Travolta sued for homosexual advances

[MikeTodd]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

My IQ was professionally tested as a child so as to determine my placement in a "gifted" education program.

Is that what your mother told you?
Are you sure the term used was "gifted" and not "special"?

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by MikeTodd

Is that what your mother told you?
Are you sure the term used was "gifted" and not "special"?

That was what was put on my enrollment application when I attended the Alabama School of Fine Arts.

[MikeTodd]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

That was what was put on my enrollment application when I attended the Alabama School of Fine Arts.

You're well known for your clumsy prevarications. you've been caught out many times. Why should we believe this one?

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by MikeTodd

So, that's like a real IQ test and not just a high score on some online trivia game?

Hear that, Fakins? "Ravens Matrices", not areyousmarterthanafifthgrader.com

And if Akins was half as smart as he thinks he is: he would know that child IQ testing is notoriously incorrect if you try to transliterate it into later life. It is why the famous IQ study of Scarr and Weinberg (on niggers adopted into upper-middle/middle class European families) in the 90s discovered (in addition to the issue of racial differences in gestation and its impact; and therefore proof positive of the hereditarian thesis, on IQ) to the researchers horror that the IQ gains made by the negro children on European children that were found in the first testing run (when the children were younger) were found to revert back to the 1 S.D. difference mark a few years later.

To put it simply: approximating IQ when the subject is still rapidly growing is problematic because you don't know their individual rate of gestation or rate of development. As such you get 'child prodigies' who turn out to be of average intelligence and somewhat dim children who turn out to have high IQs, while you also get children of high intelligence all the way through.

Also what IQ score you have is dependent on what test you take hence Cattell IIIB gives you a higher score (as curiosa named after the quasi-racialist psychologist Raymond Cattell), Ravens Advanced and Standard Matrices give you lower and so on. Hence why unlike you Akins I specified that I was measured on Ravens Matrices: the Advanced ones to be precise.

To explain an IQ of 139 on Cattell IIIB is not in the top tier, but on Ravens Matrices (either although the Advanced less so), Culture Fair and Wechsler scale it is. I could say I was IQ 189 but it is a meaningless claim unless I specified which supervised test (note the 'supervised') I had taken.

Comprehend: why you aren't taken seriously now Akins?

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by MikeTodd

You're well known for your clumsy prevarications. you've been caught out many times. Why should we believe this one?

I couldn't care less whether you believe it or not.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

And if Akins was half as smart as he thinks he is: he would know that child IQ testing is notoriously incorrect if you try to transliterate it into later life. It is why the famous IQ study of Scarr and Weinberg (on niggers adopted into upper-middle/middle class European families) in the 90s discovered (in addition to the issue of racial differences in gestation and its impact; and therefore proof positive of the hereditarian thesis, on IQ) to the researchers horror that the IQ gains made by the negro children on European children that were found in the first testing run (when the children were younger) were found to revert back to the 1 S.D. difference mark a few years later.

To put it simply: approximating IQ when the subject is still rapidly growing is problematic because you don't know their individual rate of gestation or rate of development. As such you get 'child prodigies' who turn out to be of average intelligence and somewhat dim children who turn out to have high IQs, while you also get children of high intelligence all the way through.

Also what IQ score you have is dependent on what test you take hence Cattell IIIB gives you a higher score (as curiosa named after the quasi-racialist psychologist Raymond Cattell), Ravens Advanced and Standard Matrices give you lower and so on. Hence why unlike you Akins I specified that I was measured on Ravens Matrices: the Advanced ones to be precise.

To explain an IQ of 139 on Cattell IIIB is not in the top tier, but on Ravens Matrices (either although the Advanced less so), Culture Fair and Wechsler scale it is. I could say I was IQ 189 but it is a meaningless claim unless I specified which supervised test (note the 'supervised') I had taken.

Comprehend: why you aren't taken seriously now Akins?

You really do care a good deal about all of this sort of thing, don't you?

[Pat Bateman]

[P.E.]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

You really do care a good deal about all of this sort of thing, don't you?

You're out of your league on this one. Nice to see your response is an obfuscated admission of that fact.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by P.E.

You're out of your league on this one. Nice to see your response is an obfuscated admission of that fact.

I only mentioned my IQ score in passing, relating to some discussion Mike Todd or someone else of his sort was having in regard to their estimation of my intelligence. It was a simple statement of fact, nothing more. It really never has meant much to me personally, as I never persued a career that involved academic achievement; largely due to the fact that the sort of personality I have is not condusive to concentrating on studies that fall outside my own rather narrow range of personal interests.

[MikeTodd]

So, tell us, what test was it that you scored a 139 on?

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by MikeTodd

So, tell us, what test was it that you scored a 139 on?

Why would I know? I was like 12.

[Karl Radl]

Originally Posted by MikeTodd

So, tell us, what test was it that you scored a 139 on?

It is quite funny: isn't it?

How he makes a boast and then does an 'oh shit somebody has challenged me: I'll go to Wikipedia' double-take. Then his writing style changes into what you could call pseudo-encyclopedic and then immediately after he's made various other claims he goes into Akins idiotic comment mode again. In many respects it is like a term-paper somebody has rushed and used a chunk of Wikipedia in: the writing style changes and doesn't 'jive' with the rest.

I still can't get over his 'Scots have a monopoly on the egg industry' thing though: it was beyond merely hilarious and onto the shelves of the legendarily stupid comment emporium.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

It is quite funny: isn't it?

How he makes a boast and then does an 'oh shit somebody has challenged me: I'll go to Wikipedia' double-take. Then his writing style changes into what you could call pseudo-encyclopedic and then immediately after he's made various other claims he goes into Akins idiotic comment mode again. In many respects it is like a term-paper somebody has rushed and used a chunk of Wikipedia in: the writing style changes and doesn't 'jive' with the rest.

I still can't get over his 'Scots have a monopoly on the egg industry' thing though: it was beyond merely hilarious and onto the shelves of the legendarily stupid comment emporium.

You mean the comment where I told Bev not to rush out in search of evidence that Scots don't have a monopoly on the egg industry because there exists such a thing called "Scotch eggs"?

Only an imbicile would take that to be some sort of claim that they do.

[MikeTodd]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

Why would I know? I was like 12.

So why did you even bring it up to begin with?

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by MikeTodd

So why did you even bring it up to begin with?

Why don't you go back and look up the post where I mentioned it and see what the context of the conversation was for yourself?

[MikeTodd]

Fuck Fakins and his lying ass IQ.

John Trovolta
is still a
Fucking Faggot!

[MikeTodd]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

Why don't you go back and look up the post where I mentioned it and see what the context of the conversation was for yourself?

It's all right there in my sig quote.
You made a post that was a dog breakfast of misspelled words and I asked you why you didn't use spellcheck and that was your reply.
You could have stopped after the first line but instead you volunteered the second. Not my fault, it's all on you.
Again your alligator mouth overran your hummingbird ass.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by MikeTodd

It's all right there in my sig quote.
You made a post that was a dog breakfast of misspelled words and I asked you why you didn't use spellcheck and that was your reply.
You could have stopped after the first line but instead you volunteered the second. Not my fault, it's all on you.
Again your alligator mouth overran your hummingbird ass.

More like I was having issues with the computer/keyboard I was using at the time. I have since ditched that one and replaced it with a new HP. I like the fact that this one doesn't have a separate tower, the hard drive is built right into the back of the screen, and the keyboard and mouse are wireless.

[MikeTodd]

<insert game show fail noise here>
Wrong answer!
We don't give a flying fuck about your PC issues, that is quite beside the point.
What we want to know is why you volunteered your IQ information when nobody asked? Hmmm?

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by MikeTodd

<insert game show fail noise here>
Wrong answer!
We don't give a flying fuck about your PC issues, that is quite beside the point.
What we want to know is why you volunteered your IQ information when nobody asked? Hmmm?

Like I said, go back and look it up. You seem to have a penchant for doing just that where what I have to say is concerned.