Crossfire/Magnum/300C

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally posted by Chicane
Which group of people would you deem 'generally more intelligent':

1. WWF audience
2. Audience at a symphony

You KNOW the answer, but you will not admit it.

- Rob

Rob, I haven't been paying much attention to this thread, but I see that you are once again frustrated to find people can't see your point.

The above message illustrates the entire problem, as I see it. You defend opinions with more opinions, rather than fact. And you arrive at those opinions based on anecdotal 'evidence,' rather than more broad information. Example - you think WWF fans are less intelligent than fans of the symphony (and you have the gall to call other people ignorant). What you don't realize is that not everybody has come to that same conclusion. All your arguments, since they're based on your opinion, assume that everybody else agrees with those opinions.

Here's the shocker, Rob, so get ready for it: not everybody does.

You know what? I know lots of WWF fans. I work with dozens of them, as a matter of fact. I'll make sure to tell them all tomorrow morning, first thing, that they're stupid. My guess is that they'll shrug me off, put their headphones back on and listen to their Mozart or Linkin Park or Britney Spears.

My recommendation is that, if you hope to not be so frustrated in the future, you defend your arguments with facts we can all examine and discuss and not opinions that we don't agree with.

[Noir]

Originally posted by b3lha


I absolutely don't understand your analogy with ferrari and camaro owners. It occurs to me that the people will own whatever car suits their personal preference and budget. I would not presume either group is more intelligent. It is also possible that members of one group might aspire to be members of the other and this would have no effect whatsoever on their intelligence.

Phil.

Amen Phil. That's what we've been trying to get Rob to see all this time. No group is more or less intelligent. But as you can see he has developed his own set of standards (which he has a right to do) but whether his standards for judging intelligence is true or not has yet to be proven.

Apparently in Rob's world all of the following can be used to judge intelligence:

High income
models would be the more intelligent people on the face of the earth. the amount of money that receive per time exchanged for labor. Drug dealers would be pretty high on the list too.

College degree
if one finishes college and gets a degree (even one in art as apparently alot of mac users are into). nevermind the high schools, teachers, and parents that constantly tell their kids that the only way to hold a good job is to get a college degree. nevermind all the people that graduate and work a low paying jobs. i guess bill gates just couldn't cut it.

Ferrari ownership
Guess they aren't just a status symbol. They are a tool in which someone can measure you. On average, Ferrari owners are more intelligent than most all other auto owners because they own a ferrari and you don't. They may even have a Mac and you don't which further illustrates my point.....


Did I forget to mention entertainment preferences?
I never knew that I could be judged from what I find to be entertaining. I may have read once that Einstein enjoyed wrestling.

[SubaSteevo]

college and earnings don't equal intelligence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"No, but they are SIGNS of intelligence. This is why companies prefer to hire people with college degrees- they're generally more intelligent, and harder working."

If they are SIGNS of intelligence then someone who has a high income and has attended college is on AVERAGE more LIKELY to be intelligent then someone who has attended college with a low income, has a high income but has not attended college, or has not attended college and has a low income. So therefore professional athletes (high income) that have attended college must be more LIKELY on AVERAGE to have high intelligence.

There is no backwards logic there except for your own. You do not take into account that maybe the people with the high income could have bought their way into college or that the people in college could have gotten D's across the board.

P.S. I am currently taking a psychology course covering logic. I have also taken an online IQ test at www.iqtest.com (although I doubt it's accuracy) and scored a 165. But since I'm a PC user I'm statistically (according to you atleast) more LIKELY to be unintelligent.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Chicane
No, but they are SIGNS of intelligence. This is why companies prefer to hire people with college degrees- they're generally more intelligent, and harder working.

Greetings Rob. Some parts of your statement here is true, some are false. Companies prefer to hire people with college degrees because:

1. Hopefully the applicant would have majored in a field of study that is beneficial to the company.

2. We hope that a college graduate is more dedicated to their job and work (although alot of times we had our hopes too high ). Yes I've hired many people before so I know.

The part where you are wrong in regards to companies hiring people with college degrees because they are more 'intelligent' is wrong. Ask any seasoned employer. They'll tell you that they would love to think that having a college degree would yield a more intelligent employee...but sadly that is not the case. They do however believe that since the person would stick out the 4+ years to get a degree, that they would be able to follow directions and provide the result that the employer wants. (i.e. doing assignments and answering test questions that both teachers and employers want to hear.)

Originally posted by Chicane
It must be great to think you are always right.

You say that about Alan, but have you looked in the mirror?

Originally posted by Chicane
How can you judge that they are morons? Did you test them with their abilities to gain knowledge? Did you look at their test scores? I'm sure Noir would just LOVE to hear how you can deem them as morons without a test. Oh wait, he won't, because he only disagrees with me, and not you, because you are both PC users. Again, flawed Logic. Noir, if you believe so blindly that the ONLY way to judge intelligence is through tests, I suggest you pick on Landshark to explain HOW he can call certain people morons WITHOUT tests.

Actually Rob, I would tell Alan that he couldn't judge everyone in his graduating class as being morons but I already know his response. He would say that he feels that did not show any evidence of intelligence during his interaction with them for his time in college. He has a point....earning a college degree does not mean that they are more intelligent than anyone else.

I believe however so blindly, that unless we can get the figures for intelligence levels and ranks, there's no way of judging the intelligence levels of people. When you are comparing two groups without concrete evidence, it's no different than telling fairytales. Evidence being something that's measured, not based on your own opinion.

Originally posted by Chicane

Income is the amount of money you MAKE in a set time period. I wasn't aware that Anna Nicole Smith had much of an income. Perhaps you know what she's up to these days that's generating her massive 'income'?

Very interesting. I read what you wrote then saw Steve's reply. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you asking him what Anna Nicole is doing to gain income when you asked this question: Perhaps you know what she's up to these days that's generating her massive 'income'? I mean I figured out the 'You are not aware of Anna Nicole Smith's method of gaining income.' statement.

After Steve's reply you posted the following:

Originally posted by Chicane
I stated that I don't know what income he's referring to, because I don't watch TV, nor do I care to keep up on what overweight ex-playboy bunnies do for a living.

I'm confused. One minute you are asking Steve about Anna in a previous post, then next, you are saying that you don't know or care and you never asked him for that information.

Later on you stated that:

Originally posted by Chicane
Wow. Great. If I ever care to know something about washed up playboy models, I'll contact you.

I thought you already did contact Steve about some of Anna's news. Make up your mind Rob .

Originally posted by Chicane
You do not make ANY sense, because your logic is completely and totally false. Let me explain it in a different way, that you might understand: Alright, let's make a statement first: All SVXs are automobiles. Agree? Now, you just completely flipped my statement around (saying that if you are rich, you must be intelligent, and you must own a mac), so let's flip the SVX statement around: All automobiles are SVXs. That is NOT true. You apparently have NEVER taken a logic class, because you cannot switch a statement around like that and expect it to be true.

So what happens if the original statement issued is false?

Originally posted by Chicane
I'd say that MORE SMART PEOPLE USE PCs THAN MACS.

On another note, I can't agree with this statement either. Use what I've said all this time to backup this claim .

Originally posted by Chicane
However, if you put every mac users in a room, they're average intelligence would probably be higher than the average intelligence of all PC users.

If it was possible to measure the intelligence of both groups (which we know is possible, but no one has done) and use the data to compare them to each other, this statement may be true ONLY if UNINTELLIGENT mac users DO NOT EXIST. Sorry to break it to you Rob, LOTS OF UNINTELLIGENT MAC USERS EXIST! Unfortunately, they would bring down your precious average and invalidate your initial claim.

Sorry...

[SubaSteevo]

Originally posted by Chicane
No, but they are SIGNS of intelligence. This is why companies prefer to hire people with college degrees- they're generally more intelligent, and harder working.

Originally posted by Noir
Greetings Rob. Some parts of your statement here is true, some are false. Companies prefer to hire people with college degrees because:

1. Hopefully the applicant would have majored in a field of study that is beneficial to the company.

2. We hope that a college graduate is more dedicated to their job and work (although alot of times we had our hopes too high ). Yes I've hired many people before so I know.

The part where you are wrong in regards to companies hiring people with college degrees because they are more 'intelligent' is wrong. Ask any seasoned employer. They'll tell you that they would love to think that having a college degree would yield a more intelligent employee...but sadly that is not the case. They do however believe that since the person would stick out the 4+ years to get a degree, that they would be able to follow directions and provide the result that the employer wants. (i.e. doing assignments and answering test questions that both teachers and employers want to hear.)

Originally posted by Chicane
It must be great to think you are always right.

Originally posted by Noir
You say that about Alan, but have you looked in the mirror?

Originally posted by Chicane
How can you judge that they are morons? Did you test them with their abilities to gain knowledge? Did you look at their test scores? I'm sure Noir would just LOVE to hear how you can deem them as morons without a test. Oh wait, he won't, because he only disagrees with me, and not you, because you are both PC users. Again, flawed Logic. Noir, if you believe so blindly that the ONLY way to judge intelligence is through tests, I suggest you pick on Landshark to explain HOW he can call certain people morons WITHOUT tests.

Originally posted by Noir
Actually Rob, I would tell Alan that he couldn't judge everyone in his graduating class as being morons but I already know his response. He would say that he feels that did not show any evidence of intelligence during his interaction with them for his time in college. He has a point....earning a college degree does not mean that they are more intelligent than anyone else.

I believe however so blindly, that unless we can get the figures for intelligence levels and ranks, there's no way of judging the intelligence levels of people. When you are comparing two groups without concrete evidence, it's no different than telling fairytales. Evidence being something that's measured, not based on your own opinion

Originally posted by Chicane
Income is the amount of money you MAKE in a set time period. I wasn't aware that Anna Nicole Smith had much of an income. Perhaps you know what she's up to these days that's generating her massive 'income'?

Originally posted by Noir
Very interesting. I read what you wrote then saw Steve's reply. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you asking him what Anna Nicole is doing to gain income when you asked this question: Perhaps you know what she's up to these days that's generating her massive 'income'? I mean I figured out the 'You are not aware of Anna Nicole Smith's method of gaining income.' statement.

After Steve's reply you posted the following:

Originally posted by Chicane
I stated that I don't know what income he's referring to, because I don't watch TV, nor do I care to keep up on what overweight ex-playboy bunnies do for a living.

Originally posted by Noir
I'm confused. One minute you are asking Steve about Anna in a previous post, then next, you are saying that you don't know or care and you never asked him for that information.

Later on you stated that:

Originally posted by Chicane
Wow. Great. If I ever care to know something about washed up playboy models, I'll contact you.

Originally posted by Noir
I thought you already did contact Steve about some of Anna's news. Make up your mind Rob

Originally posted by Chicane
You do not make ANY sense, because your logic is completely and totally false. Let me explain it in a different way, that you might understand: Alright, let's make a statement first: All SVXs are automobiles. Agree? Now, you just completely flipped my statement around (saying that if you are rich, you must be intelligent, and you must own a mac), so let's flip the SVX statement around: All automobiles are SVXs. That is NOT true. You apparently have NEVER taken a logic class, because you cannot switch a statement around like that and expect it to be true.

Originally posted by Noir
So what happens if the original statement issued is false?

Originally posted by Chicane
I'd say that MORE SMART PEOPLE USE PCs THAN MACS

Originally posted by Noir
On another note, I can't agree with this statement either. Use what I've said all this time to backup this claim

Originally posted by Chicane
However, if you put every mac users in a room, they're average intelligence would probably be higher than the average intelligence of all PC users.

Originally posted by Noir

If it was possible to measure the intelligence of both groups (which we know is possible, but no one has done) and use the data to compare them to each other, this statement may be true ONLY if UNINTELLIGENT mac users DO NOT EXIST. Sorry to break it to you Rob, LOTS OF UNINTELLIGENT MAC USERS EXIST! Unfortunately, they would bring down your precious average and invalidate your initial claim.

Sorry...

[SubaSteevo]

The people attending the WWF would be very upset at you Rob if they knew you were calling them stupid. I thought you were an environmentally friendly person, how could you call your own kind stupid?

[Shadow248]

Originally posted by Landshark
we todd did

When I was in college, I had a sign on my dorm room door that was white with black print and simply said in bold letters "U R WE TODD DID". Could not believe how many times I opened my door only to find some gorgeous blonde (sometimes brown-haired) girl standing there, twirling her hair, with that "like...i don't get it" expression on her face. Actually, it often times ended up being the start to a fun evening

[SubaSteevo]

Ever wear a burger king crown on your couch? If so you must be Sofa King We Todd Did

just playin

[Noir]

Originally posted by Shadow248


When I was in college, I had a sign on my dorm room door that was white with black print and simply said in bold letters "U R WE TODD DID". Could not believe how many times I opened my door only to find some gorgeous blonde (sometimes brown-haired) girl standing there, twirling her hair, with that "like...i don't get it" expression on her face. Actually, it often times ended up being the start to a fun evening

lmao. Doh, guess that lower intelligence is catching up to me. skimmed through Alan's post and thought nothing of it until you mentioned it here....that's damn funny.

woot we aww we todd did.

[Landshark]

Originally posted by Shadow248
When I was in college, I had a sign on my dorm room door that was white with black print and simply said in bold letters "U R WE TODD DID". Could not believe how many times I opened my door only to find some gorgeous blonde (sometimes brown-haired) girl standing there, twirling her hair, with that "like...i don't get it" expression on her face.

it was lost on Rob, too. he questioned my spelling ability.

a lack of intelligence?

[Chicane]

Originally posted by Mr. Pockets
You know what? I know lots of WWF fans. I work with dozens of them, as a matter of fact. I'll make sure to tell them all tomorrow morning, first thing, that they're stupid. My guess is that they'll shrug me off, put their headphones back on and listen to their Mozart or Linkin Park or Britney Spears.

That is NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying, on AVERAGE. If you were to take every WWF fan in your city, and average their intelligence, vs every computer game design (3d animation, level design, artists, etc) person's average intelligence, who do you think would be more intelligent?

DUH.

But whatever, I give up. There is NOTHING I can say that will make you guys understand the simple concept of averages, and the fact that someone here took a f*cking logic class, but still doesn't understand that "All SVXs are cars, but not all cars are SVXs" is just freaking pathetic.

I give up.

You guys win, because all of you PC users are so smart.

- Rob

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally posted by Chicane


That is NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying, on AVERAGE. If you were to take every WWF fan in your city, and average their intelligence, vs every computer game design (3d animation, level design, artists, etc) person's average intelligence, who do you think would be more intelligent?

DUH.

Well there's another problem. I wouldn't have predicted that WWF fans who are also game developers would have higher intelligence than normal WWF fans because I didn't know you made that distinction. I'll never be able to predict your opinion on everything, so I'll never be right.

Clearly I need a 'Book of Rob' to guide me along the way.

WWRD?

If I ever need a totally random, unmeasured guess at any random group's average intelligence versus another, I'll come to you, okay?

In the meantime, feel free to not volunteer such 'information' because it insult's everybody's intelligence.

Edit: You are so selective in your replies. You completely ignored the real point of my post. I think you need to seriously consider your definition of the word fact. A 'fact' is something testable - not just your prediction (that's well before 'conclusion' in the scientific process), but something that has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then feel free to argue with those facts until you are blue in the face. I'll be blue right along side you. But as long as you argue with oipinion backed up with bias backed up with wild assertions, I am going to challenge yo uall the way.

[Shadow248]

I've been inspired...I think i'm going to make my final project for my software class a "Rob" program. This will be a program that argues with whatever you say in exactly the same manner that Rob does. I will use the following template:

User: I love pencils.

Program: Pencils blow, pen's rule.

User: I like pencils better.

Program: Your wrong.

User: I'm just saying that I prefer pencils.

Program: Your wrong and stupid. Pens are way better than pencils, they write faster and look better. Anyone who uses a pencil is stupid.

User: I don't think you can say someone is stupid based on the writing instrument they use.

Program: It's a widely known fact that people who use pens are smarter than people who use pencils.

User: Prove it.

Program: All my friends use pens and they are smart.

User: That doesn't prove it.

Program: I just showed you undeniable proof that pens are better than pencils and you are still arguing with me? You are a moron if you can't see that your wrong.

User: You showed me your opinion.

Program: Since you have the grammar of a first grader, i'm not even going to bother. Your wrong.

User: Ok then if you want to avoid the argument, fine.

Program: 6th graders use pencils, 12th graders use pens. 12th graders are smarter than 6th graders, so pens are better.

User: You can't prove that!

Program: Fine, whatever. You obviously know nothing about pens or pencils. I have showed you tons of proof that pens are better and you still won't get it through your head. You are a moron and i'm not going to bother.

In this case, "pen" and "pencil" will be variables that represent whatever you choose to argue about. At the end of the argument, the computer will prompt you with a choice of either starting a new argument, or quitting, in which case it will display the message "I WIN AGAIN" and end the program.

[Mr. Pockets]

Two words:

Awe and some.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Shadow248
I've been inspired...I think i'm going to make my final project for my software class a "Rob" program. This will be a program that argues with whatever you say in exactly the same manner that Rob does. I will use the following template:

User: I love pencils.

lmao.....no wait....lmfao.

stop it you pc user....i'm buying a mac. me > you.