How Stupid Do You Think I Am?

The Starmaker

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 1:24:06 PM2/22/13

to

How Stupid Do You Think I Am?

The Starmaker

benj

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 1:30:36 PM2/22/13

to

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:24:06 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:

> How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
>
>
> The Starmaker

Given that you seem to be a media-type person (born without a brain)
rather than a science-type person (willfully ignorant) I think that
settles the issue.

b o z o

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 1:46:26 PM2/22/13

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

and besides being an ambiguous he/she, he's a useless unproductive
media-obsessed attention whore I can always find loitering somewhere
like a perv in a toilet

Randy L AT DOT

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 2:03:04 PM2/22/13

to

As stupid as you appear to be...

RL

--
You have the right to remain silent.
Please exercise that right.

"The Starmaker" <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:5127B7...@ix.netcom.com...

Paul Cardinale

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 2:45:39 PM2/22/13

to

Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.

Report not abuse

On Feb 22, 10:24 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
>
> The Starmaker

I think you are very stupid.

Dano

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 3:19:28 PM2/22/13

to

If you have to ask...

Might not like the answer.

The Starmaker

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 4:34:02 PM2/22/13

to

You mean like a 'high degree' of stupidity? What's my stupid IQ, it most be very very high. I bet it's higher than most people..

The Starmaker

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 4:58:49 PM2/22/13

to

“When asked what characteristics Nobel prize winning physicists had in common ? I cannot think of a single one, not even intelligence”

-- Enrico Fermi

What do you suppose Enrico meant by that quote? What is his view of...the common characteristics of a Nobel prize winning physicists?

The Starmaker

Cryptoengineer

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 4:59:58 PM2/22/13

to

On Feb 22, 1:24 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
>
> The Starmaker

I suggest that there's a good probability you're not stupid at all,
but are emotionally stunted enough that you find playing a provocative
idiot on the net entertaining.

A troll, in other words.

pt

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 5:24:49 PM2/22/13

to

"Cryptoengineer" wrote in message
news:f898e338-e085-4456...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

================================
But a troll has the objective of attempting to make others appear foolish at
the risk of making himself appear stupid, and is therefore stupid by
definition. The one truism the troll never learns: more flies are caught
with honey than with vinegar. Then again, who wants flies? Eat shit, ten
billion flies probably can't be wrong emotionally however entertaining they
may be. Enjoy the vinegar.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

The Starmaker

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 5:40:20 PM2/22/13

to

Is that what you ....decoded? You must have used a supercomputer to analyize and decipher my hidden, disguised, and encrypted post!

Send this guy to Scotland Yard!

The StäMakêr

Lawrence Watt-Evans

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 5:52:41 PM2/22/13

to

You are far too generous.

--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...

benj

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 6:30:16 PM2/22/13

to

Yes it is. Congratulations.

Quadibloc

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 7:23:48 PM2/22/13

to

On Feb 22, 11:24 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> How Stupid Do You Think I Am?

Well, while this is a loaded question, it also has a common usage as a
colloquial phrase.

And applying _that_ meaning, you're not "stupid" at all, in the sense
of not being gullible or easily manipulated... by us. Someone holding
a Bible got to you first, and you swallowed his story hook, line, and
sinker - but when you got sucked in, you stayed sucked in by the first
person to warp your mind.

That may be a sign of something, but I'm not sure it's either
integrity or intelligence.

John Savard

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 6:24:02 PM2/22/13

to

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote in
news:kg8sps$23n$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2013-02-22 14:45:39 -0500, Paul Cardinale said:
>
>> On Feb 22, 10:24�am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>> How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
>>>
>>> The Starmaker
>>
>> I think you are very stupid.
>
> You are far too generous.

I've always said Sturgeon was an optomist.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

unread,

Feb 22, 2013, 6:25:03 PM2/22/13

to

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:87ae252c-743f-4d51...@l4g2000pbn.googlegroups.c
om:

Neither. It's a sign of stubborness.

Or write only memory. Which would involve defective brain cells.

Peter Huebner

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 12:08:37 AM2/23/13

to

[scoring groups and gratuitous crossposting deleted from headers]

In article <3nSVs.71660$ab5....@fx24.fr7>,
LordAn...@February2013.edu says...

> But a troll has the objective of attempting to make others appear foolish at
> the risk of making himself appear stupid, and is therefore stupid by
> definition. The one truism the troll never learns: more flies are caught
> with honey than with vinegar. Then again, who wants flies? Eat shit, ten
> billion flies probably can't be wrong emotionally however entertaining they
> may be. Enjoy the vinegar.
>
>
>

A troll typically has the objective of eliciting responses from other
people. Attention-whoring .... some do it with inflammatory posts, some
with stupid questions.

Well, the endeavour seems to prove fruitful in this case.

Alan Baker

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 4:37:52 AM2/23/13

to

In article <5127B7...@ix.netcom.com>,

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
>
>
> The Starmaker

Profoundly stupid.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Dimensional Traveler

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 2:07:44 PM2/23/13

to

Which, it could be argued, is a pretty stupid thing to be.

--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.

JRStern

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 2:14:54 PM2/23/13

to

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:24:06 -0800, The Starmaker

(d) all of the above.

J.

Mahipal

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 2:17:42 PM2/23/13

to

On Feb 22, 5:24 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

<LordAndroc...@February2013.edu> wrote:
> "Cryptoengineer" wrote in message
>
> news:f898e338-e085-4456...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Feb 22, 1:24 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
> > The Starmaker

13. ... ... ... Mine is the 14th post. Really, do the count.

alie...@gmail.com

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 2:46:57 PM2/23/13

to

On Feb 23, 1:37 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <5127B7C6.4...@ix.netcom.com>,

> The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
>
> > The Starmaker
>
> Profoundly stupid.

With apologies to Uncle Al:

"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Starmaker is. I mean
rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid. Starmaker is trans-stupid stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
Starmaker emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
be this stupid. Starmaker is an oozingly putrescent primordial
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Starmaker
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
a grand unified theory of stupid.

"Starmaker is the epiphany of stupid. Starmaker is stooopid."

Mark L. Fergerson

b o z o

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 3:13:08 PM2/23/13

to

that's the problem with clerks and stupidity, they can still type

benj

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 3:44:13 PM2/23/13

to

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:46:57 -0800, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> With apologies to Uncle Al:
>
> "I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Starmaker is. I mean
> rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface of
> Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid
> vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid so
> stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different
> sensorium of stupid. Starmaker is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid.
> Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild
> radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense and massive that no
> intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Starmaker emits more
> stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year. Quasar
> stupid. Nothing else in the universe can be this stupid. Starmaker is an
> oozingly putrescent primordial fragment from the original Big Bang of
> Stupid, a pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as
> to be beyond the laws of physics that define maximally extrapolated
> hypergeometric n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it.
> Starmaker is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of
> stupid,
> a grand unified theory of stupid.
>
> "Starmaker is the epiphany of stupid. Starmaker is stooopid."
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson

Gosh we miss Uncle Al!

The Starmaker

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 6:06:01 PM2/23/13

to

Alan Baker wrote:
>
> In article <5127B7...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
> >
> >
> > The Starmaker
>
> Profoundly stupid.

Web definitions

(profound) showing intellectual penetration;

Alan Baker

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 6:14:45 PM2/23/13

to

In article <51294B...@ix.netcom.com>,

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > In article <5127B7...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
> > >
> > >
> > > The Starmaker
> >
> > Profoundly stupid.
>
>
> Web definitions
>
>
>
> (profound) showing intellectual penetration;

Alas for you, I didn't use the word "profound", but rather the word
"profoundly" which has another meaning entirely.

The Starmaker

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 6:17:24 PM2/23/13

to

All the girls I know always tell me "You're sooooooo stupid!!!"

And the girls who are reallly nice to me just say... "Oh.. MY.. GAWD!!"
(with eyes rolling like las vegas slots)

At least I'm being myself with them, right?

The Starmaker

The Starmaker

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 6:24:55 PM2/23/13

to

Alan Baker wrote:
>
> In article <51294B...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <5127B7...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker
> > >
> > > Profoundly stupid.
> >
> >
> > Web definitions
> >
> >
> >
> > (profound) showing intellectual penetration;
>
> Alas for you, I didn't use the word "profound", but rather the word
> "profoundly" which has another meaning entirely.

Alas..

pro·found
[pruh-found] Show IPA adjective, pro·found·er, pro·found·est, noun
adjective
1.
penetrating or entering deeply into subjects of thought or knowledge; having deep insight or understanding: a profound thinker.

The Starmaker

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 6:37:20 PM2/23/13

to

You forgot 'infinetely stupid'.

There are no limits to my stupidity. Where as intelligience has it's limits, studidity is limitless, it is infinite.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
-- Albert Einstein

"We cannot expect to solve a problem using the same level of mentality that created it.
Intelligence is limited. Stupidity is infinite. -- Albert Einstein

What is it like to know your intelligence is....limited?

What does it....feel like?

The Starmaker

I like dumb girls.

Alan Baker

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 8:58:38 PM2/23/13

to

In article <51294F...@ix.netcom.com>,

And I used the word "profoundLY".

Look up and post that definition.

:-)

The Starmaker

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 9:17:41 PM2/23/13

to

It's not even correct english.
http://tinyurl.com/aru63vg

Peter Huebner

unread,

Feb 23, 2013, 11:27:17 PM2/23/13

to

In article <512978...@ix.netcom.com>, star...@ix.netcom.com
says...

>
> Alan Baker wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > And I used the word "profoundLY".
> >
> > Look up and post that definition.
> >
> > :-)
> >
>
> It's not even correct english.
> http://tinyurl.com/aru63vg

From the Collins thesaurus:
profoundly
adverb greatly, very, deeply, seriously, keenly, extremely, thoroughly,
sincerely, intensely, acutely, heartily, to the core, abjectly, to the
nth degree, from the bottom of your heart I'm profoundly grateful for
all the support I've received.

Yepp, doesn't exist. {rolls eyes}
Those guys at Collins are hallucinating.

Somebody sure is as thick as two short planks, and I am fairly certain
of who it is, as well.

But you still seem to manage being a reasonably good troll.

Mike Dworetsky

unread,

Feb 24, 2013, 6:18:55 AM2/24/13

to

Oh my! You mean all those medical people who describe very deaf people as
"profoundly deaf" are using incorrect grammar? Those frauds!

Actually, "profoundly" is found in dictionaries, with meanings/synonyms such
as greatly, very, deeply, extremely, acutely, abjectly, etc.

Work out for yourself what "profoundly stupid" means in this context.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Vaughan Anderson

unread,

Feb 24, 2013, 8:57:58 AM2/24/13

to

On Feb 23, 3:44 pm, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

What happened to him?

Robert Carnegie

unread,

Feb 24, 2013, 9:34:59 AM2/24/13

to

Does it help to say so?

I assume that the SM posts are designed to create an impression.
They're seldom relevant to the science fiction topic, being more
about news of science - particularly extra-solar planets, I think.

On Friday, 22 February 2013 19:03:04 UTC, Randy L wrote:
> As stupid as you appear to be...

benj

unread,

Feb 24, 2013, 12:11:07 PM2/24/13

to

Swept away by the river of shit...

alien8er

unread,

Feb 24, 2013, 3:22:58 PM2/24/13

to

What it feels like to converse with Starmaker and his ilk:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/image-of-the-week/2013/02/14/i-can-typing/

Mark L. Fergerson

The Starmaker

unread,

Feb 24, 2013, 4:30:04 PM2/24/13

to

It is not correct English. Medical people are not-that-smart.

PROFOUNDLY DEAF used as an adjective is very rare.

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/profoundly_deaf.htm

Don't let me get into medicaid fraud....it's too big of an industry. Quacks! "Oops, I operated on the wrong leg!"
Why is Michael Jackson dead? ...answer, medical people. Don't get me started on that...

Boy, Mike, you're sure are dumb! I'm gettin the impression Mike Dworetsky you come from a generation that....trust doctors.
You got one foot in the grave don't you? Tell me, tell me..What's it like knowing you're going to die any day now? What does
Mr. Death look like? Is there life after death? I know somebody who has died...if I give you a message, do you think you
can give it to them when you get there? There a c note in it for you...

The Starmaker

Did you know Mike Dworetsky that the word 'naive' is not in any dictionary?

Alan Baker

unread,

Feb 24, 2013, 11:04:50 PM2/24/13

to

In article <512978...@ix.netcom.com>,

Right.

You are stupid... ...to a profound extent. i.e. "extremely" stupid.

And it is absolutely correct English: an adverb, "profoundly" modifying
an adjective, "stupid".

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

unread,

Feb 24, 2013, 11:28:57 PM2/24/13

to

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
news:alangbaker-1CA75...@news.shawcable.net...

In article <512978...@ix.netcom.com>,
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

==============================================================

One more to add, "profoundly stupid", he quietly yelled.
http://www.oxymoronlist.com/#p

Mike Dworetsky

unread,

Feb 25, 2013, 3:43:51 AM2/25/13

to

Even if it isn't correct English, which I do not concede, you are still
stupid, and embarrass yourself.

>
> Don't let me get into medicaid fraud....it's too big of an industry.
> Quacks! "Oops, I operated on the wrong leg!"
> Why is Michael Jackson dead? ...answer, medical people. Don't get me
> started on that...

Irrelevant to your stupidity.

>
> Boy, Mike, you're sure are dumb! I'm gettin the impression Mike
> Dworetsky you come from a generation that....trust doctors. You got
> one foot in the grave don't you? Tell me, tell me..What's it like
> knowing you're going to die any day now? What does Mr. Death look
> like? Is there life after death? I know somebody who has died...if I
> give you a message, do you think you can give it to them when you get
> there? There a c note in it for you...

You will have to organise your own séance, it should give you a few
goosebumps.

>
> The Starmaker
>
> Did you know Mike Dworetsky that the word 'naive' is not in any
> dictionary?

Surely naďve is, though.

Rollo

unread,

Feb 28, 2013, 9:08:31 PM2/28/13

to

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-86FC9...@news.shawcable.net...

In article <5127B7...@ix.netcom.com>,
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
>
>
> The Starmaker

>Profoundly stupid.

How would a cretin like you be able to make a judgment like that?

Joe Pfeiffer

unread,

Mar 1, 2013, 12:39:27 AM3/1/13

to

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

> How Stupid Do You Think I Am?

Not nearly as stupid as you act. I don't think it's possible to be as
complete an idiot as you pretend, and still be able to so consistently
mis-portray the positions of scientists as you do, as consistently as
you do.

I don't normally respond to your crap since I don't generally believe in
feeding trolls (from the paragraph above, it's obvious I regard you as
an extraordinarily annoying troll), but this was a direct enough
question I thought I'd make an exception.

The Starmaker

unread,

Mar 1, 2013, 1:34:07 AM3/1/13

to

There is no hyphen in "mis-portray", it's speled misportray.

Alan Baker

unread,

Mar 1, 2013, 4:43:00 AM3/1/13

to

In article <kgp2gj$9l1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rollo" <rog...@gmail.com>
wrote:

He asked for my opinion: I gave it.

Better question: why are you now following me around from group to group
like a lost puppy?

Rollo

unread,

Mar 1, 2013, 10:27:58 AM3/1/13

to

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-6B19B...@news.shawcable.net...

In article <kgp2gj$9l1$1...@dont-email.me>, "Rollo" <rog...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-86FC9...@news.shawcable.net...
>
> In article <5127B7...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > How Stupid Do You Think I Am?
> >
> >
> > The Starmaker
>
> >Profoundly stupid.
>
> How would a cretin like you be able to make a judgment like that?

>He asked for my opinion: I gave it.

That wasn't the question, Dick.

>Better question: why are you now following me around from group to
>group
>like a lost puppy?

You have an objection against someone playing your game, KD?

The Starmaker

unread,

Mar 1, 2013, 2:51:43 PM3/1/13

to

further more...

I don't misportray scientist. I came into the world and that is what I see:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Mad_scientist_transparent_background.svg

Do a Google Image search and type: scientist

http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi

and it is also how the Television and Movies portray yous...yous people.

http://www.gamelayd.nl/img/random/geeknerd02.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC9wZB2T9uE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYHdUOrkk4o

The Starmaker

Joe Pfeiffer

unread,

Mar 4, 2013, 11:36:00 PM3/4/13

to

My point exactly.

The Starmaker

unread,

Mar 6, 2013, 1:46:34 PM3/6/13

to

The Starmaker wrote:

> "We cannot expect to solve a problem using the same level of mentality that created it.
> Intelligence is limited. Stupidity is infinite. -- Albert Einstein

There doesn't seem to be any definiton for the word "limited intelligence".

Is it not something...the 'scientific community' wishes to discuss or look into.

There are definitions for "infinite stupidity", but none for "limited intelligence".

Why is that?

I suspect...a conspiracy.

The Starmaker