Trollfest: 8 Unexpected Signs You’re Smarter Than Average

[Andre Jute]

A link by Debby Witt of Nation Review confirms what I've always known.
8 Unexpected Signs You’re Smarter Than Average
https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/8-unexpected-signs-you-re-smarter-than-average.html

Andre Jute
I can't be the only person in the world whose intelligence the Scientologists underrated

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:54:11 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>A link by Debby Witt of Nation Review confirms what I've always known.
>8 Unexpected Signs You’re Smarter Than Average
>https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/8-unexpected-signs-you-re-smarter-than-average.html

My anecdotal evidence suggests that the indicators are fallacious:

1. Your desk is a mess.
True. Actually, my entire house and office are a mess.

2. You swear like a sailor.
Nope. I did at one time, but taught myself not to use profanity.
There are better ways to insult someone than profanity.

3. You sleep in.
True. Some things are better done under cover of darkness, only one
of which is sleeping.

4. You're a little anxious.
Nope. I'm quite relaxed and reserved. I rarely get angry or excited
about anything.

5. You like a drink.
Nope. I inherited a general inability to handle alcohol. I can drink
booze, but not much or very often.

6. You drink wine, particularly.
Nope. Only 3 ritual wine glasses during Pessach (Passover) holiday.

7. You experimented with drugs when young.
True. The problem is EVERYONE experimented with drugs when we were
young. The only distinction is whether we are willing to admit it.
Unfortunately, I'm still experimenting today with prescription drugs.

8. You're blond.
Nope. Black hair. I'm trying to determine if it will turn gray or
all fall out first.

I match only 3 out of 8 items. Draw your own conclusions.

>Andre Jute
>I can't be the only person in the world whose intelligence the Scientologists underrated

The search for superior intelligence in oneself is a sure sign of its
absence. I suspect that writing articles about intelligence
indicators might also qualify.

If you made it reading this far, you may or may not be intelligent,
but you certainly are worried about being intelligent. If you bailed
out early, you're smart enough to know drivel when you read it.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 4:12:29 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:54:11 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute

Absolutely. My pet chimps, four of them, were all more intelligent than most people I've ever met. [For that matter, they were more intelligent than other chimps too, but that is because I cheated and kept bonobo, known to be the most intelligent of the chimps.) They proved it by instantly bonding with the fellow holding the rifle when they were liberated from the bush butcher's unsanitary hutch. They copied everything I did, and my assistant noted that they always looked to me first for approval. In short, they were intelligent animals and wanted their status validated.

> If you made it reading this far, you may or may not be intelligent,
> but you certainly are worried about being intelligent. If you bailed
> out early, you're smart enough to know drivel when you read it.

A true test of the truth of your contention would have been for you to send your post anonymously. Some of us are conditioned by past practice to read your posts. Some are bored so shitless, they read everything that appears on the board.

Anyhow, I know professionally what most measures of intelligence are worth: not much; they don't predict anything. I tend to judge people instead by their survival quotient and the amusement level one can expect from them. One test that I like was developed by the USAF to sort the fighter jockeys from the transport pilots: it consist of some urgent physical activity (it could be as simple as the subject holding his hands apart and then catching a ruler when it is dropped) while simultaneously performing mental tasks (navigational math, for instance); it tests the reserve mental capacity -- in modernospeak the multitasking ability -- of the person.

> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Andre Jute
Oversimplify? Whatever are you talking about?

[Tom Kunich]

Swearing is showing a lack of verbal skills. Experimenting with drugs is the sign of an absolute moron and being blond, well I'll go for that one. My IQ was measured at 145. Though perhaps we can go with Frank's method of measurement - the bigger the failure you are the smarter you are.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<slto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>My IQ was measured at 145.

Using which test?
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale.
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test.
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence.
Peabody Individual Achievement Test.
Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Disabilities .
Differential Ability Scales.
Self Administered Test on an Internet Web Site.
Conversion from SAT or GRE score.
Random Number Generator.
Stanford-Binet and Wechsler are the most common.

145 puts you above 99.865% of the population, which I consider rather
unlikely:
<https://www.123test.com/interpretation-of-an-iq-score/>
<https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx>

I just tried Braingle's Test (based on Stanford-Binet) at:
<https://www.braingle.com/mind/iq/test.php>
40 questions in 30 minutes. I ended up with an estimated IQ of 112 in
18 minutes. 112 is about right for me now. It used to be about 135
in college, but old age, a possible stroke, and a few accidents have
taken their toll. I'll admit to guessing on some of the questions,
which was a bad idea as I had more time available.

[jbeattie]

145. Pfffff. I scored 213 on the RNG IQ test. Its what got me into Trump University.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 11:02:00 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
>
> 145. Pfffff. I scored 213 on the RNG IQ test. Its what got me into Trump University.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

Piker. You shoulda held out for a membership card to the Democrat Party. One of its privileges is an automatic entry into the presidential nomination race from now until 2032.

Andre Jute
I reckon a billion dollars in attack ads ought to do it for the incumbent, and c4bn for the challenger

[John B.]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<slto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Swearing is showing a lack of verbal skills. Experimenting with drugs is the sign of an absolute moron and being blond, well I'll go for that one. My IQ was measured at 145. Though perhaps we can go with Frank's method of measurement - the bigger the failure you are the smarter you are.

"and being blond, well I'll go for that one. My IQ was measured at
145."

Ahhh Tom. You've published photos of your good self right on the Web
and you are not "blond" as you seem to claim... you are "slick".

But O.K., While the connection between "blond" and "IQ" seems a bit
nebulous, we'll go for it anyway. Your IQ is 145? Well post some
proof.

After all, Frank, who you whine and bitch about always posts proof of
his assertions, you on the other hand do not (unless, of course you
believe that your statements are carved on tablets of stone) but even
so can you show us the tablets... even if you did misspell a few
words?
--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 3:12:50 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 11:02:00 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> >
> > 145. Pfffff. I scored 213 on the RNG IQ test. Its what got me into Trump University.
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Piker. You shoulda held out for a membership card to the Democrat Party. One of its privileges is an automatic entry into the presidential nomination race from now until 2032.

Well, that's certainly a cheaper option than Trump University, although it doesn't come with a lawsuit. I just got a $91 check for settlement of a class action lawsuit involving a debit card payment at a gas station. I didn't even know I was in the class. I'm a ninty-aire! Thank you Donald Trump University for helping me understand that lesson. Buy low, sue high! BTW, how you liking the national debt? It's great having the Republicans in charge again! Not like that white satan Bill Clinton!

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 11:37:18 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Goodness but you go all around Robin Hood's Barn to get a number.

Tom's way is, you get a piece of paper and a pencil and you sit down,
right there at the table, there. and you write a big "1" and than a
big "4" and finally a big "5", all in a nice neat row with no erasures
or crossed out figures.

And than, after gazing with wonder, at what you have wrought, it for
a while, you leap to your feet waving the paper (with the number on
it) and shout 145! 145!.

That is it. Finished, no boring 40 minutes or 30 minutes. Just write
the number.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Huh? I didn't register and just went directly into taking the test.
40 questions and 18 minutes later, it gave me a number.

>Tom's way is, you get a piece of paper and a pencil and you sit down,
>right there at the table, there. and you write a big "1" and than a
>big "4" and finally a big "5", all in a nice neat row with no erasures
>or crossed out figures.

That might actually work for making bumper stickers displaying the
drivers IQ. However, a Mensa bumper sticker would probably be
sufficient.

>And than, after gazing with wonder, at what you have wrought, it for
>a while, you leap to your feet waving the paper (with the number on
>it) and shout 145! 145!.

Kinda like running it up the flagpole to see who salutes. Probably
nobody due to the lack of units of measure.

>That is it. Finished, no boring 40 minutes or 30 minutes. Just write
>the number.

That's the way a diploma mill operates. You give them your money,
they give you a diploma or in this case a number, and maybe you take
some classes and exams later. I suspect that if I had registered and
paid for the test, my IQ score might have been higher.

How Cycling Makes You Smarter and Happier
<https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20029339/how-cycling-makes-you-smarter-and-happier/>

'Cyclists are more intelligent, charitable and cool than the average
person' says study
<https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycling/cyclists-are-more-intelligent-charitable-and-cool-than-the-average-person-says-study-9051434.html>
"...cyclists are considered to be 13 per cent more intelligent
and ‘cooler’ and ten per cent more charitable than other people."

So, if the average person has an IQ = 100, then cyclists would have an
average IQ = 100 + 13 = 113. That's close to my 112 score, so I
presume that I'm normal. Charitable and Cool? Maybe, but probably
not.

[John B.]

tOn Sat, 24 Aug 2019 19:05:29 -0700, Jeff Liebermann

Actually, at least in the Air Force, the guys that salute what is up
the flag pole are the guys hauling it up there :-)

>>That is it. Finished, no boring 40 minutes or 30 minutes. Just write
>>the number.
>
>That's the way a diploma mill operates. You give them your money,
>they give you a diploma or in this case a number, and maybe you take
>some classes and exams later. I suspect that if I had registered and
>paid for the test, my IQ score might have been higher.
>
>How Cycling Makes You Smarter and Happier
><https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20029339/how-cycling-makes-you-smarter-and-happier/>
>
>'Cyclists are more intelligent, charitable and cool than the average
>person' says study
><https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycling/cyclists-are-more-intelligent-charitable-and-cool-than-the-average-person-says-study-9051434.html>
> "...cyclists are considered to be 13 per cent more intelligent
> and ‘cooler’ and ten per cent more charitable than other people."
>

Errr... that isn't quite correct. The report cited said "people
perceive them as more intelligent and charitable than the average
person".
Perceive: " detected by instinct or inference rather than by
recognized perceptual cues"

Note that "Con Men", to be successful, are usually perceived to be
honest :-)

>So, if the average person has an IQ = 100, then cyclists would have an
>average IQ = 100 + 13 = 113. That's close to my 112 score, so I
>presume that I'm normal. Charitable and Cool? Maybe, but probably
>not.
--

cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Oops. Y'er right. It's all about image, perception, and illusion.
So, as an ordinary bicycle riding person, I can have an IQ of 100, but
to the general public, I have a perceived IQ of 113. It's like the
weather report, which reports the measured temperature, but also a
"feels like" temperature. I presume this all means that if I want to
appear to be intelligent, I should "wear" a bicycle to raise my
perceived IQ. I was considering having my IQ tattooed onto some
plainly visible body part, but apparently intelligent people prefer to
either not have tattoos, or apply them in locations not visible to the
general public.
<https://www.quora.com/Do-people-with-high-IQs-have-tattoos>

>Note that "Con Men", to be successful, are usually perceived to be
>honest :-)

I'll take that as a compliment.

>>So, if the average person has an IQ = 100, then cyclists would have an
>>average IQ = 100 + 13 = 113. That's close to my 112 score, so I
>>presume that I'm normal. Charitable and Cool? Maybe, but probably
>>not.
--

[John B.]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 22:21:19 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 10:47:47 +0700, John B.
><jbsl...@fictitious.site> wrote:
>
>>tOn Sat, 24 Aug 2019 19:05:29 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>><je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>>How Cycling Makes You Smarter and Happier
>>><https://www.bicycling.com/training/a20029339/how-cycling-makes-you-smarter-and-happier/>
>>>
>>>'Cyclists are more intelligent, charitable and cool than the average
>>>person' says study
>>><https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycling/cyclists-are-more-intelligent-charitable-and-cool-than-the-average-person-says-study-9051434.html>
>>> "...cyclists are considered to be 13 per cent more intelligent
>>> and ‘cooler’ and ten per cent more charitable than other people."
>
>>Errr... that isn't quite correct. The report cited said "people
>>perceive them as more intelligent and charitable than the average
>>person".
>>Perceive: " detected by instinct or inference rather than by
>>recognized perceptual cues"
>

For the bicyclist, the tight black shorts (with the built in bulge),
the brilliant colored jersey, the shoes that are hard to walk in. And,
or course, the special Bicycle Helmet. (and for the really "in" folks
a tube of Chamois cream :-)

>Oops. Y'er right. It's all about image, perception, and illusion.
>So, as an ordinary bicycle riding person, I can have an IQ of 100, but
>to the general public, I have a perceived IQ of 113. It's like the
>weather report, which reports the measured temperature, but also a
>"feels like" temperature. I presume this all means that if I want to
>appear to be intelligent, I should "wear" a bicycle to raise my
>perceived IQ. I was considering having my IQ tattooed onto some
>plainly visible body part, but apparently intelligent people prefer to
>either not have tattoos, or apply them in locations not visible to the
>general public.
><https://www.quora.com/Do-people-with-high-IQs-have-tattoos>

Well, maybe. But again as the reference itself states:

" Jews are grossly over-represented amongst the highly intelligent,
and none of them have any tattoos."

>
>>Note that "Con Men", to be successful, are usually perceived to be
>>honest :-)
>
>I'll take that as a compliment.

--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

I keep telling you, until three minutes before the election, Trump was a Democrat. Bill Clinton just stole the Republicans' clothes and matched the stolen policies to Democratic populism. It wasn't even an original idea: Tony Blair's New Labour in Britain was 100% Mrs Thatcher's policies dressed up in caring, sharing (but tough on crime) talk, and Clinton simply helped himself to an idea that worked a treat for Blair.

Democrats are incredibly stupid to let this "get Trump" charade continue. They're now the party that wished for an American president to be exposed as a Russian tool for their political, partisan advantage, and still Nadler and the other clowns are permitted to try for obstruction, which as clearly didn't happen.

It would be so much smarter, realpolitik, for Mrs Pelosi and that fellow who leads the Dems in the Senate, whatsisname, to appeal to Donald Trump's vanity: "So, Donald, you say you're the most beloved President ever. We agree. But you're only the most beloved Republican President. To be fully realised by posterity, characterised in the round, you need to run in 2020 as a Democrat to prove that you're not just beloved the Republicans but of all Americans."

Andre Jute
Lateral thinker

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 13:57:17 +0700, John B.
<jbsl...@fictitious.site> wrote:

>For the bicyclist, the tight black shorts (with the built in bulge),
>the brilliant colored jersey, the shoes that are hard to walk in. And,
>or course, the special Bicycle Helmet. (and for the really "in" folks
>a tube of Chamois cream :-)

You left off shaved legs, disheveled helmet hair, jersey with dazzle
camouflage or advertisements in foreign languages, mega-lumen
lighting, panniers full of junk, aero sunglasses, etc. The proper
bicyclist of today looks much like what one might expect from a
tourist from another planet.

>><https://www.quora.com/Do-people-with-high-IQs-have-tattoos>
>
>Well, maybe. But again as the reference itself states:
>
>" Jews are grossly over-represented amongst the highly intelligent,
>and none of them have any tattoos."

Times are changing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=jews+with+tattoos&tbm=isch>
and the practice is spreading to non-Jews:
<https://www.heyalma.com/whats-up-with-all-these-non-jewish-celebrities-with-jewish-tattoos/>
However, the only IQ tattoo I could find was this cartoon:
<https://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/g/gifted_iq.asp>
Perhaps a T-shirt would be better:
<https://www.redbubble.com/shop/high+IQ+t-shirts>

>>>Note that "Con Men", to be successful, are usually perceived to be
>>>honest :-)
>>
>>I'll take that as a compliment.
--

[jbeattie]

Trump is not loyal to his sycophants. You can suck-up one day and get thrown under the bus the next. Nancy is better off just arguing for normal, which she is trying to do -- notwithstanding the push-back from the the ultra-liberal wing. At some point, normal will get traction again -- probably after something horribly wrong occurs that will require a bail-out of some sort.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

"Something horribly wrong" has already occurred when Nancy Pelosi is the face of the moderate part of the Democrat Party.

You're heading for sixteen years of Trump followed by Pence. By then the Democrats will be so desperate, they'll do something even worse than this election, and guarantee a one-party state almost forever. That's not a good thing for the Constitution*, not even for Republicans.

Andre Jute
AOC is only six (6) years away from being nominated for president

* It is true, of course, that formal parties were not foreseen, never mind only two parties, but "interests" were catered for (the Founders may have thought "countered") in many ways, not least the Electoral College.

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 12:17:12 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:

> After all, Frank, ... always posts proof of his assertions

That's very likely because Franki-boy has been accused of lying so often that he now attempts to pre-empt accusations of lying or ignorance or simple incompetence by publishing irrelevant links.

We are not taken in.

Andre Jute
WTF is this Slow Johnny who gets everything so wrong?

[jbeattie]

On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 3:38:57 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 11:05:41 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 8:42:15 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 12:47:34 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 3:12:50 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 11:02:00 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 145. Pfffff. I scored 213 on the RNG IQ test. Its what got me into Trump University.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Jay Beattie.
> > > > >
> > > > > Piker. You shoulda held out for a membership card to the Democrat Party. One of its privileges is an automatic entry into the presidential nomination race from now until 2032.
> > > >
> > > > Well, that's certainly a cheaper option than Trump University, although it doesn't come with a lawsuit. I just got a $91 check for settlement of a class action lawsuit involving a debit card payment at a gas station. I didn't even know I was in the class. I'm a ninty-aire! Thank you Donald Trump University for helping me understand that lesson. Buy low, sue high! BTW, how you liking the national debt? It's great having the Republicans in charge again! Not like that white satan Bill Clinton!
> > > >
> > > > -- Jay Beattie.
> > >
> > > I keep telling you, until three minutes before the election, Trump was a Democrat. Bill Clinton just stole the Republicans' clothes and matched the stolen policies to Democratic populism. It wasn't even an original idea: Tony Blair's New Labour in Britain was 100% Mrs Thatcher's policies dressed up in caring, sharing (but tough on crime) talk, and Clinton simply helped himself to an idea that worked a treat for Blair.
> > >
> > > Democrats are incredibly stupid to let this "get Trump" charade continue. They're now the party that wished for an American president to be exposed as a Russian tool for their political, partisan advantage, and still Nadler and the other clowns are permitted to try for obstruction, which as clearly didn't happen.
> > >
> > > It would be so much smarter, realpolitik, for Mrs Pelosi and that fellow who leads the Dems in the Senate, whatsisname, to appeal to Donald Trump's vanity: "So, Donald, you say you're the most beloved President ever. We agree. But you're only the most beloved Republican President. To be fully realised by posterity, characterised in the round, you need to run in 2020 as a Democrat to prove that you're not just beloved the Republicans but of all Americans."
> >
> > Trump is not loyal to his sycophants. You can suck-up one day and get thrown under the bus the next. Nancy is better off just arguing for normal, which she is trying to do -- notwithstanding the push-back from the the ultra-liberal wing. At some point, normal will get traction again -- probably after something horribly wrong occurs that will require a bail-out of some sort.
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
>
> "Something horribly wrong" has already occurred when Nancy Pelosi is the face of the moderate part of the Democrat Party.

Something horribly wrong is the record federal debt which is growing by the day. It's a billion dollars a day just to service the debt. We have a trade war with no end-game or expressed statement of what victory might look like. We have a revolving door at the WH -- and at every agency -- few allies, economic or otherwise, except maybe Boris Johnson and Israel forever. Oh, and Russia is retaliating, NK is retaliating. Iran is retalliating. I'm sure I missed a few. And yes, the market is going to crash again on Monday. https://finance.yahoo.com/m/9143c0bb-4b8f-3cd2-a16c-73ce987fd020/dow-jones-futures-tumble%3A.html

>
> You're heading for sixteen years of Trump followed by Pence.

Trump would have to have some pretty good friends in the Army to get 16 years as president -- or a quick amendment of the Constitution.

By then the Democrats will be so desperate, they'll do something even worse than this election, and guarantee a one-party state almost forever. That's not a good thing for the Constitution*, not even for Republicans.

Democrats will, once again, get left with a steaming pile of shit -- probably a wrecked economy, a few extra wars, a massive federal debt, etc., etc. It will be 2008 all over again. I really do hope I'm wrong and there is some Harry Potter moment when Trump pulls a wand out of his coat and makes everything normal again.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:28:00 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 3:38:57 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > You're heading for sixteen years of Trump followed by Pence.
>
> Trump would have to have some pretty good friends in the Army to get 16 years as president -- or a quick amendment of the Constitution.

Choose only one possible explanation for your statement:
a) You were truant the day Civics 101 was taught
b) You deliberately misunderstood me
c) You fancy yourself as a late-night TV comic
d) You think the USA is a banana republic
e) Englieesh isn't your first language
f) You have difficulty dividing 16 by two and reaching the correct answer of 8
g) Nobody told you American presidents are limited to two terms of 4 years each, total 8 years

> By then the Democrats will be so desperate, they'll do something even worse than this election, and guarantee a one-party state almost forever. That's not a good thing for the Constitution*, not even for Republicans.
>
> Democrats will, once again, get left with a steaming pile of shit -- probably a wrecked economy, a few extra wars, a massive federal debt, etc., etc. It will be 2008 all over again.

That's a really good gloom you're putting on. The high spot of the previous President's tenure was when he got the Nobel Prize for being black. He was an appeaser of America's enemies and he's responsible for the dead end of identarian politics which has now taken over the Democrats and which guarantees them a place in the inner circles of Hell until they come to their senses. Obama was a destroyer who increased racial tension by a tremendous multiple.

> I really do hope I'm wrong and there is some Harry Potter moment when Trump pulls a wand out of his coat and makes everything normal again.

The fact is that Trump hasn't started any new wars, hasn't ordered strings of assassinations, including of Americans, hasn't appeased America's enemies, all of which Obama did, but Trump has provided a rollicking economy for nearly three years, has got America working again, and has appointed judges who follow the law, and has put the boot into those Chinese official crooks who stole everyone's intellectual property. All of that should be normal but never is under Democrat presidents. Any part of that, from a president of either party or none, is already an improvement on that pompous do-nothing Obama.

I didn't like Trump much better than crooked Hillary to start with, but he has met his campaign promises, and spectacularly so, except for the wall, and that's coming.

> -- Jay Beattie.

I really don't know what you people are whining about. I read Nation Review, because during the election it was the only place to get the facts without bias (and I remembered I knew Bill Buckley slightly when I worked in New York as a young man). You sound just like the Never Trumpers, who're reduced to whining about his tweets, and who're pissed off that he hasn't started any "just" wars. And those are the thoughtful Never Trumpers: the majority of Never Trumpers are just social snobs who will never approve of a president with a Brooklyn accent -- they're part of the swamp.

Andre Jute
A little distance lends a lot of perspective

[jbeattie]

This is the typical non-substantive response -- a trip down memory lane and a claim that others are whiners. I didn't even mention the guy's tweets. I'm talking about economic policies that failed or will fail. You need to engage on policy and tell me how a massive tax cut and other stimulus is necessary in hot economy when it results in staggering, historic deficits. Deficits with numbers usually reserved for astrophysics.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 12:07:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Years ago, when I was just a little fellow, my father hired, for the
summer, my paternal grandmother's elder brother. He was a sort of a
strange chap, apparently he had run away to sea as a teenager and
hadn't been seen for 50 years or more.

I sort of adopted him as he could tell some of the best stories you
ever heard. All about jumping ship in Shanghai before the war and
living in China. He had several Chinese "wives" or so he said.

I realize now that he cleaned up his stories for a 10 year old kid to
hear but they were still exciting :-)

Being an ex-sailor he was heavily tattooed, from his knuckles to his
neck, front, back and both sides which brings me to the subject here.
Have you ever seen a chap with 60 or 70 year old tattoos. They aren't
the nice, neat, sharply defined things that one sees on the Internet,
they are blurred, fuzzy and often illegible blue marks that makes one
think long sleeve shirts should be back in style.

So get your tattoos, and than as they say, "die young and make a good
looking corpse" :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

That's all in the eye of the beholder.

In my case The Warm Art shows the usual bleed and fade which
in bicycle parts is called 'patina'.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/26/2019 2:59 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>
> Have you ever seen a chap with 60 or 70 year old tattoos. They aren't
> the nice, neat, sharply defined things that one sees on the Internet,
> they are blurred, fuzzy and often illegible blue marks that makes one
> think long sleeve shirts should be back in style.
>
> So get your tattoos, and than as they say, "die young and make a good
> looking corpse" :-)

Coincidentally, yesterday I was dragged to an art museum that had an
exhibition of photographs titled "Ancient Ink." It was of elderly
people, mostly shirtess, mostly with acres of tattoos.

All I can say is, it's obvious that tastes vary. And that fashion is
weird and powerful.

"I'm getting a tattoo to express my individuality - just like everyone
else!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:59:45 +0700, John B. Slocomb <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Being an ex-sailor he was heavily tattooed, from his knuckles to his
>neck, front, back and both sides which brings me to the subject here.
>Have you ever seen a chap with 60 or 70 year old tattoos. They aren't
>the nice, neat, sharply defined things that one sees on the Internet,
>they are blurred, fuzzy and often illegible blue marks that makes one
>think long sleeve shirts should be back in style.

I wasn't thinking of tattooing every square mm of my body with
tattoos. Just my IQ in some suitably visible location. It pays to
advertise.

Incidentally, one danger with Hebrew tattoos is the possibility of
errors in spelling and definition:
"This guy has no idea what his Hebrew tattoo really means"
<https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/hebrew-tattoo-translation/>
Also, the inclusion of accent marks in the tattoo is not appropriate
for such signage. Notice the lack of accent marks on road and
advertising signs:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=hebrew+signage&tbm=isch>

>So get your tattoos, and than as they say, "die young and make a good
>looking corpse" :-)

I'm already 71, so the dying young option isn't available. I've also
survived a variety of surgical procedures, which left scars that make
much of my skin look like Dr Frankenstein's monster. Fortunately, I
do know how I'm going to die. It will be in the local supermarket
parking lot, run over by someone driving diagonally across the parking
spaces, who believes that all the rules of the road are suspended in
the parking lot. I doubt that my corpse will be presentable, unless
you're into roadkill as an art form. Thanks for the good advice, but
it's not really applicable and certainly too late for me.

[Sir Ridesalot]

71 isn't old. Good grief, my grandfather was 103 years young and still saving for his old age.

Cheers

[Andre Jute]

I shared a birthday with my great-grandfather. On my eight birthday and his 108th, he took me for a thirty-mile walk through the vineyards. When we returned, with a whole trail of basket-carriers bringing the prize grapes he selected snipped with his own hands, he stacked the smoking chimney, which to the boy Andre was impossibly high, and turned a ton or so of grapes into premium raisins for the extended family. Meanwhile I had the most appalling cramps and had to be put in a hot bath, and the women reproached him so hard for his thoughtlessness, he sought refuge in his Bible.

Unfortunately, when I told this story a few years ago, citing the facts as I believed them to be, an extremely reliable aunt said that, a) the old man was so old that nobody knew his birthday because he was born in disturbed times and his birth wasn't written into the family bible until he was an adult, at which time a birthday was chosen for him, apparently at random, so the chances are more than 364 to one against any claim that his birthday and mine coincide, and b) the women in the family once discussed what evidence there was of the year he was born, and concluded that he *probably* was 101 when he died, so he couldn't have been 108 when we took our walk through the vineyards.

I suggest you check your family history with a leery eye, especially the ages of people so old that living another year or ten becomes an achievement in itself. Of course, you do so at the risk of being turned cynical.

Andre Jute
Too often the truth is so much less interesting than the myth

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 4:53:42 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 6:57:04 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:28:00 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 25, 2019 at 3:38:57 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You're heading for sixteen years of Trump followed by Pence.
> > >
> > > Trump would have to have some pretty good friends in the Army to get 16 years as president -- or a quick amendment of the Constitution.
> >
> > Choose only one possible explanation for your statement:
> > a) You were truant the day Civics 101 was taught
> > b) You deliberately misunderstood me
> > c) You fancy yourself as a late-night TV comic
> > d) You think the USA is a banana republic
> > e) Englieesh isn't your first language
> > f) You have difficulty dividing 16 by two and reaching the correct answer of 8
> > g) Nobody told you American presidents are limited to two terms of 4 years each, total 8 years
> >
> > > By then the Democrats will be so desperate, they'll do something even worse than this election, and guarantee a one-party state almost forever. That's not a good thing for the Constitution*, not even for Republicans.
> > >
> > > Democrats will, once again, get left with a steaming pile of shit -- probably a wrecked economy, a few extra wars, a massive federal debt, etc., etc. It will be 2008 all over again.
> >
> > That's a really good gloom you're putting on. The high spot of the previous President's tenure was when he got the Nobel Prize for being black. He was an appeaser of America's enemies and he's responsible for the dead end of identarian politics which has now taken over the Democrats and which guarantees them a place in the inner circles of Hell until they come to their senses. Obama was a destroyer who increased racial tension by a tremendous multiple.
> >
> > > I really do hope I'm wrong and there is some Harry Potter moment when Trump pulls a wand out of his coat and makes everything normal again.
> >
> > The fact is that Trump hasn't started any new wars, hasn't ordered strings of assassinations, including of Americans, hasn't appeased America's enemies, all of which Obama did, but Trump has provided a rollicking economy for nearly three years, has got America working again, and has appointed judges who follow the law, and has put the boot into those Chinese official crooks who stole everyone's intellectual property. All of that should be normal but never is under Democrat presidents. Any part of that, from a president of either party or none, is already an improvement on that pompous do-nothing Obama.
> >
> > I didn't like Trump much better than crooked Hillary to start with, but he has met his campaign promises, and spectacularly so, except for the wall, and that's coming.
> >
> > > -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > I really don't know what you people are whining about. I read Nation Review, because during the election it was the only place to get the facts without bias (and I remembered I knew Bill Buckley slightly when I worked in New York as a young man). You sound just like the Never Trumpers, who're reduced to whining about his tweets, and who're pissed off that he hasn't started any "just" wars. And those are the thoughtful Never Trumpers: the majority of Never Trumpers are just social snobs who will never approve of a president with a Brooklyn accent -- they're part of the swamp.
>
> This is the typical non-substantive response --

I gave you all the substance I intended to give you, which was more than you deserved -- see my reply to your snark above. And the word you're looking for is "non-responsive", and that would be
misleading too, as a count of the actual verifiable facts in each post will demonstrate.

>a trip down memory lane

Obama isn't down memory lane. He's last night's bad nightmare, and Netflix has given him $58m to keep him front and centre, ever present like a bad smell.

>and a claim that others are whiners.

It's an accurate description. I'm an outside observer, and to me the Democrats, and the Never Trumpers too, are behaving like petulant children, spitting on the candy-bar so that the other kids can get none of it.

>I didn't even mention the guy's tweets.

Nope. I did. Complaints about his tweets are symptomatic of the snobbish reaction to Mr Trump by the self-elevated moral guardians of America. Before you lot start twitching your net curtains at Trump, you'd better better clean up Antifa, Black Live Matter, Baltimore, San Franciso and the rest of California, and those wreckers on the far, far left of the Congressional Democrats.

> I'm talking about economic policies that failed or will fail.

Really? I thought you were giving me Obama talking points.

>You need to engage on policy and tell me how a massive tax cut

Hey man, get with the programme. The Maximum Leader of your own party, Nancy Pelosi, called the tax cut "crumbs". That sort of mickey mouse crap entitles me to bypass the proper response for the more of the same.

In any event, if you want policy, have you been paying attention? I'm a freshwater monetarist. I'm all for tax cuts. They stimulate savings and investment (in the mix with other sound money policies). My advice to Mr Trump, if he had asked (which he won't!), would have been to cool the economy by raising the Fed's rates. Hell, there was a time when I would have stood firm on balanced budgets, but that's yesterday's news, never to return. Trump simply won't cut back on welfare services. (I told you, he's a Democrat in Briony drag, and you lot were incredibly stupid not to own him while you still could. And, if you check in this forum, and elsewhere, I said that before the election too. I have an uncanny habit of being proved right about people, and everything in the end is about people.)

>and other stimulus is necessary in hot economy when it results in staggering, historic deficits.

Since I don't live in the States, I can afford to observe that counterintuitive business with detached interest. But I hope you realize that I don't have to offer you any "substantive" views -- because you've already given my professional views, to a T. You've become a closet Friedmanite in your old age, Jay. [Congratulations to Georges Clemenceau, who predicted the arc of your politics before you were born!]

>Deficits with numbers usually reserved for astrophysics.

Don't be so gloomy, pal. You'll be dead long before that bill comes due.

> -- Jay Beattie.

Do yourself a favour. Turn in your Donkey Ticket and join the conservative wing of the Republicans -- if you can find it: it's pretty small, and the mainstream Republicans are mainly Democrat pols in better suits. You'll feel much more at home with people who speak the same language.

Andre Jute
The doctors all said I'd be dead before my thirtieth birthday. It just made me more reckless.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:58:10 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I suggest you check your family history with a leery eye, especially the
>ages of people so old that living another year or ten becomes an
>achievement in itself. Of course, you do so at the risk of being
>turned cynical.

My father had eight assorted brothers and sisters. My mother had
seven. Nine of them died young just before or during WWII. Of the
survivors, most died between age 75 to 80 mostly various inherited
cardiovascular issues caused by the substantial inbreeding in late
19th century Polish villages combined with health issues contracted in
the concentration camps. I'm no exception. A triple bypass saved me
from an early death in 2002 as did two stents in 2016. Had these
happened only 10 years earlier, the odds of my survival under the
medical technology of the day would have been drastically less.
Methinks it is a fairly good guess that I will drop dead from a heart
attack or stroke at age 75 to 80.

"Life expectancy in the US:
You're most likely to live a long life in Hawaii and California"
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/21/average-life-expectancy-in-the-us-hawaii-top-state-for-a-long-life/39018551/>
2. California
- Life expectancy at birth in 2015: 80.9 years
- Life expectancy at birth in 1980: 74.3 years (20th highest)
- 1980-2015 life expectancy change: 6.6 years (3rd largest)

Residents of California have significantly improved their
lifestyle, improving average life expectancy in the state
significantly, and jumping from the 20th position in 1980
to second in 2015. The Golden State has the third lowest
share of obese adults, the fifth lowest share of adults
who do not exercise, and the second lowest share of adults
who smoke. Also, 268.8 people under age 75 die per 100,000
people every year, the third lowest premature mortality
rate and well below the national rate of 336.4 per 100,000.

>Too often the truth is so much less interesting than the myth

True. However, since most people are unable to distinguish between
the truth and the myth, it doesn't matter.

[AMuzi]

On 8/26/2019 1:41 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> mainstream Republicans are mainly Democrat pols in better suits

+1

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 8:23:37 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:58:10 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I suggest you check your family history with a leery eye, especially the
> >ages of people so old that living another year or ten becomes an
> >achievement in itself. Of course, you do so at the risk of being
> >turned cynical.
>
> My father had eight assorted brothers and sisters. My mother had
> seven. Nine of them died young just before or during WWII. Of the
> survivors, most died between age 75 to 80 mostly various inherited
> cardiovascular issues caused by the substantial inbreeding in late
> 19th century Polish villages combined with health issues contracted in
> the concentration camps. I'm no exception. A triple bypass saved me
> from an early death in 2002 as did two stents in 2016. Had these
> happened only 10 years earlier, the odds of my survival under the
> medical technology of the day would have been drastically less.

I knew Christiaan Barnard slightly. He couldn't have performed his then-radical heart transplant without the heart-lung machine invented not long before. I was thinking of that, and of his brother's work in anti-rejection drugs, which were critical, when I had a stent implanted and three days later was on my bike. Barnard, whose career as an experimental surgeon was cut short by a form of arthritis, would have been amazed to see the surgeon in a glass booth like in a television studio, and on the floor just some assistants to insert tubes.

> Methinks it is a fairly good guess that I will drop dead from a heart
> attack or stroke at age 75 to 80.

I've found that paying zero attention to doctors, gainsayers, doomsayers, and especially actuaries, enhances and lengthens one's life.

> "Life expectancy in the US:
> You're most likely to live a long life in Hawaii and California"
> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/02/21/average-life-expectancy-in-the-us-hawaii-top-state-for-a-long-life/39018551/>
> 2. California
> - Life expectancy at birth in 2015: 80.9 years
> - Life expectancy at birth in 1980: 74.3 years (20th highest)
> - 1980-2015 life expectancy change: 6.6 years (3rd largest)
>
> Residents of California have significantly improved their
> lifestyle, improving average life expectancy in the state
> significantly, and jumping from the 20th position in 1980
> to second in 2015. The Golden State has the third lowest
> share of obese adults, the fifth lowest share of adults
> who do not exercise, and the second lowest share of adults
> who smoke. Also, 268.8 people under age 75 die per 100,000
> people every year, the third lowest premature mortality
> rate and well below the national rate of 336.4 per 100,000.

Those figures, even at the lower end, are indeed impressive. Until quite late in Good Queen Vicky"s reign, a working man in Britain couldn't count on making 40.

> >Too often the truth is so much less interesting than the myth
>
> True. However, since most people are unable to distinguish between
> the truth and the myth, it doesn't matter.

You're giving away my trade secrets, man!

> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Andre Jute
Don't forget to breathe -- Physical Therapist who put me on my feet and my bike after heart surgery

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:01:28 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

But, as they say, one things leads to another and first it was "Jill
Loves Jack" and than that had to change when Jill discovered just what
a "pail of water" really would get you and had it off with that guy
with the big Mercedes, down the street, and now I got a while line of
them all the way down my arm, there.
--

Cheers,

John B.