From: William Clark on
In article <n_WdnVD7-dKh2lDVnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d(a)>,
BAR <screw(a)> wrote:

> William Clark wrote:
> > In article <pcadnVDPT-8Ft1DVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d(a)>,
> > BAR <screw(a)> wrote:
> >
> >> William Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <f9qdnUBNy6Pym1DVnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d(a)>,
> >>> BAR <screw(a)> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Carbon wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:59:42 -0400, BAR wrote:
> >>>>>> William Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <De2dnWiJyp5Jh1HVnZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d(a)>,
> >>>>>>> BAR <screw(a)> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Where is his undergraduate transcript?
> >>>>>>> I doubt you could read it correctly even if it was provided. If this
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>> your best effort to disparage his academic record, I think you should
> >>>>>>> find something else to occupy your time.
> >>>>>> He must have barely graduated from Columbia.
> >>>>> You sure are wrong a lot. Harvard Law is the top law school in the
> >>>>> country. They do not accept bottom of the barrel students (i.e. McCain
> >>>>> and Palin), period. How can you possibly not know that?
> >>>> If Obama's undergraduate degree from Columbia was awarded based upon
> >>>> superior achievement or merit he would have put that on he resume. But,
> >>>> he doesn't mention it.
> >>> Perhaps in your world people have to flaunt the most meagre
> >>> achievements. However, in others, and higher education in general, we
> >>> tend not to make a fuss about them. It's deemed to be poor taste.
> >> Titles are meaningless in academia?
> >
> > No, they are ranks, just like in the military you idolize. Of course,
> > this has absolutely nothing to do with SATs, GPAs, etc.
> Rank in the military is given due to proven leadership skills and
> capabilities, not from reading books and writing papers.

Have you ever heard of the tenure track? You should learn about it.
From: Jack Hollis on
On 14 Sep 2008 16:11:50 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)>

>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:53:45 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:18:39 GMT, The Professor <DBID(a)> wrote:
>> I don't know why Obama wont release his undergrad transcript, SAT or
>> LSAT scores. My guess is that if they were really exceptional he would
>> want everyone to know.
>To compare himself to lightweights like McCain and Palin? Why would he
>even bother?

Actually I haven't seen SAT sores from any of the candidates.
From: BAR on
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:24:43 -0400, BAR wrote:
>> Carbon wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:56:14 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>> Carbon wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:18:39 +0000, The Professor wrote:
>>>>>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2008 14:44:59 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This is all conjecture. I just would like to see Obama's SAT and
>>>>>>>>> LSAT scores. These tests are standardized and correlate highly
>>>>>>>>> with IQ tests.
>>>>>>>> You are correct. As does academic achievement.
>>>>>>> Not really. Mensa has never used GPA or having a degree as
>>>>>>> qualification to join their society. They know that those measure
>>>>>>> are purely subjective. You could an MD and a dozen Ph D's and that
>>>>>>> wouldn't get you in. However, back in Obama's days in school, a
>>>>>>> high enough SAT or LSAT score would do the trick. In fact, you
>>>>>>> could be a high school drop out and get in if your LSAT score was
>>>>>>> high enough.
>>>>>>> Mensa does not accept SAT scores any more because of all the
>>>>>>> politics surrounding the test.
>>>>>> Not that I care bout MENSA, but the SAT is not a meaningful test.
>>>>>> The ACT does least it tests knowledge. I would like to
>>>>>> see the standardized test scores of people claiming to be
>>>>>> intellectually superior to others though. It's 100% telling when
>>>>>> such people won't give you their scores though. You know that if
>>>>>> they were high they'd be wearing them!
>>>>> Whatever. Of the three, who's scores are likely to be higher on *any*
>>>>> standardized test?
>>>> Again, leadership is not something that is learned from books.
>>> So the ignorant like to say.
>> What have you ever led?
> I have led you around by the nose.

Really how so. I thought I was an idiot. And I wan't to know why you
keep arguing with an idiot?
From: Carbon on
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:43:59 -0400, BAR wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:22:21 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>> William Clark wrote:
>>>> In article <G7KdnXG2M7wvrlDVnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d(a)>,
>>>> BAR <screw(a)> wrote:
>>>>> annika1980 wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 14, 9:44 am, BAR <sc...(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you know what percentage of Naval Officers of any class make
>>>>>>> Admiral?
>>>>>> In McCain's family it's about 2-out-of-3. McCain was the dumb one.
>>>>> True, he couldn't keep an plane flying.
>>>> I believe it was five planes, actually.
>>> He should have been flunked out of the Naval Academy.
>> See? Finally something we agree on. McCain is pretty much unqualified
>> to do anything other than spend his second wife's money.
> I am no supporter of McCain. I've never been a supporter of McCain.
> But, he sure has take you libs for a ride these past couple of week.

Not hardly. I already knew he was as unqualified as Palin. Although I
didn't know he lost five (5) planes. Evidently nepotism gets you a long
way in the military.
From: Carbon on
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:40:32 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2008 16:23:49 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)>
> wrote:
>>> Obviously, group data says nothing about any individual.
>>Exactly. Like Obama. Case closed.
> It's close that we don't know how intelligent Obama is.

Law Review at Harvard.

But enough of your comical attempts to discredit Obama. Did you know
McCain managed to lose five (5) planes as a military pilot? I wouldn't be
surprised if that was some sort of record.