My Prayer

[Pordzhik]

Oh God rescue us from JohnLV's drivel!

[BubbaGump]

... in response to My Prayer, posted by Pordzhik on Dec 16, 2002

Is when some guy on the internet challenges you to a debate on a bunch of weird topics he lists (probably copied from a nut on another forum) and claims an IQ that is so high it's just unbelievable.  Why don't these people claim a realistic number like 140?  That's the average IQ of a grad student at MIT.  If he were really smart he would know that a person with an IQ of 186 is extremely rare and that at that level it becomes difficult to even measure IQ.  I do believe though that genius and insanity are related so maybe he's an insane genius.

[Frank O]

... in response to You know what's really annoying?, posted by BubbaGump on Dec 18, 2002

when we tested at school I came out at 147. I've heard that the score for a "genius" is 140 but lately I've heard 130. supposedly 100 is norm with MOST of the population or "average" people come out at or around 120. In any case I DON'T consider myself a genius. Only jokingly & that in reference to Wile E Coyote "Genius". LOL!!! I agree with the reference to 186!!! LOL! Get outta here!

[Dan]

... in response to I don't know about those IQ tests..., posted by Frank O on Dec 18, 2002

IQ scores are measured against a value (100) which represents the Mean score of a representative sample of people taking a standardized IQ test.

"Normal" is considered to be one standard deviation (SD) from the Mean based on a valid statistical sample - and is generally held to be 85 on the low end and 115 in the high end. Statistically-speaking, 68 percent of the population should fall within 1 SD from the Mean as measured on a 'normal' bell curve distribution of results.

2 SD's from the Mean (approximately 70 to 130) accounts for roughly 95 percent of the population - and 3 SD's (55 to 145) from the mean accounts for roughly 99.7 % of the population.

To join Mensa, a demonstrated IQ score at or above the 98th percentile is required - which equates to an IQ score of about 140.

Here is a link to some interesting history of the IQ scoring and what the values represent: http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQBasics.html

And for those wishing to take an online test to get some simple measures (for fun only), try this site: http://www.intelligencetest.com/

As for David's claim of 186, the guy obviously has a very serious problem. His claim of genius intelligence simply serves to demonstrate how delusional he really is at this stage. One can only hope he gets help before he hurts himself or someone else.

- Dan

[Globetrotter]

... in response to IQ's Statistical Basis . . ., posted by Dan on Dec 18, 2002

He, I couldn't care less about.  It's all he comes into contact with that I fear.  God help him.

[Globetrotter]

... in response to IQ's Statistical Basis . . ., posted by Dan on Dec 18, 2002

Regarding IQ's...really, who cares?  To be able to get by, and help a few on the way is a good thing.  Most people get off on their accomplishments...what they have done.  Some do wonderful things, like inventing a cure for a disease that helps everyone.  Some give money away and nobody knows about it.  Some have a wonderful career, or several, and not only are they good at what they do, they really like what they do.  Some have raised family members they are really proud of, which is an extension of themselves, and they are proud of that.  But.......to "claim" to have an IQ that's off the scale, and do absolutely nothing with it but brag, to me, would be a great, great failure.  

Everyone likes to see their accomplishments count for something, maybe to be remembered by.  Most will never make a great contribution to society.  But if you do good work, raise a good and respectful family, join in, instead of tuning out, be God loving and law abiding, and be a good example to others, you have contributed plenty!

Unfortunately, our "Buddy" Davey has nothing to brag about, and has contributed nothing, and maybe never will.  He is in a "rut."  And the only difference between a rut and a grave, is the depth of the hole!

[Dan]

... in response to Re: IQ's Statistical Basis . . ., posted by Globetrotter on Dec 18, 2002

My post was simply intended to answer some of the questions that have been surfacing about the IQ score and what it means (as you correctly point out - it means very little).

FWIW

- Dan

[Pordzhik]

... in response to You know what's really annoying?, posted by BubbaGump on Dec 18, 2002

part of a job application, had a lot of those little upside-down - sideways - reverse-image patterns. I had to choose the correct one, I was totaly lost until I thought of covering them all with my fingertips and revealing them one by one, got them all! Something I think the test setter hadn't thought of. Now did I deserve the extra points this success added to my IQ?

Another time when taking an entrance exam, all the candidates were shocked to hear (when we were all something like half-way through) that we had two minutes to complete the paper, no way any of us could've completed the next question in two minutes, let alone the paper! Most of the remaining questions were of the multiple-choice type, while all my fellows were struggling, I didn't even bother to read the remaining questions, just ticked the boxes at random, thus giving myself a something like a 25% chance of getting the remaining questions correct. Again did I deserve the extra points? BTW I got the best marks that time.

Shows that there are many ways to solve problems and puzzles. I wonder if this John LV will ever be smart enough to pass on those wonderful genes he has.

[Griffin]

... in response to I remember taking an IQ test, posted by Pordzhik on Dec 18, 2002

[Charles]

... in response to My Prayer, posted by Pordzhik on Dec 16, 2002

Now he's calling people names.  Ban his racist arse.

[Mike]

... in response to Re: My Prayer is That He'll Be Banned So..., posted by Charles on Dec 16, 2002

It's so freaken easy to not read a post from someone that you know doesn't interest you, or they bother you, or for what ever reason. If anything it makes you just as big a pain in the arss being on here crying about others post.

David said nothing that isn't considered by a large majority of people as being the truth. In any race their are exceptions but typically every race has good and bad points. Jews are not the best athaletes,but excel when it comes to making money. Blacks can't swim, but are good at other sports. Sure there are people in each race that can do these things that most can't but is it being a bigot to mention it? How many times have you read on here that RM are bad fathers, or alchololics? There again is some truth in that but not all of them are like that. So if he is to be banned then so should anyone else that sterio types or talks negitivly about RM.

Mike

[thesearch]

... in response to Re: My Prayer is That He'll Be Banned So..., posted by Charles on Dec 16, 2002

I did not check  --- who started the name calling? You probably know per your comment --- was it David or was it provoked?

[Charles]

... in response to Charles, posted by thesearch on Dec 16, 2002

Search, I don't understand why there any serious question on this.  In case you missed it, here is his post below.  Based on this post alone, I do not believe he should be  permitted to participate on this board any more.  If you think he should, please offer a cogent reason why such blatant racism should be tolerated and permitted on this board.  It's not, in my view, a question of "ignoring" David as some have suggested.  Rather, it is a fundamental question of basic human dignity and respect.  David's racial comments are odious and abhorrent to those of us who believe that this country was founded on the premise that all persons are created equal, and I for one do not intend to be silent until David is gone.

Re: The Racist Agenda - *THIS* is the Characteristic That Disgusts Me . . .
Post a followup Return to Forum Forum FAQ Edit Message
Posted by John LV on 12/15/2002
In Reply to: The Racist Agenda - *THIS* is the Characteristic That Disgusts Me . . . posted by Dan on 12/15/2002:

Racist=when you believe your ethnic stock superior to another. I do not believe my Irish and German background to be superior to Africans, except of course with respect to academics and accomplishments, certainly blacks are far superior at athletics.

David

[BURKE89]

... in response to Re: Ban David..  He Sounds Like Hitler, posted by Charles on Dec 16, 2002

Dear Charles:

What side of the "Bell Curve," were you born on?

I'm certainly not going to defend - "Shirley McClaine's" vacuous tripe any longer. However, last I looked, people who " throw out the baby-eating Boche slip-shod cr@p"... Well, they best defend it.

Have you? No! You, like many of your predecessors, have a propensity to curtail discourse you don't care for.

The toltalitarian mind-set, that you embelish nauseates me.
Perhaps, your originally from Europe, Canada, Israel or the rest of the world: where one doesn't have the luxury, of our first amendment.

I don't know much about "Shirley," nor will I defend her hyperbole; however, I will defend her right to say it. -grin-

Sorry Charlie...

[thesearch]

... in response to Re: Ban David..  He Sounds Like Hitler, posted by Charles on Dec 16, 2002

David: "Racist=when you believe your ethnic stock superior to another. I do not believe my Irish and German background to be superior to Africans, except of course with respect to academics and accomplishments, certainly blacks are far superior at athletics."

I have not read any of his racist posts so I can only comment on this one.

This post above is not necessarily racist. Let me explain. There are not enough words for the meaning intended to be clear. In other words I do not know the real meaning behind the words.

It is a fact that academic accomplishments as they are documented are more prevalent among the European countries as compared to African countries for example.

It does seem that blacks excel in professional athletics. Myself personally, I do not have an opinion about this. I say this because I do not know the percentage of blacks to Caucasians in the USA for example to compare to the percentages of blacks to Caucasians that are playing professional sports. If the later is higher than the former, then there is data to support their success in the athletic arena as compared to other Caucasians. Since I do not have that data I can not comment.

Thus this statement above can be viewed as only acknowledging facts as they appear to the masses.

Now, when someone tries to come up with an explanation for these facts, this  is where racism becomes evident or dispelled in the comment.  

Racists will state, relative to academia, that it is because blacks are less intelligent whereas non racists will state it is all about opportunity that has been available to various peoples. It is only when we enter the realm of explanation does racism enter or leave the picture. This is not mentioned in this statement.

In today's world where certain subjects are more volatile it is better to not say the above as it opens up the question as to why the person is evening stating such and many will automatically decide that the person is racist of which will be correct in many cases but not in all cases.

Is David racist? I have heard several others state he is even way back when so, if they are correct there must have been other comments that in their totality suggest that he is.

However, the statement above without other dialogue to compare to does not constitute racism IMHO.