Goodall]

"The first laws giving gay people the right to 'marry' are to be 
unveiled this week in one of the most significant changes to Britain's 
social make-up since the passing of equal opportunities legislation in 
the 1960s.

 Attempting to show it still has a radical edge, the Government will 
say that all couples who sign up to a committed relationship should 
have the same rights, regardless of sexual orientation.

 'It is about equality,' said a Whitehall source. 'It is not about 
special favours - they will have the right to commit to one another and 
the responsibilities that brings.'

 Under the Civil Partnerships Bill to be published on Wednesday, 
same-sex couples will be able to sign a register held by the register 
office in a procedure similar to a marriage. Although the Government 
will insist it is not officially a 'marriage' but rather a contract 
between two people, the fact that couples will have to announce their 
intentions beforehand in a similar way to the reading of the banns 
before a wedding reveals its true effect.

 Couples will have rights to pensions similar to married couples, will 
not have to pay inheritance tax on property passed between them when 
one dies and will have access to hospital records similar to that 
allowed for a spouse."

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my 
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my 
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:53 AM 3/27/04, Ray Ludenia wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> At 06:24 AM 3/26/04, Ray Ludenia wrote:
>> This reminds me of a wonderful task set for teachers here recently. 
The top
>> 8% of students in a subject are given a score of 40+. The required outcome
>> set for teachers was to increase the proportion of students who 
achieve this
>> grade each year

> Were the teachers at least issued bootstraps?

All straps were taken away from teachers many years ago. :-|


Even the coaches?

Members Of The Boosters' Club Are Athletic Supporters Maru

-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ray Ludenia]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> At 06:24 AM 3/26/04, Ray Ludenia wrote:
>> This reminds me of a wonderful task set for teachers here recently. The top
>> 8% of students in a subject are given a score of 40+. The required outcome
>> set for teachers was to increase the proportion of students who achieve this
>> grade each year
 
> Were the teachers at least issued bootstraps?

All straps were taken away from teachers many years ago. :-|

Regards, Ray.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 06:24 AM 3/26/04, Ray Ludenia wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:

> Of the 'believers' on this List, I suspect all have an
> above-average IQ (of course, I think _everyone_ here
> is above average in the brain category -- else they'd
> not be brinellers in the first place).
This reminds me of a wonderful task set for teachers here recently. The top
8% of students in a subject are given a score of 40+. The required outcome
set for teachers was to increase the proportion of students who achieve this
grade each year


Were the teachers at least issued bootstraps?



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 06:08 PM 3/25/04, Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:




Much more interesting and useful information (much of it in graphic and 
tabular form, so it can't be reproduced here) can be found at 
<> and its subpages.
That was actually rather interesting. Thanks for the info.


Glad to oblige.



Sonja
GCU: Background information is like taking apart a clock. You'll find out 
what makes it tick.


GSV: Taking it apart is a whole lot easier than putting it back together
ROU: And what do I do with these leftover parts?


-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ray Ludenia]

Deborah Harrell wrote:
 
> Of the 'believers' on this List, I suspect all have an
> above-average IQ (of course, I think _everyone_ here
> is above average in the brain category -- else they'd
> not be brinellers in the first place).

This reminds me of a wonderful task set for teachers here recently. The top
8% of students in a subject are given a score of 40+. The required outcome
set for teachers was to increase the proportion of students who achieve this
grade each year

Regards, Ray.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:56 PM 3/25/04, Deborah Harrell wrote:

...snip.

Well, _I'm_ feeling a bit snippy myself, but that's
probably residual from the GI bug that kept me
house-bound earlier this week.


So you were randomly selected for that, too, huh?



  :P  But you guys
managed to have a nicely parsed discussion anyway.
';)
Conducting a proper randomly-selected,
population-based study would answer the question 'do
atheists have higher IQs and a higher level of
education than non-atheists?'  However the two
criteria are somewhat interconnected, in that a person
with an IQ of 70, frex, isn't going to be getting a
post-doc.


This is also something I was thinking about where the idea of IQ measuring 
something important about basic ability falls short:  There doesn't seem to 
be as much difference in ability to function between, frex, a genius with 
an IQ of 170 and the average person with an IQ of 100 as there is between 
the average person with an IQ of 100 and a severely retarded person with an 
IQ of 30, although both extremes are equally far from the mean . . .



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:




Much more interesting and useful information (much of it in graphic 
and tabular form, so it can't be reproduced here) can be found at 
<> and its subpages.

That was actually rather interesting. Thanks for the info.

Sonja
GCU: Background information is like taking apart a clock. You'll find 
out what makes it tick.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Deborah Harrell]

> Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Debbi said:

[somebody asked] 
> >>> But what if I don't believe in God?
[I think Kneem responded] 
> >> That means you are above average in intelligence
> and education.
 
> > My M.D. and my well-above-average IQ (even after a
> > significant closed head injury) disagree with your
> > supposition.
 
> Of course, if A implies B that doesn't necessarily
> mean that B also
> implies A, which means that you don't disprove the
> Fool's position. To
> disprove it, you'd have to find an atheist who
> wasn't above average in
> intelligence and education.

Of the 'believers' on this List, I suspect all have an
above-average IQ (of course, I think _everyone_ here
is above average in the brain category -- else they'd
not be brinellers in the first place).  Yet I am
responding not only to this particular statement, but
the totality of Kneem's opinions on 'the religious'
(although he does not acknowledge a difference between
the thoughtful believer and the unquestioning fanatic
-- rather as if I said, "Atheists are a bunch of
antisocial, ugly loud-mouths - just look at that
Madalyn Murray O'Hair!").  To say that his on-list
statements are, without exception, "unfavorable" is an
understatement.  Nor did I attempt to "disprove" a
hypothesis, I merely disagreed with a supposition - or
opinion, if you prefer.  
 
> Rich, who is pedantic this evening for some reason.

Well, _I'm_ feeling a bit snippy myself, but that's
probably residual from the GI bug that kept me
house-bound earlier this week.  :P  But you guys
managed to have a nicely parsed discussion anyway. 
';)

Conducting a proper randomly-selected,
population-based study would answer the question 'do
atheists have higher IQs and a higher level of
education than non-atheists?'  However the two
criteria are somewhat interconnected, in that a person
with an IQ of 70, frex, isn't going to be getting a
post-doc.  Agnostics ought to be included as well, for
completeness.

FWIW, *all* of my friends - devout believers,
indifferent, uncertain, or determinedly atheist - are
smart, funny and Just Good Folks.  ;)

Debbi
'Lake Woebegone, where all the men are handsome, the
women are strong, and the children are above average.'
(as best I recall, per Garrison Keillor, to round out
others' snippets on this)  :D

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Re: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 12:33 AM 3/24/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So I suppose the IQtest.com might be roughly equivalent to the Cattell
> test (have the same SD in other words) (Every IQ test has a mean of
> 100).
Assuming you know how many ounces in a pound (aren't there different 
ounces and pounds for different things?) and how much a nickel and a dime is.
I'm pretty sure nickel=5 and dime=10, but there was a long delay while I 
dredged that up from some sitcom memory bank...

Always seems wierd to me that for tests with a mean of 100, I hardly ever 
meet anyone who tests less than 100, and most of the people I talk to are 
in the 150 range. Either I've got really picky tastes in friends, or all 
my friends are full of sh1t...

Cheers
Russell C.


From <>:

IQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

IQ, an abbreviation for "intelligence quotient", is a score derived from a 
set of standardized tests that were developed with the purpose of measuring 
a person's cognitive abilities in relation to one's age group. It is 
expressed as a number normalized so that the average IQ in an age group is 
100 – in other words an individual scoring 115 is above-average when 
compared to similarly aged people. It is usual, but not invariable, 
practice to standardise so that the standard deviation ( ) of scores is 15. 
Tests are designed so that the distribution of IQ scores is more-or-less 
Gaussian, that is to say that it follows the bell curve. Scores on a given 
test in a given population have tended to rise across time throughout the 
history of IQ testing (the Flynn effect), so that tests need repeated 
renormalisation if these standards are to be maintained.

IQ scores are generally taken as an objective measure of intelligence. 
Because intelligence is difficult to define, the definition "Intelligence 
is what the IQ test measures" has been seriously proposed.

Modern ability tests produce scores for different areas (e.g., language 
fluency, three-dimensional thinking, etc.), with the summary score 
calculated as a some general measure, whose significance is disputed. 
Significantly, individual subtest scores correlately highly with one 
another and with between different tests.

While it might be argued that IQ tests encode their creator's beliefs about 
what constitutes intelligence, analyses of an individual's scores on a wide 
variety of tests will reveal that they all measure a single common factor 
and various factors that are specific to each test. This kind of analysis 
has led to the theory that underlying these disparate cognitive tasks is a 
single factor, termed the g factor, that represents the common-sense 
concept of intelligence.

Opponents argue that it is much more useful to know which are the strengths 
and weaknesses of a person than to know that he or she holds a measureable 
superlative on n percent of the populace in some "general intelligence" 
measure. Such opponents often cite the example of two people with the same 
overall IQ score but very different ability profiles. However, most people 
have highly balanced ability profiles. Differences in subscores are 
greatest among the most intelligent, which may lead them to this 
misconception.

Others argue that IQ testing is unnecessarily narrow and have proposed 
wider testing that covers emotional/social intelligence, creativity, 
artistic intelligence, etc.

The modern field of intelligence testing began with the Stanford-Binet 
test. It is worth noting that Alfred Binet, who created the IQ test in 
1904, was aiming to identify students who could benefit from extra help in 
school: his assumption was that lower IQ indicated the need for more 
teaching, not an inability to learn. Indeed, this interpretation is still 
held by modern experts. A popular modern IQ test is the Raven's progressive 
matrices test

(The following numbers apply to IQ scales with a standard deviation  = 15.) 
Scores between 90 and 110 are considered average­so a person scoring 95 is 
simply average, not below-average. For children scoring below 80 special 
schooling is encouraged, children above 135 are "highly gifted". In 
previous years, scores below 70 (regarded as evidence of 
"feeble-mindedness") were divided into ranges labelled moron, imbecile and 
idiot, while scores above 150 were labelled genius. Some writers say that 
such scores outside the range 55 to 145 are essentially meaningless because 
there are not enough people to make statistically sound statements.

[...snip...]

Opposition to IQ testing

Many scientists disagree with the practice of psychometrics in general. In 
_The Mismeasure of Man_, Professor Stephen Jay Gould strongly disputes the 
basis of psychometrics as a form of scientific racism, objecting that it is:

...the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within 
the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the 
use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worth

RE: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[ChadCooper]

> Yowza - I got 160.
> 
> Anyone else been tested at multiple points in their past?  If 
> so, have you maintained your score?

Yes.. Nothing personal but this test of way off of other tests I have seen
in the past. It is inflated about 15-25 points in my estimation. Since it
uses speed of thought as a principal indicator, it does not reflect well
with other IQ tests, which do include speed, but not to the same caliber for
determining IQ. 
Although I have not taken this test at iqtest.com, it is my opinion that if
it does not contain spatial relationships  tests, it is favoring
left-brained people who are generally better at math and linear logic
questions than right-brained people. As an example, The Mensa tests strongly
favors math geeks. There is no room for brilliant artists in Mensa not
that I'm bitter or anything... its just they fail to recongize me as a
brilliant, yet sensitive, artiste.

Nerd From Hell

 


> 
> -"its all meaningless, anyways"- 
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[William T Goodall]

On 24 Mar 2004, at 6:33 am, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

So I suppose the IQtest.com might be roughly equivalent to the Cattell
test (have the same SD in other words) (Every IQ test has a mean of
100).
Assuming you know how many ounces in a pound (aren't there different 
ounces and pounds for different things?) and how much a nickel and a 
dime is.
I'm pretty sure nickel=5 and dime=10, but there was a long delay while 
I dredged that up from some sitcom memory bank...
And the days of the week, the months of the year, the alphabet, common 
sayings and all that. That's why there is the 'culture fair' IQ test 
which consists entirely of picture puzzles.

Always seems wierd to me that for tests with a mean of 100, I hardly 
ever meet anyone who tests less than 100, and most of the people I 
talk to are in the 150 range. Either I've got really picky tastes in 
friends, or all my friends are full of sh1t...

What's odd about that? I don't know anyone here who lives in rented 
accommodation but 33% of the population does. This is a fishing port 
and I don't know anybody who works in any fishing related job. And so 
on...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run 
out of things they can do with UNIX." - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 
1984.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Re: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[rchapman]

> So I suppose the IQtest.com might be roughly equivalent to the Cattell 
> test (have the same SD in other words) (Every IQ test has a mean of 
> 100).

Assuming you know how many ounces in a pound (aren't there different ounces and pounds 
for different things?) and how much a nickel and a dime is.
I'm pretty sure nickel=5 and dime=10, but there was a long delay while I dredged that 
up from some sitcom memory bank...

Always seems wierd to me that for tests with a mean of 100, I hardly ever meet anyone 
who tests less than 100, and most of the people I talk to are in the 150 range. Either 
I've got really picky tastes in friends, or all my friends are full of sh1t...

Cheers
Russell C.


This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:55:04 -0500 (EST)
Travis Edmunds wrote:
>"Jim Sharkey"
>>Sounds like you're ready for that favorite of Brin-L games, "My
>>brain is bigger than yours."  :)
>I love that game! Who wants to play?
*Measures head*  Well, unless my skull's even thicker than I thought,
looks like I've got a pretty good "head" start.  :)  *Ducks pun police.*
Jim

That was funny Jim! You really hit the nail on the 'head" there!!! Allright! 
High-five!! Yeah!!!

Travis "beat that" Edmunds

_
STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[William T Goodall]

On 23 Mar 2004, at 2:23 pm, John Doe wrote:

From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:35:11 -0800
> > You can do a free IQ test at www.iqtest.com in under 15
> minutes. Which
> > I just did. I'm not sure how accurate it is. I got an IQ of
> 154 which
> > is 'genius' level according to them. That probably makes me an
> > underachiever :)
> >
> Just did. 156 out of 200. According to them that would make
> me a genius
> in the 'nobel prize winners' class, ehum. According to them
> the score in
> a non native language should be slightly lower then if I'd done it 
in
> Dutch or German (judging my skills in English I doubt that
> however). So
> I'm definitely an under achiever. LOL

Yowza - I got 160.
I just took the test: 147, which puts me in the "Genius 
Professors/Researchers" category. Damn, I'm brilliant! :-)
I did to an IQ test as a lab in psychology 25 or so years ago. As I 
recall my score was around the 99th percentile. Assuming that test was 
reasonably accurate and that I haven't become much brighter or dimmer 
in a quarter century that would be about equivalent to

134 on the Wechsler
136 on the Stanford-Binet
154 on the Cattell.
So I suppose the IQtest.com might be roughly equivalent to the Cattell 
test (have the same SD in other words) (Every IQ test has a mean of 
100).

The 98th percentile (which is the entry level for Mensa) is
132 on the Wechsler
134 on Stanford-Binet
151 on Cattell
Make of this silliness what you like :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Jim Sharkey]

Julia Thompson wrote:
>Jim Sharkey wrote:
>> Sounds like bragging to me, Jerry.  Sounds like you're ready for 
>>that favorite of Brin-L games, "My brain is bigger than yours."  :)
>Is that the one where someone mentions SAT scores as well, and 
>then someone else says the numbers don't really matter?  And 
>another person chimes in saying that it's not polite to talk about 
>these numbers that don't have all that much meaning?

Perceptive as always, Mrs. Thompson!  :)  YOu know, there's an image 
macro of The Brain Guy from MST3K holding out his brain with that 
saying underneath.  It's probably from Somthing Awful.  I should 
find it; it could be Brin-L's offical seal!  :-)

Jim
I include myself in all such mockings Maru

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Jim Sharkey]

Travis Edmunds wrote:
>"Jim Sharkey" 
>>Sounds like you're ready for that favorite of Brin-L games, "My 
>>brain is bigger than yours."  :)
>I love that game! Who wants to play?

*Measures head*  Well, unless my skull's even thicker than I thought,
looks like I've got a pretty good "head" start.  :)  *Ducks pun police.*

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[David Hobby]

John Doe wrote:
...
> > > > You can do a free IQ test at www.iqtest.com in under 15
> > > minutes. 

Just as a test, I did it in ONE minute but marking random 
responses.  The results are below:

> Subject: 
> [SPAM] Your IQ Test Results
...   

> Thank you for taking the IQ Test at www.IQTest.com.
> 
> We are confirming that your IQ Test score was: 118

Gives one pause, doesn't it?

---David

>From as much as I read of it in passing, the test seems to
richly reward mathematical training.  A true intelligence
test should not?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:25 AM 3/23/04, John Doe wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:19:54 -0600
If it had a maximum score, it wasn't the standard IQ test, and so the 
number you are quoting is not an IQ as it is normally understood.  Quite 
a few people have IQs over 150.  A very few have IQs over 200.  Where did 
you take this test that claimed to be an IQ test with a maximum score of 150?
It was some on-line test I ran into a while back. Didn't bookmark the URL, 
though. Where can I find that "standard IQ test" you mentioned?


Probably not on-line.  I was thinking of the kind that educators and 
psychologists administer under reasonably controlled conditions . . .



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[John Doe]

From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:35:11 -0800
> > You can do a free IQ test at www.iqtest.com in under 15
> minutes. Which
> > I just did. I'm not sure how accurate it is. I got an IQ of
> 154 which
> > is 'genius' level according to them. That probably makes me an
> > underachiever :)
> >
> Just did. 156 out of 200. According to them that would make
> me a genius
> in the 'nobel prize winners' class, ehum. According to them
> the score in
> a non native language should be slightly lower then if I'd done it in
> Dutch or German (judging my skills in English I doubt that
> however). So
> I'm definitely an under achiever. LOL
Yowza - I got 160.
I just took the test: 147, which puts me in the "Genius 
Professors/Researchers" category. Damn, I'm brilliant! :-)

JD

_
Hotmail en Messenger on the move 
http://www.msn.nl/communicatie/smsdiensten/hotmailsmsv2/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[John Doe]

From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:19:54 -0600
If it had a maximum score, it wasn't the standard IQ test, and so the 
number you are quoting is not an IQ as it is normally understood.  Quite a 
few people have IQs over 150.  A very few have IQs over 200.  Where did you 
take this test that claimed to be an IQ test with a maximum score of 150?
It was some on-line test I ran into a while back. Didn't bookmark the URL, 
though. Where can I find that "standard IQ test" you mentioned?

JD

_
MSN Search, for accurate results! http://search.msn.nl
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:46:43 -0500 (EST)
Sounds like you're ready for that favorite of Brin-L games, "My brain is 
bigger than yours."  :)

Jim

I love that game! Who wants to play?

-Travis

_
Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:55:09 -0600
Travis Edmunds wrote:

-Travis "still lazy" Edmunds
And I figure you're grateful you don't have 3 small children to feed
today.  :)
	Julia
You figured right. Growing up with five younger sisters has turned me into a 
guy who thinks kids are less cute than what most people think they are. Hey! 
Maybe they ARE cute. But it's all about perception.

-Travis "nothing personal" Edmunds

_
Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months 
FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:04:03 -0600
At 01:11 PM 3/19/04, Travis Edmunds wrote:

And the truth is, nobody really knows. Unless of course you're privy to 
some information that the rest of us mere mortals are not.


Oh, I am. But I don't think the rest of you mortals want to know what came 
to pass in the privy . . .



Oh come on!! I wanna be privy to what happened in the privy. 
Please??????

-Travis

_
MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:40 AM 3/23/04, Richard Baker wrote:
Ronn said:

> In this particular case, while I find no fundamental fault with the
> mathematical reasoning used, istm that said reasoning and the
> calculations which follow are essentially meaningless in determining
> the solution to the question being posed, because the assumption made
> at the beginning essentially makes the result that we are interested
> in determining the truth of a given.
On the contrary, what my point was that Debbi's sort of anecdotal
evidence, even when supplemented by the observation that there are
plenty more people like her (and you!), doesn't get to the root of the
matter because there's also a quite strong effect caused by the small
fraction of the population who are atheists. Looking at smart people and
finding what fraction of them are atheists would not provide the
experimental data required to decide between the two hypotheses: we'd
also need a measurement of the total fraction of the population who are
atheists. Or else, we could approach the problem by making measurements
on atheists compared with the whole population.
It seems to me that the very root of science is saying "Okay, given
these hypotheses, we can make these predictions" and then picking
experiments that distinguish hypotheses on the basis of their differing
predictions. One part of that is surely to work out those predictions!


You are correct.

And my recent thoughts on the matter are likely to have been affected by 
the fact that the reason I am up again at this hour of the morning is that, 
as yesterday, my body can't decide from one minute to the next whether it 
would rather shiver, overheat, keep me on the edge of throwing up without 
actually doing so (and so then getting better) or some combination of those 
and other unpleasant things all at once . . .

How I'm Spending My Spring Break Maru

-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Richard Baker]

Ronn said:

> In this particular case, while I find no fundamental fault with the
> mathematical reasoning used, istm that said reasoning and the
> calculations which follow are essentially meaningless in determining
> the solution to the question being posed, because the assumption made
> at the beginning essentially makes the result that we are interested 
> in determining the truth of a given.

On the contrary, what my point was that Debbi's sort of anecdotal
evidence, even when supplemented by the observation that there are
plenty more people like her (and you!), doesn't get to the root of the
matter because there's also a quite strong effect caused by the small
fraction of the population who are atheists. Looking at smart people and
finding what fraction of them are atheists would not provide the
experimental data required to decide between the two hypotheses: we'd
also need a measurement of the total fraction of the population who are
atheists. Or else, we could approach the problem by making measurements
on atheists compared with the whole population.

It seems to me that the very root of science is saying "Okay, given
these hypotheses, we can make these predictions" and then picking
experiments that distinguish hypotheses on the basis of their differing
predictions. One part of that is surely to work out those predictions!

Rich 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

Miller, Jeffrey wrote:

Yowza - I got 160.

 

Wellcome to brain-l it seems... ;o)

Sonja
GCU: Going to bake me a cake today
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 12:41 AM 3/23/04, Richard Baker wrote:
Ronn! said:

> This calculation seems to include some unstated assumptions about the
> distribution of intelligence in believers . . .
Does it? I said very clearly "let's assume..."


Do we really need to remind everyone of what happens when you "ass-u-me"?  ;-)

I suspect that my reaction illustrates the fact that while I indeed have a 
masters degree in math and in fact would probably have no trouble 
qualifying as ABD in math with about 40 hours of graduate courses taken 
after getting my masters, I guess I am really a scientist rather than a 
pure mathematician, in that whenever a practical problem starts off with 
"Let us assume . . . " I want to know how closely the assumptions made 
match the real-world situation the problem is attempting to model.  In this 
particular case, while I find no fundamental fault with the mathematical 
reasoning used, istm that said reasoning and the calculations which follow 
are essentially meaningless in determining the solution to the question 
being posed, because the assumption made at the beginning essentially makes 
the result that we are interested in determining the truth of a given.



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:19 PM 3/22/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:05:29PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> But as I said, I don't think this calculation answers the question at
> all,
By totally missing the point, you have perhaps provided a useful data
point...


That at least one believer is smart enough not to waste time on useless 
speculation rather than waiting until one has something resembling actual data?



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Richard Baker]

Ronn! said:

> This calculation seems to include some unstated assumptions about the
> distribution of intelligence in believers . . .

Does it? I said very clearly "let's assume..."

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Erik Reuter]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:05:29PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> But as I said, I don't think this calculation answers the question at
> all,

By totally missing the point, you have perhaps provided a useful data
point...


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:17 PM 3/22/04, Richard Baker wrote:
Erik said:

> Yes, I think atheists are less than 10% in America (much less, I
> think).
Let's suppose that they make up 10% of the population. Furthermore,
let's assume that 90% of the atheists are smart and 10% stupid. Then if
we pick a hundred representative people, we can expect one stupid
atheist, nine smart atheists, 49 stupid theists and 41 smart theists.
This means that if we pick a random atheist, we have a 90% chance of
picking a smart one, but if we pick a random smart person, we have only
a 21.9% chance of picking an atheist. In other words, about four out of
five smart people are theists even if atheists are much smarter than
average.


This calculation seems to include some unstated assumptions about the 
distribution of intelligence in believers . . . and IIRC it was an unproven 
assertion about the intelligence of believers that began this discussion . . .



Which shows that perhaps the Fool and Debbi could both be more
or less right.


But as I said, I don't think this calculation answers the question at all, 
because we still know nothing about the actual correlation between 
intelligence and belief.  AFAIK, there is no way to obtain such information 
without studying a random sample of the population.  And I expect that it 
may be difficult to come up with definitions of "intelligence" and "belief" 
which are acceptable to all.



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Miller, Jeffrey]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sonja van 
> Baardwijk-Holten
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 02:44 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> 
> 
> William T Goodall wrote:
> 
> >
> > You can do a free IQ test at www.iqtest.com in under 15 
> minutes. Which 
> > I just did. I'm not sure how accurate it is. I got an IQ of 
> 154 which 
> > is 'genius' level according to them. That probably makes me an 
> > underachiever :)
> >
> Just did. 156 out of 200. According to them that would make 
> me a genius 
> in the 'nobel prize winners' class, ehum. According to them 
> the score in 
> a non native language should be slightly lower then if I'd done it in 
> Dutch or German (judging my skills in English I doubt that 
> however). So 
> I'm definitely an under achiever. LOL

Yowza - I got 160.

Anyone else been tested at multiple points in their past?  If so, have you maintained 
your score?

-"its all meaningless, anyways"-
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Richard Baker]

Erik said:

> 18%

Yes, you're right. I stupidly calculated 9/41...

Rich, who is his own counterexample!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Erik Reuter]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:17:10PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
> Let's suppose that they make up 10% of the population. Furthermore,
> let's assume that 90% of the atheists are smart and 10% stupid. Then if
> we pick a hundred representative people, we can expect one stupid
> atheist, nine smart atheists, 49 stupid theists and 41 smart theists.
> This means that if we pick a random atheist, we have a 90% chance of
> picking a smart one, but if we pick a random smart person, we have only
> a 21.9% chance of picking an atheist.

18%



-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Richard Baker]

Erik said:

> Yes, I think atheists are less than 10% in America (much less, I
> think).

Let's suppose that they make up 10% of the population. Furthermore,
let's assume that 90% of the atheists are smart and 10% stupid. Then if
we pick a hundred representative people, we can expect one stupid
atheist, nine smart atheists, 49 stupid theists and 41 smart theists.
This means that if we pick a random atheist, we have a 90% chance of
picking a smart one, but if we pick a random smart person, we have only
a 21.9% chance of picking an atheist. In other words, about four out of
five smart people are theists even if atheists are much smarter than
average. Which shows that perhaps the Fool and Debbi could both be more
or less right.

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

Jim Sharkey wrote:

John Doe wrote:
 

The test I took had a maximum score of 150, which gives me a score 
of 137/150 * 100% = 91.3%.
Not that I'm bragging or anything. :-)
   

Sounds like bragging to me, Jerry.  Sounds like you're ready for that favorite of Brin-L games, "My brain is bigger than yours."  :)
 

Oh, come on. This is much more fun than shredding each other to bits. 
:o) Btw found a personality test  that was quick easy and rather fun to 
do. Only click on the colors and they'll tell you how you feel and what 
your problem is.
www.colorquiz.com <%3C%3Chttp://www.colorquizz.com%3E%3E>

My current situation according to them:
Sensuous. Inclined to luxuriate in things which give gratification to 
the senses, but rejects anything tasteless, vulgar, or coarse.
Sounds about right. The rest of the results wasn't too far off either. 
But I suspect it's something like a horoscope. You can interpret it in 
many ways and one of those will eventually fit your situation.

Another nice and quick intelligence test was at
densa.com 
Actually they were a list of trick questions
Sonja :o)
GCU: Selective reading
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

William T Goodall wrote:

You can do a free IQ test at www.iqtest.com in under 15 minutes. Which 
I just did. I'm not sure how accurate it is. I got an IQ of 154 which 
is 'genius' level according to them. That probably makes me an 
underachiever :)

Just did. 156 out of 200. According to them that would make me a genius 
in the 'nobel prize winners' class, ehum. According to them the score in 
a non native language should be slightly lower then if I'd done it in 
Dutch or German (judging my skills in English I doubt that however). So 
I'm definitely an under achiever. LOL

Sonja
GCU: Smart housewife.
xGCU: Do I get a nobel prize for balancing my checkbook? Pbrt ;o)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Kevin Tarr]

In my case, I think that learning being so easy for me, made me lazy.
Not having to work very hard to learn encouraged a lot of bad habits.
Any advantage I might have ever had I pissed away.
And I'm still lazy.
rob
This matches what I could have written about myself. Though there were 
other factors at work (not blaming them) even when I knew I should work 
harder I didn't.

They had comments from the crowd watching the Vet being demolished today. 
One man said, "I'm 44, today I stopped being a kid". I'm still waiting for 
my moment.

Kevin 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE


> Rob said:
>
> >> JD, with an IQ of 137
> >>
> >
> > Mine is 158.
>
> 105, last time I took a test.
>
> Rich, who doesn't think they measure anything interesting anyway.

I agree. IQ is not any kind of index of ability or accomplishment.
What does a number from a 40 year old test (though taken three times
from three different organizations) really tell you.

In my case, I think that learning being so easy for me, made me lazy.
Not having to work very hard to learn encouraged a lot of bad habits.
Any advantage I might have ever had I pissed away.
And I'm still lazy.

xponent
The Slider Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: IQ, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[David Hobby]

Julia Thompson wrote:
> 
> David Hobby wrote:
> 
> > I never took an IQ test, but did take the SATs (750, 800).  Mensa
> > is prepared to consider scores on a bunch of tests, which could
> > give one rough equivalences if they cared.  (That was as of a
> > couple of years ago.  I just looked, and they seem to be more
> > cagey about what the equivalences are.  But I did find:
> > http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/oldSATIQ.html)
> 
> Does that assume taking the SAT in high school?  Which year of high
> school?
> 
> I mean, I took it twice, 4 years apart, and the difference in IQ between
> one score and the other according to that chart is significant -- about
> 22 points.
> 
> Julia

I guess.  Most people take it as Juniors or at the start of 
senior year.  If the test stays the same but one reads more in the
intervening time, one's verbal score pretty much has to go up, 
I'd say.
---David
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: IQ, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Julia Thompson]

David Hobby wrote:

> I never took an IQ test, but did take the SATs (750, 800).  Mensa
> is prepared to consider scores on a bunch of tests, which could
> give one rough equivalences if they cared.  (That was as of a
> couple of years ago.  I just looked, and they seem to be more
> cagey about what the equivalences are.  But I did find:
> http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/oldSATIQ.html)

Does that assume taking the SAT in high school?  Which year of high
school?

I mean, I took it twice, 4 years apart, and the difference in IQ between
one score and the other according to that chart is significant -- about
22 points.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

IQ, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[David Hobby]

Richard Baker wrote:
> 
> Rob said:
> 
> >> JD, with an IQ of 137
> >>
> >
> > Mine is 158.
> 
> 105, last time I took a test.
> 
> Rich, who doesn't think they measure anything interesting anyway.

Yeah, right...  : )  You probably transposed a couple digits.

I never took an IQ test, but did take the SATs (750, 800).  Mensa 
is prepared to consider scores on a bunch of tests, which could 
give one rough equivalences if they cared.  (That was as of a 
couple of years ago.  I just looked, and they seem to be more 
cagey about what the equivalences are.  But I did find:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/oldSATIQ.html)

I agree that IQ tests do not measure "intelligence" well.  I
remember seeing one with some problems on the order of 
"Combine 5,6,7,9 with the symbols +,-,*,/ to produce an 
expression equal to 24."  My response was, "I can write a
program to do this".  I imagine that this was not what the
test writers had in mind, but being able to program a solution
shows more intelligence than just solving a problem, to my
way of looking at things.

---David
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Kevin Tarr]

At 05:59 PM 3/21/2004, you wrote:

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 10:50:38PM +, Richard Baker wrote:

> I don't know about that. Even so, I still don't think that would
> disprove the Fool's assertion. In this case, There could be very
> many smart people like Debbi indeed and still the atheists could in
> principle all be all smarter than average.
True, if Debbie's sample is non-representative of the group as a whole,
and skewed to the high side of the population.  I guess I also assumed
Debbie wouldn't pick a biased sample, so the average of the sample is a
good estimate of the average of the population :-)
> (There's also an effect along these lines caused by relative sizes
> of the atheist and non-atheist populations, which it seems to me is
> skewed towards non-atheists in the US.)
Yes, I think atheists are less than 10% in America (much less, I think).

--
Erik Reuter


A Gullup poll indicates 3 - 10%. Another says 7%. A third (The American 
Religious Identification Survey 2001 was carried out under the auspices of 
the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and is considered a 
follow-up study of a 1990 census) had 8% in 1990 and 14.1% in 2002.

There is a political action committee, Godless Americans or GAMPAC.

http://godlessamericans.org/

Saw it on C-span; was going to call but another person asked the same 
questions I did, that American atheists and this group supported liberal 
and/or democratic (party) goals but a greater majority of atheists define 
themselves as conservative.

There was a similar discussion, that so many blacks supported conservative 
ideals, yet voted democrat.

Maybe I'll form SaCPAC.

Kevin T. - VRWC
Single and childless
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 10:50:38PM +, Richard Baker wrote:

> I don't know about that. Even so, I still don't think that would
> disprove the Fool's assertion. In this case, There could be very
> many smart people like Debbi indeed and still the atheists could in
> principle all be all smarter than average.

True, if Debbie's sample is non-representative of the group as a whole,
and skewed to the high side of the population.  I guess I also assumed
Debbie wouldn't pick a biased sample, so the average of the sample is a
good estimate of the average of the population :-)

> (There's also an effect along these lines caused by relative sizes
> of the atheist and non-atheist populations, which it seems to me is
> skewed towards non-atheists in the US.)

Yes, I think atheists are less than 10% in America (much less, I think).


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Richard Baker]

Erik said:

> That would be one way, but Why would you "have to" do it that way? Why
> can't it be disproved by showing that the group that believes in god
> is NOT below average?

Okay, so I should have said that the only way to disprove the Fool's
position based on the characteristics of one person is to find a below
average atheist.

> Agreed, but again, if taken literally. I filled in the lines of her
> argument and assumed she meant that there were many others in the
> group like her and so the group was NOT below average. Am I being to
> charitable in my interpretation of her meaning?

I don't know about that. Even so, I still don't think that would
disprove the Fool's assertion. In this case, There could be very many
smart people like Debbi indeed and still the atheists could in
principle all be all smarter than average. (There's also an effect
along these lines caused by relative sizes of the atheist and
non-atheist populations, which it seems to me is skewed towards
non-atheists in the US.)

> Clear enough. I take it you are talking about the assertion that the
> fool's group is completely above average (literal interpretation of
> his statement), which means that the remainder group must cross the
> average so you could have some be above average but the group below
> average.

Yes.

> According to the Prairie Home Companion, in Lake Wobegone, all the
> children are above average.

Aha. Thanks Julia, too.

Rich, who hasn't noticed any clear separation in intelligence or
education between atheists and non-atheists in his own experience, but
must admit that he knows very few non-atheists in person.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 10:25:25PM +, Richard Baker wrote:

> The Fool asserted that if you don't believe in God then you are
> automatically above average. To disprove this, you'd have to find an
> atheist who was below average in intelligence and education.

That would be one way, but Why would you "have to" do it that way? Why
can't it be disproved by showing that the group that believes in god is
NOT below average?

> The Fool's position could only be true if that tail of the atheist
> distribution didn't extend beyond the average for the whole
> population.

If taken literally, yes. But generally when thoughtful people make
those sort of statements, I read them as "it is likely that you have
these characteristics since you are part of a group that on average has
these characteristics". Whether Fool's comments deserve that sort of
consideration is another story...

> Debbi saying that she was smart and educated and not an atheist
> certainly didn't disprove the Fool's position. Even if, on average,
> non-atheists are less smart than the average member of the population,
> there will still be tail of the distribution who are smarter than
> average, and Debbi could well be in that part of the non-atheist
> distribution.

Agreed, but again, if taken literally. I filled in the lines of her
argument and assumed she meant that there were many others in the
group like her and so the group was NOT below average. Am I being to
charitable in my interpretation of her meaning?

> All of which I hope is clear, but would be clearer if I could sketch a
> diagram.

Clear enough. I take it you are talking about the assertion that the
fool's group is completely above average (literal interpretation of his
statement), which means that the remainder group must cross the average
so you could have some be above average but the group below average.

> > Or are you playing at something Garrison Keillor'ish?
>
> I've never even heard of Garrison Keillor. Should I have?

According to the Prairie Home Companion, in Lake Wobegone, all the
children are above average.

-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Julia Thompson]

Richard Baker wrote:
> 
> Erik said:
>  
> > Or are you playing at something Garrison Keillor'ish?
> 
> I've never even heard of Garrison Keillor. Should I have?

Well, if you were in the US and prone to listen to public radio (at
least prone to it at a certain time), then you should have.

I'm guessing that Erik is referring to the qualities of Lake Wobegon,
most specifically, "and all of the children are above average".  There's
probably someone here with a better memory than I have today (and maybe
an easier time constructing sentences that mean just what is meant) who
can give the whole bit.  (I finally got the sentence right on about the
7th attempt.  At least, I hope it said what I meant it to, making it
"right".)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Richard Baker]

Erik said:

> But in this case, doesn't it? If his assertion, that not believing in
> god puts you "above average", then the group believing in god must be
> below average (or else the "undecided" group is large and well below
> average thus allowing the other two groups to be above average).

The Fool asserted that if you don't believe in God then you are
automatically above average. To disprove this, you'd have to find an
atheist who was below average in intelligence and education. This
shouldn't be too hard, because even if on average atheists are smarter,
there will be tail of ones who are less smart than the average atheist
and also less smart than the average. The Fool's position could only be
true if that tail of the atheist distribution didn't extend beyond the
average for the whole population.

Debbi saying that she was smart and educated and not an atheist
certainly didn't disprove the Fool's position. Even if, on average,
non-atheists are less smart than the average member of the population,
there will still be tail of the distribution who are smarter than
average, and Debbi could well be in that part of the non-atheist
distribution.

All of which I hope is clear, but would be clearer if I could sketch a
diagram.

> Or are you playing at something Garrison Keillor'ish?

I've never even heard of Garrison Keillor. Should I have?

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:58:38PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
> Debbi said:
> 
> >>> But what if I don't believe in God?
> > 
> >> That means you are above average in intelligence and
> >> education.
> > 
> > My M.D. and my well-above-average IQ (even after a
> > significant closed head injury) disagree with your
> > supposition.
> 
> Of course, if A implies B that doesn't necessarily mean that B also
> implies A, which means that you don't disprove the Fool's position. To
> disprove it, you'd have to find an atheist who wasn't above average in
> intelligence and education.

But in this case, doesn't it? If his assertion, that not believing in
god puts you "above average", then the group believing in god must be
below average (or else the "undecided" group is large and well below
average thus allowing the other two groups to be above average). Or are
you playing at something Garrison Keillor'ish?


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Richard Baker]

Rob said:

>> JD, with an IQ of 137
>> 
> 
> Mine is 158.

105, last time I took a test.

Rich, who doesn't think they measure anything interesting anyway.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Richard Baker]

Debbi said:

>>> But what if I don't believe in God?
> 
>> That means you are above average in intelligence and
>> education.
> 
> My M.D. and my well-above-average IQ (even after a
> significant closed head injury) disagree with your
> supposition.

Of course, if A implies B that doesn't necessarily mean that B also
implies A, which means that you don't disprove the Fool's position. To
disprove it, you'd have to find an atheist who wasn't above average in
intelligence and education.

Rich, who is pedantic this evening for some reason.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Julia Thompson]

Jim Sharkey wrote:
> 
> John Doe wrote:
> >The test I took had a maximum score of 150, which gives me a score
> >of 137/150 * 100% = 91.3%.
> >Not that I'm bragging or anything. :-)
> 
> Sounds like bragging to me, Jerry.  Sounds like you're ready for that
> favorite of Brin-L games, "My brain is bigger than yours."  :)

Is that the one where someone mentions SAT scores as well, and then
someone else says the numbers don't really matter?  And another person
chimes in saying that it's not polite to talk about these numbers that
don't have all that much meaning?

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[William T Goodall]

On 21 Mar 2004, at 4:19 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

At 07:03 AM 3/21/04, John Doe wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:23:32 -0600
If we were to turn the word "well" as in "well above average" into 
a percentage, what percentage would it represent in your mind?


100 is by definition "average".  I believe the standard deviation is 
something like 15 or 16.  Of course, when you get out on the tails 
(>> 3 siogma), you run into two problems: as the number of humans 
(either currently alive or ever) is finite, the effect of the 
discreteness of the actual population becomes important, and while 
there are people who have IQ scores > 200, again by the definition 
of IQ scores < 0 are impossible.
The maximum score depends on the specific IQ test,


If it had a maximum score, it wasn't the standard IQ test, and so the 
number you are quoting is not an IQ as it is normally understood.  
Quite a few people have IQs over 150.  A very few have IQs over 200.  
Where did you take this test that claimed to be an IQ test with a 
maximum score of 150?



You can do a free IQ test at www.iqtest.com in under 15 minutes. Which 
I just did. I'm not sure how accurate it is. I got an IQ of 154 which 
is 'genius' level according to them. That probably makes me an 
underachiever :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Kevin Tarr]

If it had a maximum score, it wasn't the standard IQ test, and so the 
number you are quoting is not an IQ as it is normally understood.  Quite a 
few people have IQs over 150.  A very few have IQs over 200.  Where did 
you take this test that claimed to be an IQ test with a maximum score of 150?

-- Ronn!  :)
Sears.

Kevin T. - VRWC
It's all inside 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 07:03 AM 3/21/04, John Doe wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:23:32 -0600
If we were to turn the word "well" as in "well above average" into a 
percentage, what percentage would it represent in your mind?


100 is by definition "average".  I believe the standard deviation is 
something like 15 or 16.  Of course, when you get out on the tails (>> 3 
siogma), you run into two problems: as the number of humans (either 
currently alive or ever) is finite, the effect of the discreteness of the 
actual population becomes important, and while there are people who have 
IQ scores > 200, again by the definition of IQ scores < 0 are impossible.
The maximum score depends on the specific IQ test,


If it had a maximum score, it wasn't the standard IQ test, and so the 
number you are quoting is not an IQ as it is normally understood.  Quite a 
few people have IQs over 150.  A very few have IQs over 200.  Where did you 
take this test that claimed to be an IQ test with a maximum score of 150?



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Jim Sharkey]

John Doe wrote:
>The test I took had a maximum score of 150, which gives me a score 
>of 137/150 * 100% = 91.3%.
>Not that I'm bragging or anything. :-)

Sounds like bragging to me, Jerry.  Sounds like you're ready for that favorite of 
Brin-L games, "My brain is bigger than yours."  :)

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[John Doe]

From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:23:32 -0600
If we were to turn the word "well" as in "well above average" into a 
percentage, what percentage would it represent in your mind?


100 is by definition "average".  I believe the standard deviation is 
something like 15 or 16.  Of course, when you get out on the tails (>> 3 
siogma), you run into two problems: as the number of humans (either 
currently alive or ever) is finite, the effect of the discreteness of the 
actual population becomes important, and while there are people who have IQ 
scores > 200, again by the definition of IQ scores < 0 are impossible.
The maximum score depends on the specific IQ test, so the actual score 
doesn't mean much if you don't convert it into a percentage. The test I took 
had a maximum score of 150, which gives me a score of 137/150 * 100% = 
91.3%.

Not that I'm bragging or anything. :-)

JD

_
MSN Search, for accurate results! http://search.msn.nl
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Medievalbk]

In a message dated 3/20/2004 6:24:40 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> again by the definition of IQ scores <0 are impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> -- Ronn!  :)
> 

Has anyone ever given a ghost an IQ test in a seance?

Totally bored minds want to know.

Vilyehm Teighlore

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 01:19 PM 3/20/04, Travis Edmunds wrote:

From: "John Doe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:21:12 +0100
From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:13:08 +
JD, with an IQ of 137
Isn't that close to being retarded?
No, anything but. As The Fool already pointed out, it's well above average.

JD
If we were to turn the word "well" as in "well above average" into a 
percentage, what percentage would it represent in your mind?


100 is by definition "average".  I believe the standard deviation is 
something like 15 or 16.  Of course, when you get out on the tails (>> 3 
siogma), you run into two problems: as the number of humans (either 
currently alive or ever) is finite, the effect of the discreteness of the 
actual population becomes important, and while there are people who have IQ 
scores > 200, again by the definition of IQ scores < 0 are impossible.



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Doug Pensinger]

Travis wrote:

Don't feel bad. Just believe it's big, and then it's not a lie. 
THEN...when you tell everyone how big it is, it's true. Does that make 
any sense?

As long as you don't set off the metal detectors...

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "John Doe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:21:12 +0100
From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:13:08 +
JD, with an IQ of 137
Isn't that close to being retarded?
No, anything but. As The Fool already pointed out, it's well above average.

JD

If we were to turn the word "well" as in "well above average" into a 
percentage, what percentage would it represent in your mind?

-Travis "IQ??pleaseit's all about the MI" Edmunds

_
Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Julia Thompson]

Travis Edmunds wrote:
> 
> >From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> >Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:45:56 -0600
> >
> >Travis Edmunds wrote:
> >
> > > "The prating FOOL shall fall"
> > >
> > > Not sure where that is exactly, but it's in the bible.
> >
> >Proverbs 10:8
> >The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall
> >fall.
> >
> >Proverbs 10:10
> >He that winketh with the eye causeth sorrow: but a prating fool shall
> >fall.
> >
> >Searchable King James version of the Bible at
> >http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
> >
> >   Julia
> 
> Ok, ok. I'm lazy. Are you happy now?

I'm happy, but nothing having to do with your response.  :)  But you
could bookmark the site and next time look it up yourself -- it's a
*lot* easier than wrestling with a Strong's Concordance, I tell you.
 
> Although I did take my dog for a walk this morning. And that's gotta count
> for something right?

Hey, all I've done for my dog this morning is let it out and feed it. 
So you're ahead of me there.
 
> -Travis "still lazy" Edmunds

And I figure you're grateful you don't have 3 small children to feed
today.  :)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Doe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE


> >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> >Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:02 -0600
> >
> > > JD, with an IQ of 137
> > >
> >
> >Mine is 158.
> >
> >Wanna compare penis' next?
>
> Why would a guy like you be interested in the penis size of some
other guy?
>
> Oh wait, you're one of them homosexuals, ain't ya? Better watch out
for them
> anti-gay Christians then! :-)
>

Sheesh!  I'm not even a metrosexual and I watch out for fundies.

The point I was making is that IQ alone is a useless factoid.
I think most here would agree that *I* am proof of that! 

xponent
Index Of Accomplishment Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[John Doe]

From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:13:08 +
JD, with an IQ of 137
Isn't that close to being retarded?
No, anything but. As The Fool already pointed out, it's well above average.

JD

_
Play online games with your friends with MSN Messenger 
http://messenger.msn.nl/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[John Doe]

From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:02 -0600
> JD, with an IQ of 137
>
Mine is 158.

Wanna compare penis' next?
Why would a guy like you be interested in the penis size of some other guy?

Oh wait, you're one of them homosexuals, ain't ya? Better watch out for them 
anti-gay Christians then! :-)

JD

_
Talk with your online friends with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:02 -0600
> JD, with an IQ of 137
>
Mine is 158.
Mine is 89. Is that high?

Wanna compare penis' next?
Haha!!..I'm in. Where do we sign up?


xponent
Less Than Useful Measurements In This Context Maru
rob
Don't feel bad. Just believe it's big, and then it's not a lie. THEN...when 
you tell everyone how big it is, it's true. Does that make any sense?

-Travis "we're talking about IQ's right?" Edmunds

_
MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months 
FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:45:56 -0600
Travis Edmunds wrote:

> "The prating FOOL shall fall"
>
> Not sure where that is exactly, but it's in the bible.
Proverbs 10:8
The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall
fall.
Proverbs 10:10
He that winketh with the eye causeth sorrow: but a prating fool shall
fall.
Searchable King James version of the Bible at
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html
	Julia
Ok, ok. I'm lazy. Are you happy now?

Although I did take my dog for a walk this morning. And that's gotta count 
for something right?

-Travis "still lazy" Edmunds

_
Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months 
FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[William T Goodall]

On 19 Mar 2004, at 9:02 pm, John Doe wrote:

From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:17:40 -0600
> But what if I don't believe in God?

That means you are above average in intelligence and education.
Why, thank you for your kind words, sir! :-)

JD, with an IQ of 137
Isn't that close to being retarded?

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my 
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my 
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Doe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE


> >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> >Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:17:40 -0600
> >
> > > But what if I don't believe in God?
> >
> >That means you are above average in intelligence and education.
>
> Why, thank you for your kind words, sir! :-)
>
> JD, with an IQ of 137
>

Mine is 158.

Wanna compare penis' next?



xponent
Less Than Useful Measurements In This Context Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[William T Goodall]

" Gays are nothing more than misguided unbelievers that need direction  
and instruction in the ways of righteousness. If they come to know the  
True and Living God of Heaven (not some form of made up god) then  
perhaps they will really discover their need to repent and clean up  
their act.

 If homosexuals choose to remain hellbound, then that is their choice.  
Knowledgeable Christians can pray and continue to speak out to remind  
the homosexual community there is still hope in repentance and faith in  
Jesus Christ. "

LOL :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Our products just aren't engineered for security." - Brian Valentine,  
senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development  
team.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Julia Thompson]

Travis Edmunds wrote:

> "The prating FOOL shall fall"
> 
> Not sure where that is exactly, but it's in the bible.

Proverbs 10:8
The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall
fall. 

Proverbs 10:10
He that winketh with the eye causeth sorrow: but a prating fool shall
fall. 

Searchable King James version of the Bible at
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[John Doe]

From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:17:40 -0600
> But what if I don't believe in God?

That means you are above average in intelligence and education.
Why, thank you for your kind words, sir! :-)

JD, with an IQ of 137

_
Talk with your online friends with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.nl/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE


> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "John Doe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 3:02 PM
> Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> 
> 
> > >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> > >Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:17:40 -0600
> > >
> > > > But what if I don't believe in God?
> > >
> > >That means you are above average in intelligence and education.
> >
> > Why, thank you for your kind words, sir! :-)
> >
> > JD, with an IQ of 137
> >
> 
> Mine is 158.
> 
> Wanna compare penis' next?

Mine was precisely measured as sqrt(pi^(e^pi))

Mom always said I was an irrational number.

Dan M. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 06:03 PM 3/19/04, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Doe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 3:02 PM
> Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
>
>
> > >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> > >Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:17:40 -0600
> > >
> > > > But what if I don't believe in God?
> > >
> > >That means you are above average in intelligence and education.
> >
> > Why, thank you for your kind words, sir! :-)
> >
> > JD, with an IQ of 137
> >
>
> Mine is 158.
>
> Wanna compare penis' next?
Mine was precisely measured as sqrt(pi^(e^pi))


Micrometers?



-- Ronn!  :)

The contents of this message © 2004 by the author.  All rights 
reserved.  Any reproduction, redistribution, duplication, forwarding, 
dissemination, publication, broadcast, transmission or other use of the 
contents of this message, in whole or in part, with or without attribution, 
with or without this copyright statement, in any form by any means 
whatsoever is strictly and expressly prohibited.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 01:11 PM 3/19/04, Travis Edmunds wrote:

And the truth is, nobody really knows. Unless of course you're privy to 
some information that the rest of us mere mortals are not.


Oh, I am. But I don't think the rest of you mortals want to know what came 
to pass in the privy . . .



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Deborah Harrell]

> The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 

> > But what if I don't believe in God?
 
> That means you are above average in intelligence and
> education.

My M.D. and my well-above-average IQ (even after a
significant closed head injury) disagree with your
supposition.

Debbi
who LOL'd at Ritu's response

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[The Fool]

> From: Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >From: "The Fool" 
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > At 08:17 AM 3/19/04, The Fool wrote:
> > > > > From: John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >
> > > > > >"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to
the
> > > >world,
> > > > > >it is God's gift to humanity." - George W.
Bush
> > > >1/29/03
> > > > >
> > > > > But what if I don't believe in God?
> > > >
> > > >That means you are above average in intelligence and education.
> > >
> > > "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the
> >frailties,
> > > and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they
are
> >wise,
> > > and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it
aside,
> > > supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is
> >foolishness
> > > and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.  But to be
learned is
> >
> > > good if they hearken unto the counsels of God."  (2 Nephi 9:28-29)
> > >
> >
> >
> >"A lunatic is easily recognized.  He is a moron who doesn't know the
> >ropes.  The moron proves his thesis; he has a logic, however twisted
> >it may be.  The lunatic, on the other hand, doesn't concern himself at
> >all with logic; he works by short circuits.  For him, everything
> >proves everything else.  The lunatic is all idee fixe, and whatever he
> >comes across confirms his lunacy.  You can tell him by the liberties
> >he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the
> >fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars."
> 
> OOH I wanna say one...please???
> 
> "The prating FOOL shall fall"
> 
> Not sure where that is exactly, but it's in the bible.

To the rational mind, nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained.
--Dr. Who 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Jan Coffey]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> John Doe wrote:
> 
> > 
> > >"The liberty we prize is not America's gift 
> > to the world,
> > >it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. 
> > Bush 1/29/03
> > 
> > But what if I don't believe in God?
> 
> I don't think that makes a difference as long as She believes in 
you. ;)

Then she can sit around with the easter bunny, santa clause, a couple 
of mermaids, and a unicorn and discuss it.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:52:39 -0600
> From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 08:17 AM 3/19/04, The Fool wrote:
> > > From: John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > >"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the
> >world,
> > > >it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush
> >1/29/03
> > >
> > > But what if I don't believe in God?
> >
> >That means you are above average in intelligence and education.
>
> "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the
frailties,
> and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are
wise,
> and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside,
> supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is
foolishness
> and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.  But to be learned is
> good if they hearken unto the counsels of God."  (2 Nephi 9:28-29)
>
"A lunatic is easily recognized.  He is a moron who doesn't know the
ropes.  The moron proves his thesis; he has a logic, however twisted
it may be.  The lunatic, on the other hand, doesn't concern himself at
all with logic; he works by short circuits.  For him, everything
proves everything else.  The lunatic is all idee fixe, and whatever he
comes across confirms his lunacy.  You can tell him by the liberties
he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the
fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars."
OOH I wanna say one...please???

"The prating FOOL shall fall"

Not sure where that is exactly, but it's in the bible.

-Travis "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" Edmunds

_
STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:17:40 -0600
> From: John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the
world,
> >it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush
1/29/03
>
> But what if I don't believe in God?
That means you are above average in intelligence and education.
Huh? I don't think so Fool. Essentially, what you are saying is that if one 
does not believe in God, they are smarter than the average bear. Well, 
that's not how it works. You see, what just might put you on or above the 
level of Yogi, is recognizing that taking a blind stand behind an issue is 
often flawed. In this case it's belief in God or the concept of. And the 
truth is, nobody really knows. Unless of course you're privy to some 
information that the rest of us mere mortals are not.

-Travis "I doubt it" Edmunds

_
MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[The Fool]

> From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 08:17 AM 3/19/04, The Fool wrote:
> > > From: John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > >"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the
> >world,
> > > >it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush
> >1/29/03
> > >
> > > But what if I don't believe in God?
> >
> >That means you are above average in intelligence and education.
> 
> "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the
frailties, 
> and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are
wise, 
> and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, 
> supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is
foolishness 
> and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.  But to be learned is

> good if they hearken unto the counsels of God."  (2 Nephi 9:28-29)
>

 
"A lunatic is easily recognized.  He is a moron who doesn't know the
ropes.  The moron proves his thesis; he has a logic, however twisted
it may be.  The lunatic, on the other hand, doesn't concern himself at
all with logic; he works by short circuits.  For him, everything
proves everything else.  The lunatic is all idee fixe, and whatever he
comes across confirms his lunacy.  You can tell him by the liberties
he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the
fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars."
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[ritu]

John Doe wrote:

> 
> >"The liberty we prize is not America's gift 
> to the world,
> >it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. 
> Bush 1/29/03
> 
> But what if I don't believe in God?

I don't think that makes a difference as long as She believes in you. ;)

Ritu


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:17 AM 3/19/04, The Fool wrote:
> From: John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the
world,
> >it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush
1/29/03
>
> But what if I don't believe in God?
That means you are above average in intelligence and education.


"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, 
and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, 
and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, 
supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness 
and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.  But to be learned is 
good if they hearken unto the counsels of God."  (2 Nephi 9:28-29)



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[The Fool]

> From: John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the
world,
> >it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush
1/29/03
> 
> But what if I don't believe in God?

That means you are above average in intelligence and education.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Jim Sharkey]

Julia Thompson wrote:
>http://www.steakandbjday.com/
>Basically just declares the day and explains why.

This is the best holiday ever.  EVER.  :)

Jim
Marking this one on his calendar Maru

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Julia Thompson]

"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
> 
> At 02:27 PM 3/16/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
> >"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
> > >
> > > At 10:53 PM 3/15/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> > >
> > > >- Original Message -
> > > >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:09 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > A big giant THANK YOU to Robert Seeburger for posting the flame-bait
> > > >to
> > > > > Brin-L.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >1 If you're going to bitch, at least spell my name correctly.
> > >
> > > Maybe he was hungry and hallucinating what he wanted to eat . . .
> > >
> > > >And remember, no one sucks you into anything,
> > >
> > > Mmmpfh, mmpfh, MFFPH!
> >
> >Hm, this post is a little late.  Steak & BJ Day was this past Sunday.
> >:)
> >
> > Julia
> >
> >URL available upon request
> 
> I guess I need to request that URL.  I didn't get either on Sunday . . .

http://www.steakandbjday.com/

Basically just declares the day and explains why.  Getting either is up
to whomever may be providing services.  (Golden Corral makes a decent
enough steak that that did the trick a couple of years ago for that
item.)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 02:27 PM 3/16/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
>
> At 10:53 PM 3/15/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:09 PM
> >Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> >
> >
> > > A big giant THANK YOU to Robert Seeburger for posting the flame-bait
> >to
> > > Brin-L.
> > >
> >
> >1 If you're going to bitch, at least spell my name correctly.
>
> Maybe he was hungry and hallucinating what he wanted to eat . . .
>
> >And remember, no one sucks you into anything,
>
> Mmmpfh, mmpfh, MFFPH!
Hm, this post is a little late.  Steak & BJ Day was this past Sunday.
:)
Julia

URL available upon request


I guess I need to request that URL.  I didn't get either on Sunday . . .



Just When You Think The Level Of Discourse Can't Go Any Lower, Someone 
Starts Digging Maru



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Julia Thompson]

"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
> 
> At 11:34 PM 3/15/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> 
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:13 PM
> >Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mmmpfh, mmpfh, MFFPH!
> > >
> >
> >Gee Ronn, I didn't know you cared!
> >
> 
> That was supposed to be the sound of someone holding a hand over my mouth
> to prevent me saying what I was thinking . . .

And you expected the rest of us to keep our minds out of the gutter?  :D

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 11:34 PM 3/15/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
>
>
> Mmmpfh, mmpfh, MFFPH!
>
Gee Ronn, I didn't know you cared!



That was supposed to be the sound of someone holding a hand over my mouth 
to prevent me saying what I was thinking . . .



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[John Doe]

From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:09:24 -0500

2) !!!BILL CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED FOR PERJURY, NOT 
ADULTERY!!!

to Sink In>
Unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans, Bill Clinton wasn't 
impeached. Clinton's impeachment was nothing but Republican Wishful 
Thinking.

And did anyone ever tell you that shouting isn't polite?



   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
But what if I don't believe in God?

JD

_
MSN Search, for accurate results! http://search.msn.nl
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Julia Thompson]

"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
> 
> At 10:53 PM 3/15/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> 
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:09 PM
> >Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> >
> >
> > > A big giant THANK YOU to Robert Seeburger for posting the flame-bait
> >to
> > > Brin-L.
> > >
> >
> >1 If you're going to bitch, at least spell my name correctly.
> 
> Maybe he was hungry and hallucinating what he wanted to eat . . .
> 
> >And remember, no one sucks you into anything,
> 
> Mmmpfh, mmpfh, MFFPH!

Hm, this post is a little late.  Steak & BJ Day was this past Sunday. 
:)

Julia

URL available upon request
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

Robert Seeberger wrote:

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

 

A big giant THANK YOU to Robert Seeburger for posting the flame-bait
   

to
 

Brin-L.

   

1 If you're going to bitch, at least spell my name correctly. (Unless
you're being an ass on purpose, in which case who cares what an ass
thinks)
Nyah Nyah Nyah!
2 Give some consideration to blaming the person(s) who give(s) in to
the temptation. Every little piece of fluff does not deserve serious
political consideration and there ***most definitely is*** such a
thing as political humor.
And remember, no one sucks you into anything, you volunteered.
Be a man and admit it and take some responsibility for a change.
 

Sucking an ass in? I'm not even going near that one. I mean it gives a 
whole new meaning to the concept of a black hole.

Sonja
GCU: Physics?! What physics?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Horn, John]

> From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> In fact, I believe that Baghdad will be renamed George
> Bush City next week, if my secret memo from the Vast
> Right-Wing Conspiracy is correct.
> 
> I believe that my personal profit-sharing as a junior
> member of the VRWC from the oil revenues comes to
> $42.03, in fact.

I nominate this for "Post of the Week"!

And I'm not even part of the VRWC!

 - jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE


>
>
> Mmmpfh, mmpfh, MFFPH!
>

Gee Ronn, I didn't know you cared!



xponent
If You Love Someone, Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Tom Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just like defenders of Bush try to point out that
> Clinton was also a  
> draft-dodger. Perhaps, but Clinton didn't go around
> posing like a macho  
> idiot or lie to the American people in order to
> launch an aggressive  
> war of conquest.

In fact, I believe that Baghdad will be renamed George
Bush City next week, if my secret memo from the Vast
Right-Wing Conspiracy is correct.

I believe that my personal profit-sharing as a junior
member of the VRWC from the oil revenues comes to
$42.03, in fact.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 10:53 PM 3/15/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
> A big giant THANK YOU to Robert Seeburger for posting the flame-bait
to
> Brin-L.
>
1 If you're going to bitch, at least spell my name correctly.


Maybe he was hungry and hallucinating what he wanted to eat . . .



And remember, no one sucks you into anything,


Mmmpfh, mmpfh, MFFPH!



-- Ronn!  :)

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE


> A big giant THANK YOU to Robert Seeburger for posting the flame-bait
to
> Brin-L.
>

1 If you're going to bitch, at least spell my name correctly. (Unless
you're being an ass on purpose, in which case who cares what an ass
thinks)
Nyah Nyah Nyah!

2 Give some consideration to blaming the person(s) who give(s) in to
the temptation. Every little piece of fluff does not deserve serious
political consideration and there ***most definitely is*** such a
thing as political humor.
And remember, no one sucks you into anything, you volunteered.
Be a man and admit it and take some responsibility for a change.

3 Have a nice day! :)

4 There is no number 4

5 *Get a grip* just in case your favorite candidate loses. Its a
dignity preserving strategy.

6 If something you read is obviously ridiculous, stating so publicly
only rattles the cages of the ignorant. You do read this list don't
you?

7 There was a number 7, but my dog ate it.

8 42, 82MPH, 6,700Gigavolts, and mice.

9 Context is everything.

10 When all else fails, refer to number 6.


xponent
Violating Number 6 For The Humor Impaired Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE

[Tom Beck]

Did he do it under oath in a court of law?


He lied to Congress while performing a constitutional duty (State of  
the Union address). I think that's even worse. Clinton should never  
have been forced to undergo that deposition, as the Paula Jones lawsuit  
was clearly politically motivated.

 
--

Tom Beck

my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/

"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd  
see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle

 
--
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l