Hawke wrote:


Just because you don't think some of those are correct, and you base
that only on what you know from this newsgroup, that doesn't mean it's
not true. If I've had my IQ tested and it shows above average, if by
having a college degree that means I am better educated than 70% of
Americans,
Did you suddenly become "more educated" the day you got your degree,
than the day before?
~52% of the US population (as of 2000) had some college.
and BTW, going to college, is NOT the only way to get an education,
and a "history buff" ought to know that.

if I am more knowledgeable than most,
At least you are aware that there is a difference between education
and knowledge. But you sure don't show it here.
and do things better
than most,
Un provable, and unlikely.

then all of what I said are true. But all I said is that I'm
better than average.
And much other puffery.
I never said I was great at anything. More than
anything else I'm well rounded.
And as for people "finding out right away", just because they don't
SAY it like we do here, does not mean they are not thinking "what an
Ignorant, overbearing, conceited jerk".

They don't think that for one really good reason.
They haven't met you, would be the ONE reason I can see.

Yeah, but that's you. Anyone else would first conclude that they don't
think I'm an ignorant, overbearing, conceited jerk. I meet all kinds of
people and that is not the impression they get.

You don't know that for a fact. How many of the people you meet, to
you meet again or see regularly?

Whether it's sports,
or politics, or history, or anything else, they find out right away that
most of the time I know more than they do about what it is we are
discussing.
You have already shown me, that your grasp of history that is more
than a couple of hundred years old is rather weak.
Weaker than yours? When did you display a superior grasp of history?
In our "discussions" on the economic status of what you like to call
the "poor" and in discussion of early medieval guilds and their
relationship to the availability to labor (both trained and
untrained).
Not only did I take history in college I'm a history buff as well. So your
impression is mistaken.
I doubt it.

Here's an example. Say I'm at my health club like I am five days a week
and I'm talking to someone about something related to health. I've been
going to health clubs since I was a teenager. I've seen every machine,
and done every exercise you can imagine. I'm an old and experienced hand
at it.
So whatever the subject is I know a whole lot about it.


So tell us again what Physical Chess is about, and what sport does it
discuss?

Never heard of it and have no idea what sport it is related to. Is that
something most sports enthusiasts would know about?
Doesn't really matter to some one who could TRUTHFULLY boast
"So whatever the subject is I know a whole lot about it."

blah blah on guns clipped

Why? Doesn't that count as an area that I'm extremely well versed in?
There is no way of telling, all you did was to provide information
that you fire from 20 to 200 rounds a week.



Really?????
WHO here has asked you ANY thing when they don't know something. I
have been here longer than you claim to have been, and I don't recall
seeing it.

Nobody here asks anyone when they don't know something.
Your statement "A few people here don't, but they are the exceptions."
sure implies that all but those few exceptions do ask you for
information.

With the computer you can answer any question, as we all know. Just like
I did to find out that physical chess is just another name for fencing.
Which leads me to ask a question, when did fencing become "physical
chess"?

If you had asked me if I knew anything about fencing I would
have told you that I do. I'm no expert but I know more about it than
most people.
And yet you didn't know it was frequently called Physical Chess?
(of course it isn't the only sport to be called that)
For example most people you ask would not even know what an
epee is. I do.
Again, big whoop, probably looked it up.
Just about everyone I hang out with would know. Probably less than
half of those I work with would.

Or are you saying that in a group every one
in the group thinks they are above average? Maybe they are.
Mathematically impossible, showing again that you think 100% of a
group CAN be above it's average. That "I know more than they do about
what it is we are discussing" is really showing through here!

You're simply wrong here. You know why? Because I don't think 100% of a
group can be above its average. I don't know where you got that idea.

Your statement "Maybe they are" would be why.

Think back to a discussion where you think 100% of people should be
paid an above average wage. Again mathematically impossible.

But realistically very possible.
Not! mathematically impossible means just that.


What I meant was I pay every one I hire
above average pay.
Wasn't even in a discussion of what you pay YOUR serfs.
jk