Bungee Jumper

Buck from Call of the Wild? Did they just pull names from a hat or something?

Some people believe generals without question...some believe presidents. Either way, it saves you the trouble of having to know anything. Hell, it even saves you the trouble of having to form your own opinion...you'll just borrow someone else's, as long as it keeps you warm and comfy.

Anyone can find someone that supports their point of view. Doesn't mean said "anyone" has any understanding of a topic, though. That's why both catchescannonballs and you are jokes...

Which is my point: emotional maturity (e.g. not being lazy) is a better predictor of success than intelligence.

I do actually know people who would say, not "He deserved it", but "It's constructive, because even if he was innocent, it highlights the problem of child abuse, so the father shouldn't be convicted, and he wasn't innocent anyway..." I tend to not take such people seriously...but I do know a few.

And Forsberg's hurt... I just want to reiterate, from the earlier thread:

You should be. The media and league have been conspiring to make you fed up...

Whoop-de-!@#$ing-do.

"Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a [...] dim-witted underclass to emerge..." Most of whom will attend the London School of Economics...

I'm interested in knowing as well...because it's a not unimportant part of how the team handled the situation. If you don't want to or can't tell, that's fine...but whether you got a 20-year old Smurf figurine or the cheerleader of your choice does also indicate how you were treated, regardless of how satisfied you are with it (maybe you collect Smurf figurines, for all we know).

Michael Vick and Randy Moss on the same team... I want to see THAT train wreck.

Wow. I sure know a lot of ignorant anti-Canadian Canadians, then.

Show me the research paper that says that. Not the popular magazine article, but the research. Because I've checked the research. I read about a half-dozen papers last night. Not one makes that claim. And that SciAm article is half-assed anyway. "IQ is not as accurate as 'g'"...and then spend the rest of the article discussing the inaccurate measure as it relates to sociology. And you think that's an adequate foundation for a breeding program.

Yeah, that must be it. Because I'm sure no one would be misrepresenting themselves on the internet. In fact, as the King of Spain, I expressly forbid such things!

You're interviewing? Most people just call them "dates".

"Whipped Cream and Other Delights" was always one of my favorite album covers...

That is a seriously cute kid. Must take after mom, I assume?

By the way, thanks for those pics of you-know-who today. You're right, they do look real...

And ajzepp has pictures of them...

But how does parental intelligence correlate with child intelligence? It's a really simple question, and you're not answering it. No, you're answer isn't an answer, because there is a striking difference between a correlation within a generation and a correlation across generations. The sibling correlation does not make intelligence inheritable, but you can't quote an actual parent-child correlation, so you're just assuming they mean the same thing. And you're wrong, because the sibling correlation (as measured by twin studies) only measures that component of intelligence which can be reasonably presumed to be genetic, it does NOT measure how the undefined inherited "intelligence" traits pass from generation to generation. That is the fatal flaw in your argument. And even when you correct that fatal flaw...all the studies (the one you're mainly referring to is Bouchard and McGue, 1981) suffer from certain notable insufficiencies, chief among which is measuring the variance of an abstract measurement assigned a value that's inferred rather than deduced (namely: intelligence). And even if you managed to correct THAT, economic success, using the same methodology but much more concrete measurables (i.e. money) only very weakly correlates with intelligence, it correlates most strongly by far (>80%) with emotional maturity. So again, you're wrong...because preferentially breeding the upper economic strata in favor of welfare roles will not increase overall intelligence, because intelligence does not correlate with economic success, according to the same studies you mistakenly believe support your view. In fact, the only publication I could find that agrees with you in any way was on David Duke's web site...which should tell you something. And you don't even know what "Heritability estimates [for intelligence] range from 0.4 to 0.8 (on a scale from 0 to 1)" means, do you? Hint: it's different from "inheritability".

Oh, hey, that wasn't predictable. You people seriously have to learn to change it up a little every so often. Like instead of the "meazza stalks underage girls" thing, work DirecTV's Project MyWorld into it.

Sure...if you're in to twelve year olds. Yeah, yeah, I know...a meazza joke's coming up...

Not entirely unlike watching the Raiders...

Don't be a Wacka.

That's probably why the Browns & Goldmans pursued the civil suit. Now OJ has a lien against all future earnings, until the judgement's paid off. Which is completely different from the Son of Sam law.