From: BAR on
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:51:16 -0400, BAR wrote:
>> Carbon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:02:31 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>> Carbon wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:54:41 -0400, BAR wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is his undergraduate transcript?
>>>>> Now you're being ridiculous. Palin took six years to finish a four
>>>>> year degree. McCain graduated 905 out of 909. I can guarantee you
>>>>> McCain's and Palin's handlers will be avoiding the subject of
>>>>> academic achievement at all costs.
>>>> McCain was 895 out or 899.
>>> Is this supposed to be less pathetic?
>> Pathetic no, fact yet. Facts are something that you cannot provide to
>> support your assertions.
>
> Bert, I'll type slow and you try to follow along. You're trying to smear
> Obama's stellar academic career with affirmative action. But this is
> Harvard Law we're talking about. It's conceivable they may have let in
> some students with 3.9 GPA's instead of the usual 4.0. However, I can
> *ASSURE* you that they wouldn't even look at anyone who graduated in the
> BOTTOM HALF PERCENT OF THEIR CLASS. Or that took six years to finish a BA.
>
> How can you possibly not realize that?

I am not saying that Obama isn't smart. But, smart doesn't equal common
sense and it doesn't meant that he always did the right thing. I've
known people who scored nearly 1600 on the SAT and wound up flunking out
for college their freshman year. And, the flushed a full ride
scholarship with it. It doesn't mean they aren't smart it just means
that they didn't apply themselves at the right time.

If Obama had a stellar undergrad record at Columbia he would have posted
it on his website as another gold star and a reason to vote for him.
But, his resume is void of his undergrad studies and achievements. Why.
It can't be because of his law degree from Harvard there is something
that is being hidden.

Obama was accepted into Harvard with a wink and nod from. His undergrad
performance did not get him in.
From: Carbon on
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:58:27 -0400, BAR wrote:

> 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)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> 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 better...at 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?

Typo.
From: The Professor on


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)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> >> 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 better...at 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?

How would I know? One thing for sure, anyone who judges another's abilities on
the basis of poltical spin is a dupe, a maroon, a gullabull.....

From: The Professor on


Carbon wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:23:10 +0000, The Professor wrote:
>
> > One area where he is wrong is science, anyways, only cares about what
> > you *DID* yesterday. You can have 15 Nobel Prizes, and 1 billion in
> > grants, but if you don't do anything meaningful today, no one will care
> > about you. Not to say you won't get invited to give talks and have the
> > underachievers fawn over you, but people who are really making things
> > happen will only correspond with you if you are one of them; making
> > things happen.
>
> By that standard, aren't you an underachiever as well?

If I were to be making some claim to be a player in reserarch, but I am not.

From: The Professor on


BAR wrote:

> The Professor wrote:
> >
> > BAR wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Titles are meaningless in academia?
> >
> > He's right in a way. While it is inappropriate to refer to a Ph.D. as Dr., we all
> > insist on it. I personally don't like it. However, the status quo in academia, at
> > the underachiever level, and in most fields, if not all, most people are
> > underachievers, is quite oppressive.
> >
> > One area where he is wrong is science, anyways, only cares about what you *DID*
> > yesterday. You can have 15 Nobel Prizes, and 1 billion in grants, but if you
> > don't do anything meaningful today, no one will care about you. Not to say you
> > won't get invited to give talks and have the underachievers fawn over you, but
> > people who are really making things happen will only correspond with you if you
> > are one of them; making things happen.
>
> I work with many people who have terminal degrees. Smart people who work
> their asses off and yet you wouldn't know that they have doctorates. No
> title preceding their name on their office or cubicle, nor Ph.D at the
> end of their name. Not even on their business card.

Thatr's the way it's supposed to be.