Should UCLA take that degree back?
PeterL
boot.
Barry Margolin
"PeterL" <po....@gmail.com> wrote:
> That set the school back at least 50 years, and a history major to
> boot.
What did?
I'm going to guess that this means that someone from UCLA was on "Are
You Smarter than a 5th Grader" and he blew a history question. But it
would be nice if people didn't post as if they were talking to someone
sitting next to them while they're watching. What ever happened to the
practice of putting the name of the show in the Subject line?
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Michael Black
> In article <1172812076.6...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "PeterL" <po....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That set the school back at least 50 years, and a history major to
>> boot.
>
> What did?
>
> I'm going to guess that this means that someone from UCLA was on "Are
> You Smarter than a 5th Grader" and he blew a history question. But it
> would be nice if people didn't post as if they were talking to someone
> sitting next to them while they're watching. What ever happened to the
> practice of putting the name of the show in the Subject line?
>
I was in elementary school when I was taught that when answering a question,
one should rephrase the question into the answer.
So in answer to "What did Columbus do?" you don't replay "sailed the
ocean blue" you'd answer "Columbus sailed the ocean blue".
There were two contestants on that fifth grader show tonight, and while
I tuned out by the time of the second one (who came relatively late
in the show) I don't believe the first contestant took history. But
I sure wasn't impressed with him, not because I expect people to know
the answers, but because he seemed to have no real skill at trying to
deduce the answers, relying too much on the fifth graders (until
he used them up). That doesn't say much about what a college education
does for you.
Of course, what you know doesn't really say whether or not you are
smart, it just means you have a good memory.
Michael
PeterL
> In article <1172812076.606009.314...@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "PeterL" <po.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That set the school back at least 50 years, and a history major to
> > boot.
>
> What did?
>
> I'm going to guess that this means that someone from UCLA was on "Are
> You Smarter than a 5th Grader" and he blew a history question. But it
> would be nice if people didn't post as if they were talking to someone
> sitting next to them while they're watching. What ever happened to the
> practice of putting the name of the show in the Subject line?
If you don't know the reference, that means you did not watch the
show. And therefore you shouldn't be interested in this discussion
anyway. This is the new way of the net. I am not trying to be cute.
Just that if you don't know it, why would you want to be in this
conversation?
A smart guy like you from MIT should know that. Just be glad it's not
an MIT grad who blew a question on this show.
.
Unknown
PeterL <po....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>If you don't know the reference, that means you did not watch the
>show. And therefore you shouldn't be interested in this discussion
>anyway.
Bzzzt....thank you for playing. The rest of us on this group are
not psychic.
>This is the new way of the net. I am not trying to be cute.
No, it is not the "new way of the net." It is the way of lazy posters.
And your attempt to excuse impolite behavior with that line is not
going to work.
>Just that if you don't know it, why would you want to be in this
>conversation?
Because, duh, we couldn't *tell* which show you were talking about.
You might have been musing about an actor on some show we watch.
Patty
Kevrob
> In article <1172815386.643951.190...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
New posts that don't reference which show they are about irk me, too.
`Course, one could always edit the subject line...
Kevin
Kevin
Michael Black
look at the message to figure out what it's about, and it still doesn't
give us a real clue.
It's rather like people posting messages where the only thing in
the body is a link. It almost seems to be a sign of illiteracy (not
quite, but certainly laziness) that such people can't even be bothered
to say anything for themselves in such messages.
Michael
Obveeus
"PeterL" <po....@gmail.com> wrote:
> That set the school back at least 50 years, and a history major to boot.
What was his actual major in, though? Maybe it was 'Art History' or
'Ancient History' or 'European History'?
Would it be fair to call out a Biology major for not knowing the formula for
determining travel of a projectile just because Biology and Physics are both
'Science majors'?
In more general terms, what amazed me was that the guy didn't know the
impeachment question even though it was relatively recent news. Anyone
remember it being referenced when Clinton fell into his troubles?
SpencerDogg
> That set the school back at least 50 years, and a history major to
> boot.
Not only did the UCLA History Major blow the question "who was the first
U.S. President to be impeached?" (He answered John Qunicy Adams).
He had all easy questions and didn't know any of them.
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Unknown
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>New posts that don't reference which show they are about irk me, too.
>
>`Course, one could always edit the subject line...
Yes, thank you for doing that, Kev!
I caught the last question on last night's show just before the
local news, and I knew that one, so I think I'll keep not watching
it and go out with 100% success. :-)
Patty
Default User
>
> "PeterL" <po....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That set the school back at least 50 years, and a history major to
> > boot.
>
> What was his actual major in, though? Maybe it was 'Art History' or
> 'Ancient History' or 'European History'?
American History.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
timeOday
> Obveeus wrote:
>
>
>>"PeterL" <po....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That set the school back at least 50 years, and a history major to
>>>boot.
>>
>>What was his actual major in, though? Maybe it was 'Art History' or
>>'Ancient History' or 'European History'?
>
>
> American History.
>
>
>
>
> Brian
>
Oops.
Do they show all the responses, or just select the "retarded" ones?
Even pro ball players commit unforced errors now and then.
Obveeus
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54rkujF...@mid.individual.net...
> Obveeus wrote:
>
>>
>> "PeterL" <po....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > That set the school back at least 50 years, and a history major to
>> > boot.
>>
>> What was his actual major in, though? Maybe it was 'Art History' or
>> 'Ancient History' or 'European History'?
>
> American History.
Is there a cite for that? It almost hits 'urban legend' status. If he
really was an American History major, UCLA should revoke his degree.
I know, the guy was amazingly stupid, but apparently people don't want to
admit that not knowing the answers to these questions is a sign of 'lack of
intelligence'.
Default User
>
> "Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:54rkujF...@mid.individual.net...
> > Obveeus wrote:
> >
> > >
> >>"PeterL" <po....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> >>> That set the school back at least 50 years, and a history major to
> >>> boot.
> > >
> > > What was his actual major in, though? Maybe it was 'Art History'
> > > or 'Ancient History' or 'European History'?
> >
> > American History.
>
> Is there a cite for that? It almost hits 'urban legend' status. If
> he really was an American History major, UCLA should revoke his
> degree.
Umm, I watched the show. That's what he said.
Default User
I don't know of any quiz shows that skip showing some of the questions.
Even Millionaire just speeds things up with editing in the early round.
William December Starr
"PeterL" <po....@gmail.com> said:
> On Mar 1, 9:13 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> But it would be nice if people didn't post as if they were
>> talking to someone sitting next to them while they're watching.
>> What ever happened to the practice of putting the name of the
>> show in the Subject line?
>
> If you don't know the reference, that means you did not watch the
> show. And therefore you shouldn't be interested in this discussion
> anyway. This is the new way of the net. I am not trying to be cute.
Are you trying to be a pompous ass? If so, congratulations on your
triumphant performance.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>