HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: there i go again...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:21:17 GMT
Keywords: kill capital letters...

In article <1993Jan12.183027.13894@ncsu.edu> elbaldwi@eos.ncsu.edu (edward lee baldwin) writes:
>
>i am god... leave me alone... i am not paranoid...
>why did i do it... because i can...
>will i do it again... i already have... maybe some more... only i know...
>leave me alone...
>i am not scott tai... i would not hide behind a mask...
>i am not neurotic... no i will not haiku
>i know who scott tai is...
>i won't tell you though...
>he is many... not one...
>i am not disturbed... not at all... leave me alone...
>who lives and who dies... i have the power.
>
>
>						elb

I am standing very close to you at this moment and
am thinking that for an omniscient being you don't 
type very well.

GMS

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: drich@sandman.lerc.nasa.gov (Daniel Rich)
Subject: Re: Mconnections available for ftp
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:36:36 GMT

In article <01GT70ELSHOYADCE2L@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>>From: drich@sandman.lerc.nasa.gov
>>Message-ID: <1993Jan6.143208.3173@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
>>
>>The Mconnections Mensa e-mail directory is now available for anonymous
>>ftp from sweedishchef.lerc.nasa.gov in /anyone/drich/Mconnections-12.20.92.
>            ^^
>
>You mean "swedishchef"...
>            ^

Yes.  It has been one of those mornings.  The correct host is
swedishchef.lerc.nasa.gov.
See what happens when I spend three days fighting with user problems?!

-- 
Dan Rich                    | drich@lerc.nasa.gov   |  (216) 433-4000
Sr. Systems Engineer        | "Danger, you haven't seen the last of me!"
RMS Technologies, Inc.      |    "No, but the first of you turns my stomach!"
NASA Lewis Research Center  | -- The Firesign Theatre's Nick Danger

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:37:20 GMT

In article <mike_steiner-110193144834@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.202654.9396@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca
>(Eric Roberts) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <1993Jan8.171012.22397@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>> >In article <mike_steiner-070193104411@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>> >>In article <1993Jan6.214524.25582@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca
>> >>(Eric Roberts) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I don't know of any way to predict performance, what I do know is that 
>> >>> IQ tests fail to do so.
>> >>
>> >>SATs have proven to be a valid predictor of performance in the first year
>> >>of college or university.
>> >
>> >Out of curiosity, Eric, what has been your personal experience with
>> >IQ and SAT tests?  Do you have some information about any specific
>> >examples of their failures?
>> Do you have any of about them being successfull?
>
>You brought up the issue of their not being of any use.  Do you have any
>evidence to support your claim?  If you have no evidence, that ends the
>discussion and there is no reason for anyone to attempt to rebut the claim.
>
>> >Also, I was wondering if you had any theories with respect to why
>> >so many institutions use these tests even if they have been proven
>> >worthless.  Thanks in advance.
>> >
>> >GMS
>> Nope, I never figured that one out. One reason might be that people
>> attempt to measure everything, and feel more comfortable with a 
>> number. I hope you are not suggesting that the fact that 
>> people use those tests makes them valid...
>
>It just may be that those test really do what they are purported to do.  Do
>you have any evidence to show otherwise? 
It is not my duty to do so. You claim they measure someting, prove it.
 
>-----------------------------------------------------------+
>|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
>|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+


Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:24:52 GMT

In article <1902@nate.UUCP> nate!ken@cs.rit.edu writes:
>roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) (I believe) wrote:
>> [...]
>> No proof has been presented that [intelligence tests] measure what they claim
>> to measure. The evidence available is limited to a few correlations,
>> mostly with school performace.
>> [...]
>
>One (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) definition among psychologists is:
>Intelligence is that which is measured by an intelligence test.
>
>Just thought I'd share that with the rest of the class.
>
>   +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>   |   Ken Gacioch                    |     Be wary of strong drink.      |
>   |   nate!ken@cs.rit.edu            |     It can make you shoot at      |
>   |                                  |     tax collectors -- and miss.   |
>   |                                  |                 - Lazarus Long    |
>   +----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Yes, I have seen this definition before. I am quite ready to accept it,
along with the fact that, in this case, intelligence seems to be rather
unimportant.
From: johnson@sleipnir.pb.wes.mot.com (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: Another thought...(Not even close)
Reply-To: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Wireless Enterprises, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:55:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.223900.16596@linus.mitre.org>, crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
=)
=)In article <1993Jan5.165204.25239@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
=)> In article <93004.153005FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> <FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> "Larry Wink" writes:
=)> >In article <jgs1.726138144@Isis.MsState.Edu>, jgs1@ra.msstate.edu (jimi
=)> >strickland) says:
=)> >>
=)> >>  Having scored an 'A' on the first four reports, I felt that I had
=)> >>  demonstrated sufficient reading comprehension and ability to report on
=)> >>  what I had read.  Therefore, I stopped reading the books and reporting
=)> >>  on them and devoted my time to more academic pursuits.  Needless to say,
=)> >>  my grade in that class was poor.  The professor let me withdraw from the
=)> >>  class with a passing grade, but I am required to take it again.
=)> >
=)> >An example of what's wrong with the current educational system (and society
=)> >as a whole) - let's not ever hold someone reponsible for their actions.
=)>
=)> [...Larry], you seem to think that "life experience" is not as important 
=)> as some piece of paper on the wall.  
=)>
=)> That's why I continue to practice neurosurgery without having wasted
=)> seven to ten years in medical school.  I learned it the old-fashioned
=)> way, but just getting in their and getting my hands dirty.  
=)> 
=)> Now that I'm ready to open up my third head, I'd like to volunteer to
=)> do an operation of his choice on our friend Strickland, completely
=)> free of charge, satisfaction guaranteed.
=)
=)Could you define `guaranteed'?

You won't complain.
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Johnson"                              |Just because you're paranoid doesn't|
| johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com |   mean they're not out to get you. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Let's face it; if our lawyers knew what went on here, they'd shut us down.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:00:41 GMT

In article <EIVERSON.93Jan6221336@aiaia.nmsu.edu> eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes:
>
>I think a good measure of intelligence would be whether, after joining
>Mensa, you have the good sense to quit.  I can honestly say that I

Pardon my amusement, but man, who did you talk to?  Sounds like you
met up with a bunch of geeks that totally pissed you off.  If that's the
case, I don't blame you.

>have never met a bigger bunch of minutiae crazed, self-important
>blowhards in my life.  My next door neighbor (170 IQ, Ph.D in physics

You don't get out much, do you?  :-)

>at age 21) who joined with me was even more infuriated.  Sort of like

Wow, he must have a REALLY BIG BRAIN!  Seriously, though, what
chapter did you join?  I've met lots of geeks in Mensa in the years
I went to activities, but none that pissed me off as much as you seem
to be.  And no more geeks than I meet anywhere else.

>the meeting the bottom 2 percent of the top 2 percent.  As far as I'm
>concerned, the truly intelligent are those who don't have time to pat
>themselves on the back for having such a wonderful brain, because
>they're too busy using it.  But then what do I know?  I'm only working
>on my second Master's degree.  Maybe I shoulda joined Densa instead.

Contrary to popular belief, having a master's isn't really a big deal, 
but it's fun when people are impressed.  The highest concentration
of geeks I've ever been exposed to was at college.  Particularly in
the mathematics and physics departments.  But I don't assume that
those departments were necessarily representative of the general
population of mathematicians and physicists.  And I hope they aren't.

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Evolution n
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:03:27 GMT

In article <C0pE8w.Cv4@ns1.nodak.edu> galster@plains.NoDak.edu (Dwight Galster) writes:
>I really, really, really didn't want to get involved in this discussion
>but I just couldn't let this one go by.
>
>>>If you're a creationist, consider Adam and Eve, and then consider
>>>the diversity among humans today, e.g. Asians, Africans, Europeans.
>>>How did this come about if evolution didn't occur?
>>
>>If one it dumb enough to read the Genesis creation account literally,
>>racial diversity would be difficult to explain.
>>
>>-- 
>Consider the domestic dog, whose variety in features far exceeds the
>variety in humans.  Yet it is known that these dogs derive from one

I think there are many who would disagree with this.  There are many
breeds of dogs, but there are many varieties of human, many of which
just consider themselves to be members of larger groups, within which
large variations exist.

>species something like the wolf.  There is no reason at all to reject
>the notion that all of today's human races derive from a common stock,
>and this statement hold whether one believes in evolution OR creation.

That is true.
>
>The insults about "dumb enough to believe the Bible" are misplaced

This is not what he said.  What was said was a bit impolite, but not 
what you've quoted.  (Read above.)

>and an unfortunate sign of intolerance.  Belief in evolution is every
>bit as much a matter of faith as anything else.  There are no "proofs"
>on either side, as is always the case with forensic science.  We go
>with the evidence we find believeable.  As a statistician, I must say
>evolution is statistically impossible (which of course doesn't mean
>it's not true.  Such is life in my field).

Statistically improbable, I think you mean, right?

>
>As this is supposed to be a newsgroup for very intelligent people, let
>me remind you that many of the world's geniuses have and still do believe
>the Bible.  Evidence for a young earth and a sudden creation exists,

You might want to check on whether they agree or disagree with what the
original poster actually said.  A recent issue of Time, I believe, discusses
the interpretations of several noted scientists, and no one was presented
as believing a literal translation.  And brilliant doesn't always mean
logical, or, for that matter, wanting to be logical, especially in this
case.

>and if it doesn't come in the quantities that evidence for Evolution and
>an old earth, it's because the funding ratio is about 1:10000 and  
>scientists who don't believe in evolution are routinely discriminated
>against in degree granting, hiring, publishing, and promotion.
>
>My own belief is that there is no way to win this argument one way or
>the other.  I have read much that goes both ways, and in the end, it
>just comes down to faith.

I agree with this.
>
>Now shouldn't this discussion be taken to talk.origins?

No, not necessarily.  I'd hope this newsgroup would cover as broad a
range of topics as possible.  Just my opinion, of course.

GMS


Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:45:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.181047.27553@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.211553.24007@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>=)In article <1993Jan5.141731.22407@wam.umd.edu> amanda@wam.umd.edu (Me again) writes:
>=)>Define "intelligence."  What is this quality you call "intelligence?"  How
>=)>can we judge it?  
>=)>
>=)>Can it be measured?
>=)>
>=)>If it cannot be measured, it thus must not have any effect on the world (as
>=)>such an effect could be used to measure it) and thus, in my opinion, does not
>=)>exist (or is not worth arguing over).
>=)Maybe it can, however, not by IQ tests.
>=)>
>Perhaps you have a better way?  Keep in mind, though, that the idea is to
>*predict* performance, not measure it.  All this research over the years
>has not been done solely to see who could get into Mensa.  If you have a
>better predictive indicator, I and probably the entire psychometric
>community would be very interested to hear of it.
>-- 
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| "Johnson"                              |Just because you're paranoid doesn't|
>| johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com |   mean they're not out to get you. |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Let's face it; if our lawyers knew what went on here, they'd shut us down.  |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
I don't know of any way to predict performance, what I do know is that 
IQ tests fail to do so.
From: mitch@novavax.UUCP (Mitch Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re^2: IQ Test?
Date: 6 Jan 93 03:56:15 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:

>                               The vocabulary of the English language
>is too large for any single person to know a significant portion
>of it.

Definitions, please?  Evidence?  What do you mean by 'a significant
portion', anyway--5%?  50%

I know a significant portion of the vocabulary of the English
language.  This is self-obvious--I can think of no better
criterion for 'significance' in this context than "sufficient
for useful, intelligible, and enjoyable communication." 
Anyone else?
 
I think that most people on the Net know a significant portion
of the vocabulary of English also.  The Net has a higher
percentage than in Mensa, from what I can tell--I think having
an Internet address should be considered prima facie proof of
eligiblity for Mensa. 8-}  (If you feel this warrants a flame,
think for a second--the correlation between "genius-level
intelligence" and genius-level IQ--which are not by any
stretch of the imagination identical--is probably pretty close
to the correlation I suggest here.)

Prove that I am wrong--or at least justify your statement above.
I find it ridiculous--at best.

(And yes, I used to be in Mensa.  Why did I not renew my membership?
It was a waste of money, frankly--I'd rather pay as a guest for the
parties I went to.)

Mitchell L. Silverman              | As Voltaire never said, "I
Student, New College of            | disagree with what you say,
the University of South Florida    | but will defend to the death
Reply-to: mitch@cfraix.cfr.usf.edu | your right to say it."
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:11:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan6.225536.1653@julian.uwo.ca>, Eric Roberts writes:

> To claim that it has evolved by mistakes, is extremely impropable.

Really?  What do you base this opinion on?  A billion years is a very
long time.  Long enough for evolution to produce creatures who don't
believe in evolution, in fact.

You are aware of the recent bird migration results, right?
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2618

Score: 0, Diff: 1, clong killed by a Harvard Math Team on  1
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: New sins
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:20:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.083337.3619@syacus.acus.oz.au> ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams) writes:
>Rodney Adams (radams@BNR.CA) wrote:
>> 
>> Other listed sins in the Roman Catholic Church's first worldwide 
>> addendum to its official list of sins since 1545 include:
>> 
>[ some deletions ]
>
>> 7. Discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, age, 
>>    religion, national origin or handicap
>[ more deletes ]
>
>Really?? 

Pardon my naivete', but I was under the impression that "sins" were
defined by their being prohibited by the writings in the Bible.
What does a separate list of sins accomplish, and how could the
list of things considered sins change?  And is there a grandfather
rule?  Would people be pulled out of Heaven because they did things
that weren't sins when they got there?  Is there an extradition
agreement?  I can picture the big line at the Pearly Gates, and
Saint Peter yelling, "Yablonski, John!  Got some bad news for
you, buddy."

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: random comments..ha ha
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:10:00 GMT


>From: jimi strickland <jgs1@ra.msstate.edu>
>Message-ID: <jgs1.726137614@Isis.MsState.Edu>
>
>  I don't believe vocabulary tests to be an accurate determinant of
>  intelligence level.
>  Someone with a strong vocabulary may be subjected to
>  dealing with people with a poor vocabulary.
>  Instead of bothering to 'teach' these others 'new' words, he may be
>  restricted to using those words that they *do* understand, thereby possibly
>  losing a great deal of his vocabulary from unuse.
>  On the other hand, an extremely intelligent person may have grown up
>  with people with poor vocabularies and never got the chance to develop
>  a strong pallette of words to choose from.

Nobody said vocab tests were 100% accurate, if that's what you mean by
"accurate".  Correlations with other abilities are only moderate.  The
reasons you give sound like good explanations for the fact that the
correlations are not perfect.  Nevertheless, the correlations are strong
enough to provide statistical predictions for purposes such as college
admissions and guidance counseling.

>  I also don't like intelligence tests in which some sort of writing is
>  required on a timed basis.

Which intelligence test requires writing?

>  I am curious as to my 'intelligence level.'
>  Where might I acquire some sort of test to determine it somewhat accurately?

Since you don't believe vocabulary has much to do with intelligence, I
guess you're asking for a vocab-free test?  Some research has shown
vocab-free tests to be even more susceptible to environment than vocab
tests.

As I see it, there really isn't any reasonable measure of overall
intelligence, just as there isn't any accepted measure of overall
athletic ability.  But, just as there are very accurate measurements of
ability in specific athletic events, so there are reasonably accurate
ways to determine ability in specific academic areas in ways that are
useful for measuring progress, etc.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: Evolution (was Re: IQ Test?)
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:12:14 GMT

In article FMH@world.std.com, kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey) writes:
>In article <3HT!D1U=B@linac.fnal.gov> matt@severian.chi.il.us (Matt Crawford) writes:
>>
>>Try this simple exercise.  Describe in your own words just how long a
>>period of time is a billion years.  Compare it first to the duration
>>of a chemical reaction, then to the reproductive cycle of a single-
>>celled organism.
>>
>Which says absoultely nothing about the probability of the accumulation
>of RANDOM favorable mutations producing something even as simple
>as an eye.

Figure it out this way:  
  A single-cell divides every 30 minutes.  That is 48 times a day, 17520 
  generations in a year.  Assume that there are a relatively small number of
  genes (10,000) and that the mutation rate is 1/1000.  Assume that 10% of
  these mutations are fatal, assume that 10% are favorable, and assume that
  80% of the mutations are neutral.  

  In a century, there are 17,000,000 changes to 10,000 genes, most of which
  survive.  

Now factor in environment:
  Each of these mutations which provide for improved survival will be transmitted
  to others in the same or similar species (and in the case of bacteria, different
  and dissimilar species).  The improved propogation of favorable mutations is
  strictly statistical: a cell which survives longer will reproduce more.  

Now factor in population:
  A small population of single-cell organisims might be 10,000,000.  Each undergoes
  the same mutation rate.

Now let this cook for a (couple) billion years and I can believe that anything and
everything imaginable can evolve.

Even if you disagree radically with my estimates, the same conclusion still holds.
Try dividing all of the numbers by 10.  Or 100.  Or 1000.  Assume 90% of the 
mutations are fatal.  It doesn't significantly change the result.


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Another thought...(Not even close)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:24:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.223900.16596@linus.mitre.org> crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan5.165204.25239@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>> In article <93004.153005FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> <FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> "Larry Wink" writes:
>> >In article <jgs1.726138144@Isis.MsState.Edu>, jgs1@ra.msstate.edu (jimi
>> >strickland) says:
[....]
>> seven to ten years in medical school.  I learned it the old-fashioned
>> way, but just getting in their and getting my hands dirty.  
        ^^^                 ^^^^^

My God, did I write this???  Apologies to all!!
>> 
>> Now that I'm ready to open up my third head, I'd like to volunteer to
>> do an operation of his choice on our friend Strickland, completely
>> free of charge, satisfaction guaranteed.
>
>Could you define `guaranteed'?

Not any more.  I've apparently (if those mistypes aren't an indication)
self-administered.

GM("Throwing Down The Scalpel")S
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa