Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

Nobel prize winner says that all races are not equal.

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what to think. This man is a scientist with a Nobel Prize. He helped discover DNA. I am making the leap that he is a qualified expert on genetics and makes his assertions based on the preponderance of evidence and the scientific method. Perhaps that makes me a racist. I would hope it does not.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
don't know what to think. This man is a scientist with a Nobel Prize. He helped discover DNA. I am making the leap that he is a qualified expert on genetics and makes his assertions based on the preponderance of evidence and the scientific method. Perhaps that makes me a racist. I would hope it does not.

[/ QUOTE ]I thought it was interesting and the underlying principle that there can be difference among groups seems sound. However, he made the comment, "He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true" seems to be born out of pure racism.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

Many of the comments made by this guy prove that he is merely a bigot, and his "assertions" have nothing to do with scientific evidence.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the comments made by this guy prove that he is merely a bigot, and his "assertions" have nothing to do with scientific evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to concede some of his statements in the article, particularly the one about anyone having to work with black people are bigotted. I am more interested in the studies he mentions.

There was the book, "The Bell Curve" that was mentioned in the article. Apparently, there is some evidence to support his assertions in that.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many of the comments made by this guy prove that he is merely a bigot, and his "assertions" have nothing to do with scientific evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to concede some of his statements in the article, particularly the one about anyone having to work with black people are bigotted. I am more interested in the studies he mentions.

There was the book, "The Bell Curve" that was mentioned in the article. Apparently, there is some evidence to support his assertions in that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof. The fact that blacks score lower than whites on IQ tests does not go anywhere near far enough.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many of the comments made by this guy prove that he is merely a bigot, and his "assertions" have nothing to do with scientific evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to concede some of his statements in the article, particularly the one about anyone having to work with black people are bigotted. I am more interested in the studies he mentions.

There was the book, "The Bell Curve" that was mentioned in the article. Apparently, there is some evidence to support his assertions in that.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is certainly some evidence that different groups of people have slightly different types of intelligence and capacities. Its a little sad that this has to be met with such hysteria, but thats the way it is I guess. It is important to mention that the methods for testing intelligence and the ways we categorize different intelligences are so atrocious that it drowns out the actual data in noise, IMO. And that doesn't even begin to get into the CONCLUSIONS we draw from that. There is still far more variability WITHIN groups than BETWEEN groups, a concept which people seem to have a very hard time grasping. The average white guy is more like the average black guy than I am like the average white guy (phrased a little weird, hopefully that is clear).

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]


There was the book, "The Bell Curve" that was mentioned in the article. Apparently, there is some evidence to support his assertions in that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. IQ tests are perfect at measuring "intelligence".

[ QUOTE ]

Similarly, in "Science" in the service of Racism C. Loring Brace writes that The Bell Curve makes six basic assumptions at the beginning of the book:

1. Human Cognitive ability is a single general entity, depictable as a single number.
2. Cognitive ability has a heritability of between 40 and 80 percent and is therefore primarily genetically based.
3. IQ is essentially immutable, fixed over the course of a life span.
4. IQ tests measure how "smart" or "intelligent" people are and are capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
5. IQ tests can measure this accurately.
6. IQ tests are not biased with regard to race ethnic group or socioeconomic status.

Brace proceeds to argue that there are faults in every one of these assumptions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence is also primarily molecule-based too. I always think its funny when people misuse arguments like that about the "biological nature" or the "genetic nature" of certain traits.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

What you said.

I agree that the studies of intelligence are woefully crude and lacking. I tend to fall in the camp of the theory of multiple intelligences and think that the IQ test is about as useful as horse dung. But, that's because I have a high enough IQ to recognize that. Still there is also the question of nature and nurture and culture. All of which are too convoluted to contemplate, at the moment.

I am compelled by the idea that there are certain genetic dispositions based on ancestry. Although, the degree to which these theoretical dispositions are muted by environment is a very convoluted question.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

This guy also knows more about the effects of someone's genetics on their life than you do. Do you see why?

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there an accurate way of measuring intelligence? No
Have scientists proved the existence of genes responsible for intelligence? No
Do I see why? No

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat?

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

The very fact that intelligence (whatever that is) exists demonstrates that it *must* have a genetic basis, or else it could not have evolved.

That does not make it a monolithic or easily measurable, or even definable, thing. But it is a true statement.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
This guy also knows more about the effects of someone's genetics on their life than you do. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is a racist, sexist, homophobic, old windbag. You somehow look up to him. Nice.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there an accurate way of measuring intelligence? No
Have scientists proved the existence of genes responsible for intelligence? No
Do I see why? No

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly did intelligence evolve if there are no genes governing it?

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The very fact that intelligence (whatever that is) exists demonstrates that it *must* have a genetic basis, or else it could not have evolved.

That does not make it a monolithic or easily measurable, or even definable, thing. But it is a true statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No arguement from me. But, a human being is greater than the sum of his parts, however you choose to quantify those parts. I doubt science will ever be adequate enough to quantify that.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
What you said.

I agree that the studies of intelligence are woefully crude and lacking. I tend to fall in the camp of the theory of multiple intelligences and think that the IQ test is about as useful as horse dung. But, that's because I have a high enough IQ to recognize that. Still there is also the question of nature and nurture and culture. All of which are too convoluted to contemplate, at the moment.

I am compelled by the idea that there are certain genetic dispositions based on ancestry. Although, the degree to which these theoretical dispositions are muted by environment is a very convoluted question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. If cornered I would basically say that there are very likely some differences in intelligence between white people and black people, white people and asian people, men and women, and so on, but that these differences have almost zero practical application. I would also be willing to lay large odds that anyone who is using those differences to make some kind of grand point is doing it wrong, even though it should be theoretically possible to do it right.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there an accurate way of measuring intelligence? No
Have scientists proved the existence of genes responsible for intelligence? No
Do I see why? No

[/ QUOTE ]

What else could possibly cause it? Even environmental causes have to work on SOMETHING, right?

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very fact that intelligence (whatever that is) exists demonstrates that it *must* have a genetic basis, or else it could not have evolved.

That does not make it a monolithic or easily measurable, or even definable, thing. But it is a true statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No arguement from me. But, a human being is greater than the sum of his parts, however you choose to quantify those parts. I doubt science will ever be adequate enough to quantify that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one ever made a living betting AGAINST scientific discovery, but since I don't plan on locking up any significant sum of money for the next 50 or 60 years I'll let you slide on this one. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This guy also knows more about the effects of someone's genetics on their life than you do. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is a racist, sexist, homophobic, old windbag. You somehow look up to him. Nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borodog is not a racist, sexist, homophobe or old windbag. I don't look up to him, just like him. Stop calling other posters names.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there an accurate way of measuring intelligence? No
Have scientists proved the existence of genes responsible for intelligence? No
Do I see why? No

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly did intelligence evolve if there are no genes governing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that genes play some role in determining a persons intelligence. I do however doubt that intelligence is the only or even primary factor (ESPECIALLY considering why two asked, answered questions from me, that you quoted above).

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there an accurate way of measuring intelligence? No
Have scientists proved the existence of genes responsible for intelligence? No
Do I see why? No

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly did intelligence evolve if there are no genes governing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that genes play some role in determining a persons intelligence. I do however doubt that intelligence is the only or even primary factor (ESPECIALLY considering why two asked, answered questions from me, that you quoted above).

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I have the English translation of this?

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This guy also knows more about the effects of someone's genetics on their life than you do. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is a racist, sexist, homophobic, old windbag. You somehow look up to him. Nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borodog is not a racist, sexist, homophobe or old windbag. I don't look up to him, just like him. Stop calling other posters names.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was assuming you were referring to James Watson. "This guy" is somewhat vague.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so much better than the way I put it.

I do try have conversations with my cat though. He just hasn't found anything I've said interesting enough to respond to yet. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This guy also knows more about the effects of someone's genetics on their life than you do. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is a racist, sexist, homophobic, old windbag. You somehow look up to him. Nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borodog is not a racist, sexist, homophobe or old windbag. I don't look up to him, just like him. Stop calling other posters names.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was assuming you were referring to James Watson. "This guy" is somewhat vague.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if he was talking about Boro, then let me point out that Boro is a PHYSICIST so he doesn't know crap about genetics. A ball flying through the air or some planetary orbit crap, sure. But REAL science like biology and genetics? Ha! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

^ Correct ^

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove?

Also, I never said intelligence was not genetically based. Re-read my original statement.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This guy also knows more about the effects of someone's genetics on their life than you do. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is a racist, sexist, homophobic, old windbag. You somehow look up to him. Nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borodog is not a racist, sexist, homophobe or old windbag. I don't look up to him, just like him. Stop calling other posters names.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
racist, sexist, homophobic, old windbag

[/ QUOTE ]

Attention Mods. I would kill for this as an Undertitle.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove?

Also, I never said intelligence was not genetically based. Re-read my original statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason people are arguing with you is because you said that Watson talks about intelligence having a genetic basis without ever proving it. The point we are trying to make to you is that it is so self-evidently true that intelligence has some genetic basis that there is no reason for Watson to waste time proving it. If his whole argument depended on intelligence being 100% inheritable then yes, that would have been a grave oversight. But thats not what happened.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yep. If cornered I would basically say that there are very likely some differences in intelligence between white people and black people, white people and asian people, men and women, and so on, but that these differences have almost zero practical application. I would also be willing to lay large odds that anyone who is using those differences to make some kind of grand point is doing it wrong, even though it should be theoretically possible to do it right.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the practical applications part. Have you ever heard of MBTI? The disclaimer says that it is not to be used as a basis for job qualification (as doing so would be unethical), but that is precisely where it is the most useful and organizations that hire by type tend to be more successful (But they don't tell anybody that's what they do).

Even if someone did make the grand point in the right way, what practical use could it be? As the concept of the law stands, it is illegal to apply almost any measure to an individual to qualify them in any way (equal protection clause). The sad truth is that the knowledge would be ridiculed, the scientist blacklisted and cast out of history, and ignored by any kind of decision making process leading to public policy. So goes the pathetic commentary of human societies.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove?

Also, I never said intelligence was not genetically based. Re-read my original statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason people are arguing with you is because you said that Watson talks about intelligence having a genetic basis without ever proving it. The point we are trying to make to you is that it is so self-evidently true that intelligence has some genetic basis that there is no reason for Watson to waste time proving it. If his whole argument depended on intelligence being 100% inheritable then yes, that would have been a grave oversight. But thats not what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ughh. Google "Glenwood State School", "Milwaukee Project", "Joseph Graves" etc etc etc etc etc.

You people defending Watson, you seem to be treading the path to Eugenics/Dysgenics. That "science" has been garbage for 70+ years.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You people defending Watson . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

I always love people who argue heatedly about the wrong thing.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep. If cornered I would basically say that there are very likely some differences in intelligence between white people and black people, white people and asian people, men and women, and so on, but that these differences have almost zero practical application. I would also be willing to lay large odds that anyone who is using those differences to make some kind of grand point is doing it wrong, even though it should be theoretically possible to do it right.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the practical applications part. Have you ever heard of MBTI? The disclaimer says that it is not to be used as a basis for job qualification (as doing so would be unethical), but that is precisely where it is the most useful and organizations that hire by type tend to be more successful (But they don't tell anybody that's what they do).

Even if someone did make the grand point in the right way, what practical use could it be? As the concept of the law stands, it is illegal to apply almost any measure to an individual to qualify them in any way (equal protection clause). The sad truth is that the knowledge would be ridiculed, the scientist blacklisted and cast out of history, and ignored by any kind of decision making process leading to public policy. So goes the pathetic commentary of human societies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here is my view on racism in general, and hopefully I can explain why this applies to the specific example of variable intelligences. I understand the reasoning that racism sucks because it is so unfair to the person being discriminated against. But that is not why I am against racism. I am against racism because it is SUCH A TERRIBLE STRATEGY. In the very few instances where it is NOT a terrible strategy (and I can't really think of any good ones off the top of my head) I think we could make an argument that it is a necessary evil. But the VAST majority of instances, its just a terrible strategy. Its not totally incorrect to use race as part of your judgment, its just that it has such a microscopic impact that it is almost impossible to weight it appropriately. Some people use the thought experiment of choosing a basketball team to play a game for a million dollars (or your life or whatever) to demonstrate the foolishness of PC gone amok. The experiment goes, imagine you are going to pick a team, and you have ten players to choose from, 5 white, 5 black, and this is ALL you know about them or are able to find out. Who do you pick? The smarmy PC people make a bunch of lame arguments to explain why they would flip a coin or some other nonsense, the guy who doesnt care if he is a racist says "Black guys LDO" but the real point of this is to show exactly how stupid racism is. Racism is EXACTLY "putting yourself in this situation on purpose when you don't need to." The racist INTENTIONALLY limits himself to this information and this information only and then puts way too much weight on it. The intelligent person runs a tryout. So, in situations where ALL you have is race, its optimal to judge based on race. But this is pretty much NEVER the case. You can always ask them a question or find out some more information...and that information, WHATEVER it is, is practically guaranteed to blow race out of the water from a predictive standpoint.

So how does all that apply to this thread? Well, the point is that even if race DOES have an impact on intelligence, it still is very likely nearly the WORST POSSIBLE tool you could use. If its the only thing you have, fine, its better than a coin, but it ain't much better. And human beings are very flawed when it comes to the extremes of confidence in their estimates. People always overestimate small numbers and underestimate big numbers, so it is a recipe for disaster to try to use race to make decisions about someones intelligence. Is it optimal to ignore race completely? Probably not if you really think you can do it accurately. But since you probably can't, and because you are losing so little by ignoring it completely, its not far from optimal. And its probably recommended.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove?

Also, I never said intelligence was not genetically based. Re-read my original statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason people are arguing with you is because you said that Watson talks about intelligence having a genetic basis without ever proving it. The point we are trying to make to you is that it is so self-evidently true that intelligence has some genetic basis that there is no reason for Watson to waste time proving it. If his whole argument depended on intelligence being 100% inheritable then yes, that would have been a grave oversight. But thats not what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ughh. Google "Glenwood State School", "Milwaukee Project", "Joseph Graves" etc etc etc etc etc.

You people defending Watson, you seem to be treading the path to Eugenics/Dysgenics. That "science" has been garbage for 70+ years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm honestly not sure if you posted this in the wrong thread.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

vhawk01,

You are once again The Man.

And not in a keeping-the-black-olives-in-a-can sort of way.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

My view on racism is that it is universal. There is a racist to be found in every ethnicity.

Indeed, it is a very bad strategy. That is why it has been abandoned, at least by the more successful societies.

You did an awesome job of making your point. I could sum it up by asserting the premise that more choices are better than fewer choices and selecting any strategy which artifically limites your choices is unwise.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
My view on racism is that it is universal. There is a racist to be found in every ethnicity.

Indeed, it is a very bad strategy. That is why it has been abandoned, at least by the more successful societies.

You did an awesome job of making your point. I could sum it up by asserting the premise that more choices are better than fewer choices and selecting any strategy which artifically limites your choices is unwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I like to ramble on a lot because I feel more words makes me look smarter. Your way is better.

btw not that I have a perfect memory or anything but my vague impression of exsubmariner posts are that every single one of them makes me want to pound my head into a wall, but for some reason we pretty much agree on this topic and you seem to be a pretty reasonable guy. Is this a recent change or am I remembering you wrong?

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have a conversation with a Zulu tribesman either. What does this prove?

[/ QUOTE ]

That there are no Zulu tribesmen in Georgia? I could certainly have a conversation with one if one were here. Might have to resort to hand signals or something if we don't have a common language, but it's doable.

Re: Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My view on racism is that it is universal. There is a racist to be found in every ethnicity.

Indeed, it is a very bad strategy. That is why it has been abandoned, at least by the more successful societies.

You did an awesome job of making your point. I could sum it up by asserting the premise that more choices are better than fewer choices and selecting any strategy which artifically limites your choices is unwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I like to ramble on a lot because I feel more words makes me look smarter. Your way is better.

btw not that I have a perfect memory or anything but my vague impression of exsubmariner posts are that every single one of them makes me want to pound my head into a wall, but for some reason we pretty much agree on this topic and you seem to be a pretty reasonable guy. Is this a recent change or am I remembering you wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the complements. I have undergone a lot of changes of late. One of those changes is that I no longer think its funny to make posts with the goal of making someone pound their head on a wall. The internet is full of those kinds and what good is it to be part of the landscape. It's a shame, I was pretty good at it and occassionally still give it a whirl. Mostly, I owe the changes to my dogged pursuit of mastering the English language and my newly acquired intimacy with the mental traps people fall into. Graduate level critical thinking courses are truly awesome. Many of my paradigms have undergone a quantum shift. As I said, more choices is always better. I would like to think that I have always been a reasonable guy, but I may not have always given that impression.