Re: Genius Reply #75 – 2015-04-26, 08:36:37 I didn't know what you meant either. In English they are usually called I.Q. tests.I wouldn't call them a fraud, but agree they are little more than a measurement of your ability to answer I.Q. tests. Last Edit: 2015-04-26, 09:06:13 by tt92
Re: Genius Reply #76 – 2015-04-26, 09:05:35 Quote from: tt92 on 2015-04-26, 08:36:37I didn't know what yo meant either. In English they are usually called I.Q. tests.In French language and perhaps in other Romance languages, things are notoriously the other way round. UN is NU, NATO is OTAN, etc.
Re: Genius Reply #77 – 2015-04-26, 09:59:08 Quote from: ersi on 2015-04-26, 09:05:35In French language and perhaps in other Romance languages,At all Latin based languages we define things from general until the particular. We think with order.It's an OrganizationBased on a TreatyCovers the AtlanticSpecifically the NorthNot the other way round that only at the end you'll have any valuable information.
Re: Genius Reply #79 – 2015-04-26, 12:43:57 Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-04-26, 09:59:08At all Latin based languages we define things from general until the particular. We think with order.All languages display some kind of order. Some languages have more tradition behind them, such as Latin-derived languages, while others, such as English, have been through a profound re-ordering of all grammar and vocabulary in their history. I would not blame English for lack of order. Its apparent order is borrowed from Latin-based languages anyway. I blame the English language for its speakers' pretention that the language gained everything from its historic overhaul and lost nothing. Of course it lost a lot. English used to be a natural born Germanic language, but it's a French pidgin now.And I don't think that order can be defined by movement from the general towards the particular. Order is defined by a clear distinction. There are several fundamental distinctions possible, and a clear language picks one distinction and is consistent with it. General and particular are one distinction among others. It essentially does not matter in what direction the movement in language is between the ends of the distinction, whether from the general towards the particular or from the particular towards the general, just like it does not matter on what syllable the word-stress is in languages that have a fixed word-stress. It can be in the end of words, like in French, or on the penultimate syllable, like in Italian, just as long as it's consistent and workable. In my language the word-stress happens to be on the first syllable. When it's not, it's a sure sign of a historically recent loan word.The major syntactic distinction in my language is theme versus rheme. Theme is the topic of discussion and rheme is that what's said about the topic, i.e. rheme is the actual discussion of the theme. In sentences, rheme follows the theme. The topic is set first and is then followed by things that are to be said about it. Perfectly orderly. It would be disorderly to adopt some other distinction and to try to obey the new "order" against the nature of the language that the people already possess.
Re: Genius Reply #80 – 2015-04-26, 16:12:13 Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-04-26, 06:32:54Or, perhaps, that you have no clue about what intelligence and, particularly, female's intelligence is about.And how--pray tell--do you, as a macho man, define 'female intelligence'? (this oughta be good).
Re: Genius Reply #81 – 2015-04-26, 20:03:02 There is no "intelligence" but intelligence towards something.Women, generally speaking, excels at intuition and emotional manipulation.
Re: Genius Reply #82 – 2015-04-27, 13:30:30 Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-04-26, 20:03:02Women, generally speaking, excels at intuition and emotional manipulation.Can't agree with the intuition part--more like heady anticipation I think--and of course, 'emotional manipulation' was selective in nature (but you wouldn't know anything about that). Look up oxytocin, to get a better idea.
Re: Genius Reply #83 – 2015-04-28, 00:38:26 I originally had few options for where to post this… But here seems best!I defy anyone to read this legal brief and not be impressed! (I've not yet read the supplemental materiel… I may never.) It bears upon Belfrager and Jame's disagreement.And -somewhat- on this thread's topic.
Re: Genius Reply #84 – 2015-04-28, 00:50:25 Interesting.I have to know, were the asterisks in the original document, or have they been inserted later?
Re: Genius Reply #85 – 2015-04-28, 01:40:13 Quote from: tt92 on 2015-04-28, 00:50:25Interesting.I have to know, were the asterisks in the original document, or have they been inserted later?They seem inserted but I'm honestly not sure. Clearly a scanned document, they seem irregular to the words and scan errors. ..."Floridian-American" is the point I quit reading and started skimming. Clearly they think they know more than they do. Probably an ignorance of the State's laws. This was filed in Atlanta, Georgia apparently. I don't need to read it. I don't give a f*ck if I'm wrong.
Re: Genius Reply #86 – 2015-04-28, 05:52:47 The asterisks and other elisions were in the original… (At least, that's what my initial source says; and I'm willing to believe him.)
Re: Genius Reply #87 – 2015-04-28, 21:54:10 Check here. Somebody went to the trouble of producing a text document of the filing.http://thetrendythings.com/read/25126
Re: Genius Reply #88 – 2015-04-28, 22:00:06 Clearly, DnD has a problem with genius.I propose that all posters are considered genius as a way of solving this small, irritating, problem.
Re: Genius Reply #91 – 2015-04-29, 22:47:43 Me too. Cool to be a genius.Maybe we should do a World Geniuses Tour, kind of Buffalo Bill and his Circus.
Re: Genius Reply #92 – 2015-04-30, 09:32:15 Maybe we should do a World Geniuses Tour, kind of Buffalo Bill and his Circus of DnD clowns.
Re: Genius Reply #93 – 2015-04-30, 22:20:23 Clearly, you benefit from a condescending that you even don't realize.Okay, you are the decrepit Buffalo Bill, I'll be the savage Indian DnD clown.
Re: Genius Reply #94 – 2015-05-01, 00:30:56 In reference to ersi's post: Can anyone provide a natural language that doesn't provide and facilitate puns?(Yes, I miss jax's thread on the origins of language…)
Re: Genius Reply #95 – 2015-05-03, 20:34:16 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-05-01, 00:30:56Can anyone provide a natural language that doesn't provide and facilitate puns?Maybe those South African Bosquimane Pygmees that speaks while making "clicks" with their tongue.
Re: Genius Reply #96 – 2015-05-03, 23:11:33 " I was a man who stood in symbolic relations to the art and culture of my age...The gods had given me almost everything. I had genius, a distinguished name, high social position, brilliancy, intellectual daring; I made art a philosophy, and philosophy an art: I altered the minds of men and the colour of things: there was nothing I said or did that did not make people wonder...I treated Art as the supreme reality, and life as a mere mode of fiction: I awoke the imagination of my century so that it created myth and legend around me: I summed up all systems in a phrase, and all existence in an epigram. "- Oscar Wilde, in De Profundis
Topic: Genius (Read 21976 times)
