Recently stopped smoking - diving implications for lung discharge?

Greg Mossman wrote:
>
> Whatever. What about my offer to pay for our IQ testing to settle
the bet?

Quit your diversionary tactics from ALL THREE of your LOSSES.

> So you're absolutely 100% unequivocally certain that your IQ is 56
points
> higher than mine

That was not even a good try at twisting words. Even lawyers wouldn't
stoop to THAT low. This was what I said of you:

RF > For Greg to be wishfully bragging that his 1450 score is the
RF > equivalent of a 168 IQ is the height of conceit

RF > Keep dreaming, Greg. Why don't you just go take an IQ test
RF > and find out whether you make 120 or not! THEN come back and tell
us.

Right now, Greg, you have absolutely positively NO/ZILCH verifiable
Record of an IQ score. All you have is your wishful thinking.


Get off your tangent and face the FACTS of your LOSS, welsher Greg!


CHAPTER 1 reviewed:

Greg> No shit. It still doesn't mean unequivocal because unequivocal
Greg> allows for no doubt at all.

Ah, glad you amplified my point, Greg!!!!!! I had said it before.
You were arguing about the ENGLISH meaning of the word "unequivocal",
and did not KNOW that

"Clear, Convincing, and Unequivocal" is not based on the meaning of
any one of the English words, but the entirety is one of the STANDARDS
in Law -- the one you didn't KNOW!

>From the Court Opinion citation used by Greg:
> "Nonetheless, even if the
> particular standard-of-proof catchwords do not always make a great
> difference in a particular case, adopting a "standard of proof
> is more than an empty semantic exercise."


In fact, the Joself Gastwirth paper was to use the JUDGES as subjects,
to see if THEY can could sort out (and assign the correct PROBABILITIES
of guilt) to FOUR court standards, including these two:

"Clear and Convincing"
and
"Clear, Convincing, and Unequivocal"

Greg> "The term "unequivocal," taken by itself,

But in the standards of law, the term "uequivocal" in
"Clear, Convincing, and Unequivocal" is NOT (and I repeat NOT, Nein,
Nicht, non, no) taken by itself, as IGNORANT layman like Greg
would take it to be in a STANDARD of LAW statement!

Nice job, Greg, of REPLAYING the shooting of your own foot!

Greg RE-CONFIRMED his ERROR and folly in CHAPTER 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------


CHAPTER 2 reviewed:

Greg> the U.S. Supreme Court setting forth that there are three.

Nope. I showed that your citation showed that there are AT LEAST FOUR,
because of the various permutation and combination of the words
"clear", "convincing", and "unequivocal", and at least TWO of those
combinations (in the Gastwirth paper) showed a rather substantial
DIFFERENCE in the probabilities of guilt for conviction, according
to the 10 active Federal Judges in the study.

Have you found a copy of the paper? Why don't you cite the
PROBABILITIES assigned by each of the 10 judges on the FOUR standards
of law useed in the study?

For years I couldn't understand how ONE of the 10 judges rated "beyond
a reasonable doubt" to have a SMALLER probability of guilt than
"Clear, convincing, and unequivocal" -- the same mistake you made!!

Now I finally understand WHY. That judge was as confused as you were
about the word "unequivocal".

Just get a copy of Gastwirth's paper and rebutt the FOUR standards
studied as THREE, and explain why two of them have such different
probabilities of guilt for conviction (according to 10 different
judges) if they were the same!

That should do it. Your sure LOSS which you are trying to weasel out.
------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 3 requires no further review.

You have NO verifiable IQ score to show! All you have is your wishful
thinking that your LSAT score is translatable to one. You are even
welshing out of an IQ figure you conceded to concede to me, 172, even
though it's 14 points lower than mine.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mossman: KING of all weasels.

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106284534.259562.307550@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

> You have NO verifiable IQ score to show! All you have is your wishful
> thinking that your LSAT score is translatable to one. You are even
> welshing out of an IQ figure you conceded to concede to me, 172, even
> though it's 14 points lower than mine.

So why are you weaseling out of my attempt to get us both tested at my cost?
Can't you make up even a half-assed excuse?

Greg Mossman <mossman@qnet.com> wrote:
>"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> You have NO verifiable IQ score to show! All you have is your wishful
>> thinking that your LSAT score is translatable to one. You are even
>> welshing out of an IQ figure you conceded to concede to me, 172, even
>> though it's 14 points lower than mine.
>
>So why are you weaseling out of my attempt to get us both tested at my cost?
>Can't you make up even a half-assed excuse?

Let's use the internet!
http://iqtest.com/prep.html?PHPSESSI...a0c8fcae63 99
13 minute test - mail the results to me.

Bob, you started this one. The duty falls on you to cough up evidence
first, Weasel. Must be afraid to find out how far your IQ has fallen
with old age.


--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

"Jason O'Rourke" <jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:csqhcm$s3g$1@agate.berkeley.edu...

> Let's use the internet!
> http://iqtest.com/prep.html?PHPSESSI...a0c8fcae63 99
> 13 minute test - mail the results to me.
>
> Bob, you started this one. The duty falls on you to cough up evidence
> first, Weasel. Must be afraid to find out how far your IQ has fallen
> with old age.

Several problems with that idea. I went to the site and found this:

"Two Cautions
1. If American English is not your native language, your reported IQ score
may be negatively affected.
2. If you feel you may have an educational problem, a learning disability,
or a psychological disorder, please consult with a mental health
professional before taking this test."

When Bob gets his meager results he will correctly claim that American
English is not his native language and that he has psychological disorders.
Plus, there's no guarantee it's really Bob or me taking the test.

My results were 156. I'm curious how the test is scored, i.e. how many out
of the 38 did I miss (if any) to end up with that score, but if it will
settle the bet, I'll accept $6,000 from Bob instead of the $18,000 I believe
he really owes me.

Greg Mossman <mossman@qnet.com> wrote:
>My results were 156. I'm curious how the test is scored, i.e. how many out
>of the 38 did I miss (if any) to end up with that score, but if it will
>settle the bet, I'll accept $6,000 from Bob instead of the $18,000 I believe
>he really owes me.

It's not a remotely accurate test in the range you each claim to be, so
it's of limited value. Of course, it doesn't really matter given Bob's
weaseling.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Jason O'Rourke" <jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> news:csqhcm$s3g$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
>
> > Let's use the internet!
> >
http://iqtest.com/prep.html?PHPSESSI...a0c8fcae63 99
> > 13 minute test - mail the results to me.

It takes a SUPER MORON, Jason O'Rourke, to come up with this crap
and call it an IQ test, which is MUCH worse than the Reader's Digest
version of an "intelligence test" for Imbeciles aspiring to be a Moron.

It takes a MORON, Greg Mossman, to use that as an IQ test and brag
about his 156 moron-point scored on it. It appears the corresponding
IQ is about 78.

> Several problems with that idea. I went to the site and found this:
>
> "Two Cautions
> 1. If American English is not your native language, your reported IQ
score
> may be negatively affected.

I didn't realize Greg's native language is Mongolian!

Only for native whiners! Cultural bias? No respectable foreigner
uses this as an excuse. They only beat the socks out of the moronic
Merkins in their own game.

> 2. If you feel you may have an educational problem, a learning
disability,
> or a psychological disorder, please consult with a mental health
> professional before taking this test."

Greg obviously should have done that, but failed to do so.

> My results were 156. I'm curious how the test is scored, i.e. how
many out
> of the 38 did I miss (if any) to end up with that score,

MORON!

I am pretty sure you didn't miss THIS one:

True or False (to be answer in less than 20 seconds) -- that's the way
all the test items are in Jason's IQ test for morons:

3. 27 minutes before 7 o'clock is 33 minutes past 5 o'clock.

ROFLMAO! If this were a trick question as to how this could happen
(involving different time zones), or within certain CITIES in which
there are two different times, differing by an hour, it would be a
donkey of a different color. But an IQ test question???? Even an
IDIOT couldn't miss this with 20 seconds to think about it.

I am still hurting from laughing at Jason and Greg's moronic mentality.


Here are ANOTHER couple of toughies for morons:

5. If written backwards, the "number one thousand, one hundred and
twenty five," would be written "five thousand, two hunderd eleven."

Anyone failed to see this in less than FIVE seconds?

27. The numbers, 3-7-2-4-8-1-5, are read backwards as 5-1-8-4-2-7-3.

Does it take even an IDIOT to see that is TRUE in less than 10 secs?


Nearly 30 of the 38 True or False questions are nearly as moronic.



There is one question that is interesting, in an unexpected way:

35. The sum of all the odd numbers from zero to 16 is an even number.

Only a MORON would phrase the intended question that way! There
are MANY better ways of wording the same question, e.g.,

The sum of all the odd INTEGERS between 0 and 16 is an even integer.

I suppose this must be a tough question for all the morons, including
Greg, to be able to add (without pen/pencil or a hand-calculator)
1, 3, 5, ..., 15 in less than 20 seconds to see if the sum is EVEN
or ODD.

What if we change the question to "between 0 and 160"?

It doesn't take a genius (in fact, a well-educated High School kid
should do) to figure in LESS THAN 10 seconds that the sum is EVEN!

If the range of odd integers in Question 35 were changed to
"between 0 and 42" or some other medium-sized number such as 88,
at least that would be a question with some semblance of an IQ
test question!


First of all, it takes a true MORON like Greg to think that a
13-minute piece of crap of T and F questions constitutes an IQ test.

Second, it takes a moron not to realize that the test was intended
SOLELY to sucker morons into paying $9.99 (or some such) for a score
that obviously would gratify their moronic ego.

NOW we know Greg has NO IDEA what a true IQ test is like. He still
thinks they are questions like this one -- probably similar to the
ones he scored in his LSAT exam.

Greg> My results were 156. I'm curious how the test is scored

Easy. The scorer makes a quick-and-dirty WAG of the subject's IQ
and multiply it by 2.

Greg, where are you hanging the Certificate you paid $9.99 for?

Before Greg took this silly test recommended by IDIOT Jason O'Rourke,
I was charitable to estimate his IQ to be in the low 3-digit range.
Greg has removed all doubts that he DESERVED to be rated a MORON.


My friend Bjorn introduced me to:

-- Bob. Kung Fu Master.
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...ngfumaster.htm

In article <1106407366.969885.205950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:


€
€ My friend Bjorn introduced me to:
€
€ -- Bob. Kung Fu Master.
€ http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...ngfumaster.htm
€

Your Peers and Betters refer you to:

--Feesh. Profundus Maximus

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...dusmaximus.htm

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106407366.969885.205950@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
SNIP

It does say "If you feel you may have an educational problem, a learning
disability, or a psychological disorder, please consult with a mental health
professional before taking this test".

Missed that part, right?

Reef Fish <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://iqtest.com/prep.html?PHPSESSI...a0c8fcae63 99
>> > 13 minute test - mail the results to me.
>
>It takes a SUPER MORON, Jason O'Rourke, to come up with this crap
>and call it an IQ test, which is MUCH worse than the Reader's Digest
>version of an "intelligence test" for Imbeciles aspiring to be a Moron.

Scored below 156, did ya, Bob?

It is what it is: a quick and dirty test. It's not like there is such
a thing as THE IQ test. And since it's obvious you lack the intellectual
courage to take a "real" one, I was giving you a bone. Of course, I knew
you'd cheat. You spent far longer than 13 minutes evaluating it for us.

For all your bluster, you've yet to put up one iota of substance.

BTW, I thought you were leaving this conversation, had better things to
do then make good on your word.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

"Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106407366.969885.205950@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

> Greg, where are you hanging the Certificate you paid $9.99 for?

Why would you think I paid $9.99 for a certificate? Are you some kind of
moron?

Anyway, I just got back from Vegas and have to run down to San Diego
tomorrow. But I'm back on Monday and I'll start looking for my verifiable
test results then. When I find them, and present them to you, I'll expect
you to abide by the terms of the legal contract we formed and pay me my
$18,000. For your 18 grand, I'll even make you a certificate. Of course if
you breach our contract, I'll sue you.