|
"Cliff" wrote in message
... On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 21:01:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Thanks, that explains a lot. You ain't seen nothin' yet. What do you expect next, Ed? Or at least see hints of? My crystal ball is in the shop for repairs. Its fuel mileage has been going to hell and it won't start on cold mornings. If it ever gets running again, I want to see how we're going to get out of this deficit. Either the economic policy of the US is being run by geniuses who know more about economics than all of the economists around the world put together, or they're unmitigated idiots. Unmitigated Idiots has taken the lead at four furlongs, and it looks to me like a good time to find a hedge-fund consultant. -- Ed Huntress |
|
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:18:10 -0500, Bob Brock
wrote: On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:16:45 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: The thread seems to be titled "OT - "Cites" for Gunner". But you didn't reply to *that* thread. OK....who changed the "subject" line back to "OT - Cites for Gunner" then? Don't let little things like reality creep in on you ral... LOL .. -- Cliff |
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:48:35 -0500, Cliff wrote:
50,999,897 50,456,002 I already know well which half you are in. And that you know nothing of the subject or the function Y=e((-X)**2). Function? Doesn't take any function to understand that "half the populatinon has an IQ below 100" is only possibly true if there are none that are 100....and since the national average *is* 100 and Mr. Bell called you an idiot, too..... Can you count to 100? Do you know what decimals are? IQ's aren't registered in decimals, idiot. So you don't know what decimals are ...... interesting. For your statement to be true, that half the pop has an IQ of less than 100, there can be NONE that are 100 even. Your statement is bull**** and proven so. You seem to be in the lower half. Check it out: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ion-IQ2004.htm HTH -- Cliff |
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:48:38 -0500, Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:24:05 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: See "Statistics for alt.machines.cnc, 20 Dec 2004" [ - All text after the last cut line (/^-- $/) in the body is considered to be the author's signature. So? Besides more useless bull****, what's your point? ral ..... ..... ] -- Cliff You look like an idiot whining winger G. I'm not sure that he is a winger. It's just that gummer is his idol. The idiot part.....well facts are facts afterall. |
Bob Brock wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:16:45 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: The thread seems to be titled "OT - "Cites" for Gunner". Bu tyou didn't reply to *that* thread. OK....who changed the "subject" line back to "OT - Cites for Gunner" then? Don't let little things like reality creep in on you ral... If the thread were still "cites for gunner", bobbie, then what the hell did you just reply to? Jeeezus christ what an idiot! ral |
Cliff wrote:
In the Florida recounts that are/were the topic, idiot. Then why did you say "more people wanted Bush in power than gore"? Because in Florida, the thread you replied to, you lot of whining babies lost all six recounts. To "lose a recount", you tend to have less votes than the winner, idiot. Then why are you claiming that "more people wanted Bush in power than gore" if it's meaningless? You seemed so very proud. In the Florida recounts that you've questioned, you have yet to disprove that your lot lost six recounts. Proud to be a republican? We ain't the ones whining and crying. ROFLMAO!!!!! Your next whine? ral |
Cliff wrote:
Check it out: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ion-IQ2004.htm ROFLMAO!!!!! You lot of whiners are still passing around that load of long-debunked bull****? And you question *my* IQ? That bull**** chart was created as a joke after the 2000 election and passed around....and you lot of idiots think changing the names will keep someone from noticing? Try this one on for size, idiot.... http://www.zombietime.com/iq_of_2004_voters_by_state/ ral HTH -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
So they were not finished. Yes, they were. As it ended up, many more should have been recounted as well. Why? Six recounts proved that not a one of the original counts was statistically wrong. A hundred more of the same wouldn't prove anything that the original count didn't. BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 and you need to learn how to post. This is, after all, Usenet. Suck the burrito **** from my asshole, idiot. ral -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
You look like an idiot whining winger G. And yet it's *you* who's been whining over Florida for four years, idiot? ROFLMAO!!!!! ral -- Cliff |
Bob Brock wrote:
I'm not sure that he is a winger. It's just that gummer is his idol. The idiot part.....well facts are facts afterall. Go back to whacking off your poodle, bobbie. ROFLMAO!!!!! ral |
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:01:19 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: Check it out: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ion-IQ2004.htm ROFLMAO!!!!! You lot of whiners are still passing around that load of long-debunked bull****? And you question *my* IQ? That bull**** chart was created as a joke after the 2000 election and passed around....and you lot of idiots think changing the names will keep someone from noticing? Try this one on for size, idiot.... http://www.zombietime.com/iq_of_2004_voters_by_state/ ral HTH -- Cliff Wow... White is bright!! Is Michael and Clif from Alabama and Georgia?? IQ averages in US States – best estimate available from actual SAT and ACT scores below adjusted for the fact that the IQ’s of these test takers are about 10 points above average 104 IQ New Hampshire 103 IQ Massachusetts, Oregon, Wisconsin 102 IQ Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Vermont, Washington 101 IQ Alaska, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Utah, Wyoming 100 IQ Arizona, California, Idaho, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia 99 IQ Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana 98 IQ Arkansas, Florida 97 IQ Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas 96 IQ New Mexico 95 IQ District of Columbia 94 IQ Mississippi, South Carolina |
"Mike Left Santa Cruz" wrote in message
... On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:01:19 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: Check it out: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ion-IQ2004.htm ROFLMAO!!!!! You lot of whiners are still passing around that load of long-debunked bull****? And you question *my* IQ? That bull**** chart was created as a joke after the 2000 election and passed around....and you lot of idiots think changing the names will keep someone from noticing? Try this one on for size, idiot.... http://www.zombietime.com/iq_of_2004_voters_by_state/ ral HTH -- Cliff Wow... White is bright!! Is Michael and Clif from Alabama and Georgia?? IQ averages in US States - best estimate available from actual SAT and ACT scores below adjusted for the fact that the IQ's of these test takers are about 10 points above average 104 IQ New Hampshire 103 IQ Massachusetts, Oregon, Wisconsin 102 IQ Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Vermont, Washington 101 IQ Alaska, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Utah, Wyoming 100 IQ Arizona, California, Idaho, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia 99 IQ Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana 98 IQ Arkansas, Florida 97 IQ Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas 96 IQ New Mexico 95 IQ District of Columbia 94 IQ Mississippi, South Carolina Sorry, Mike, but these are some of the most useless statistics of all. Some of the trend these numbers show is correct, but another part of it is all wet. For example, go to the SAT resources and take a look at the percentages of kids who even TAKE the SATs in those states. NJ, for example, is near the top in the percentage of test-takers. Mississippi and South Carolina are near the bottom. So, the SAT scores grossly UNDERestimate actual state-wide averages, for all students, in NJ and other states with a high percentage of test-takers, while Mississippi's and S. Carolina's, believe it or not, 'way OVERestimate theirs. g If anyone doesn't follow this, BTW, there's a good chance he's from a state with a low percentage of SAT test-takers. d8-) Ed Huntress |
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:48:52 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
Sorry, Mike, but these are some of the most useless statistics of all. Some of the trend these numbers show is correct, but another part of it is all wet. For example, go to the SAT resources and take a look at the percentages of kids who even TAKE the SATs in those states. Yep. In some states, the ACT is taken by nearly everyone, and the SAT only if a particular college requires it. In others, it's the other way round. Comparing the average SAT scores of a state in which 80% of the high school students take the test with the average SAT scores of a state in which only 10% take the test doesn't tell you much. -- Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of government should enslave the less number that would be free? More just it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number compel a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their liberty, than that a greater number, for the pleasure of their baseness, compel a less most injuriously to be their fellow slaves. They who seek nothing but their own just liberty, have always the right to win it, whenever they have the power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it. - John Milton |
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:01:19 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: Check it out: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...ion-IQ2004.htm ROFLMAO!!!!! You lot of whiners are still passing around that load of long-debunked bull****? And you question *my* IQ? That bull**** chart was created as a joke after the 2000 election and passed around....and you lot of idiots think changing the names will keep someone from noticing? Try this one on for size, idiot.... http://www.zombietime.com/iq_of_2004_voters_by_state/ Rather amusing bit of blog from someone that calls it racial and also says "I would like to repeat here that I personally do not ascribe to the validity of IQ tests, nor of standardized tests in general." Did you spot his major error(s) & logical flaws? IF so, please enumerate them. Did you miss any? -- Cliff |
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:48:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: If anyone doesn't follow this, BTW, there's a good chance he's from a state with a low percentage of SAT test-takers. d8-) Richard Lewis? -- Cliff |
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:06:56 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 and you need to learn how to post. This is, after all, Usenet. Suck the burrito **** from my asshole, idiot. ral -- Cliff BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 and you need to learn how to post. This is, after all, Usenet. HTH -- Cliff |
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 04:45:42 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Bob Brock wrote: On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:16:45 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: The thread seems to be titled "OT - "Cites" for Gunner". Bu tyou didn't reply to *that* thread. OK....who changed the "subject" line back to "OT - Cites for Gunner" then? Don't let little things like reality creep in on you ral... If the thread were still "cites for gunner", bobbie, then what the hell did you just reply to? Some of your silly claims G. Jeeezus christ what an idiot! BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 Need help with the math? HTH -- Cliff |
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:08:26 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: You look like an idiot whining winger G. And yet it's *you* who's been whining over Florida for four years, idiot? ROFLMAO!!!!! Have you been at it that long? ral -- Cliff BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 And you need to learn how to post. You look like a winger. -- Cliff |
|
Cliff wrote:
Some of your silly claims G. Then it wasn't "cites for gunner", idiot. Jeeezus christ what an idiot! BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 Need help with the math? Six recounts lost.....need help with the whining? ral HTH -- Cliff |
|
Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:48:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: If anyone doesn't follow this, BTW, there's a good chance he's from a state with a low percentage of SAT test-takers. d8-) Richard Lewis? Sorry, dude. You floated that air biscuit the same way you declared that six recounts doesn't prove anything. Is it three or four times now you've been proven to be an idiot? What's your next bull**** claim? ral -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
Rather amusing bit of blog Yeah, and it totally proves you to be an idiot yet again. Did you spot his major error(s) & logical flaws? You mean the parts where he declared you to be an idiot? ROFLMAO!!!!! ral IF so, please enumerate them. Did you miss any? -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 .... And your point is? The best part is that *you're* the one whining over losing. ROFLMAO!!!! ral -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:06:56 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 and you need to learn how to post. This is, after all, Usenet. Suck the burrito **** from my asshole, idiot. ral -- Cliff BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 and you need to learn how to post. This is, after all, Usenet. Six recounts....and even more seats this time around. Cry some more for us, idiot. ral HTH -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
Sounds just like a winger with Monica envy, first thing that comes to mind is to abuse the dogs, You obviously don't know bobbie. ROFLMAO!!!!! Cry some more, idiot. ral Try Gummer's latest method. Maglites(s) IIRC ... HTH -- Cliff |
Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:08:26 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: You look like an idiot whining winger G. And yet it's *you* who's been whining over Florida for four years, idiot? ROFLMAO!!!!! Have you been at it that long? Been at what? Crying over losing Florida? My candidate won Florida in 2000 and 2004. Cry some more, idiot. ral ral -- Cliff BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 And you need to learn how to post. You look like a winger. -- Cliff |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:18:58 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 .... And your point is? The best part is that *you're* the one whining over losing. 50,999,897 - 50,456,002 = 543,895 ROFLMAO!!!! ral -- Cliff Wingers are *very slow* learners, when it's possible at all G. -- Cliff |
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:20:04 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:06:56 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 and you need to learn how to post. This is, after all, Usenet. Suck the burrito **** from my asshole, idiot. ral -- Cliff BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 and you need to learn how to post. This is, after all, Usenet. Six recounts.... 50,999,897 - 50,456,002 = 543,895 and even more seats this time around. What did you sit in? Next time, look before you squat. Cry some more for us, idiot. Will Gummer share his outhouse with you? Basement apartment? Can you use the TV antenna? ral HTH -- Cliff Learn to post. -- Cliff |
|
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:21:49 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:08:26 GMT, (Richard Lewis) wrote: Cliff wrote: You look like an idiot whining winger G. And yet it's *you* who's been whining over Florida for four years, idiot? ROFLMAO!!!!! Have you been at it that long? Been at what? Crying over losing Florida? My candidate won Florida in 2000 and 2004. 50,999,897 - 50,456,002 = 543,895 Or, to put it another way: 50,456,002 - 50,999,897 = -543,895 Cry some more, idiot. ral ral -- Cliff BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 And you need to learn how to post. You look like a winger. -- Cliff And you need to learn how to post. You look like a winger. HTH -- Cliff |
"Richard Lewis" wrote in message link.net... Cliff wrote: BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 .... And your point is? The best part is that *you're* the one whining over losing. ROFLMAO!!!! ral You may be too dense to realize it but you've lost too. |
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:45:46 -0500, "Kathy"
wrote: "Richard Lewis" wrote in message hlink.net... Cliff wrote: BTW, 50,999,897 50,456,002 .... And your point is? The best part is that *you're* the one whining over losing. ROFLMAO!!!! ral You may be too dense to realize it but you've lost too. How so, Cupcake? Gunner "Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where." Scipio |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter