NationStates Jolt Archive

:eek: Whoooooooaaaa! Dudes, you just blew my mind! :cool:

It's a service to the community. You're welcome. :D

Yes. We giggle.

I'm way over six feet, more than 220 lbs. I wear a lot of black, and I look like a viking.

And this is me, 'giggling'.

Just wanted to burn that image into your mind.

Ditto, except I'm just over six feet and about 10 pounds lighter (or thereabouts).

By the way, can I tell you how badly I hate being whored out? My work has proven to be worth well over $200/hr in return on investment studies. Billing me out for half that doesn't make any sense./hijack

Ditto, except I'm just over six feet and about 10 pounds lighter (or thereabouts).

By the way, can I tell you how badly I hate being whored out? My work has proven to be worth well over $200/hr in return on investment studies. Billing me out for half that doesn't make any sense./hijack

<hijack> surely the logical thing to do, then... would be to go into some form of limited consultancy? That way, you get to take market rates, get a bigger share of the pie, and get to hire educated-ex-englishmen as trainees....</hijack>

<hijack> surely the logical thing to do, then... would be to go into some form of limited consultancy? That way, you get to take market rates, get a bigger share of the pie, and get to hire educated-ex-englishmen as trainees....</hijack>
I am actually always looking for trainees and given what I know of you, you would have little trouble. If you're genuinely interested, email me.

Ok, basically you and GnI were arguing that this study is worthless because of the opinions of 3 people. This claim is rather stupid. Peer review isnt the ultimate authority. There are criticisms of peer review as well:

<snip>

Jocabia and GnI have been critiquing this study of yours based on the same criteria as the experts who did the peer review. They have academic and professional experience in this kind of data-based work, so naturally, they take this approach. I do not have this background. I read this as a consumer of such data looking for practical proposals to real life issues. I also reject this study, and I think I should lay out in detail my reasons.

I am a citizen of a racially and culturally diverse country that has serious problems with poverty, social inequality, and crime (the USA). I am interested in seeing social status and quality of life improve for everyone in my country. I am in the market for public policies that will accomplish that.

However, my country also has a long and bitter history with racism and xenophobia, including generations of severe violence. If someone comes to me and says that the key to social problems is race, they are going to have to do some grade-A convincing to persuade me that they are not just more racists and segregationists like the ones that caused so much trouble in the past. I will not be satisified with just a confident manner and a big shiny resume.

The problem with this study about race and IQ that you are so in love with is that it just isn’t credible because it has serious problems with its methodology, which are described in detail by its critics. It starts with a premise that is based on an assumption, but it does not try to prove that premise by challenging it. This is not the way to prove that a premise is sound. All this study tells us is that Rushton and Jensen think race is important. It proves nothing else. Therefore, as a citizen and a voter looking for solutions to social problems, this study is useless to me and I reject it.

Here are the critisizms:

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/295-2.html (THERE ARE NO PUBLIC-POLICY IMPLICATIONS)

According to Sternberg:

Scientists might argue that their work is value free and that they are not responsible for the repugnant or even questionable values or actions of opportunistic leaders. Rushton and Jensen (2005) seem to believe, as have others, that they do perform a kind of value-free science and that they merely respect the truth. However, using tests and scoring them in itself represents a value judgment: Taking a test means different things for diverse groups, and the backgrounds of varied groups who take these tests are different (Greenfield, 1997). Studying so-called races represents a value judgment because race is a social construction, not a biological concept, and Rushton and Jensen's entire article is based on the false premise of race as having meaning other than in their and other people's imaginations (Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005). Deciding to study group differences represents a value judgment—that the problem is worth studying. Deciding to show that one group is genetically inferior on an index is a value judgment as to what is worth showing. These decisions, among others, indicate that there is no value-free science. Few of us can hear our own accents when we speak—only other people have accents! In the same way, supposedly “value-free science” reflects the values of investigators who cannot see their own values underlying their research.

The study begins with the assumption that race is a deciding factor. It does not ASK if this is so, it assumes it. Then, assuming that this is a truism that does not need proof, it goes on to claim that failure to account for race is the reason social equality programs haven’t achieved projected goals (i.e. Rushton and Jensen say you can’t make unequal people equal) and it proposes that social programs should be based on race. But since they do not and cannot PROVE that race is the deciding factor that they say it is or has the effects they say it has (Sternberg’s “no public policy implications” criticism), then none of their other statements, based on race, can stand either.

The following quote from Sternberg sums up how this destroys the credibility of the study:
The “Implications for Public Policy” section (Rushton & Jensen, Section 15) that is included in works of this kind (see also Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1969) seem to have the intention to provide a public-policy rationale for work attempting to show that one group is inferior to another and that not much, if anything, can be done about it. It is therefore worthwhile to examine whether any of the alleged public-policy implications follow from the data. If not, the argument that the research is useful in formulating public policy is impugned.

Further, according to Sternberg:

According to Rushton and Jensen (2005),
The research supporting the role of heredity in human behavior implies that the distributional model is more correct than the discrimination model. It explains some of the mean Black-White group difference in IQ-related outcomes in terms of the differential distribution of the genes for general mental ability. For example, IQ is a significant predictor of such socially disadvantageous outcomes as dropping out of high school, being unemployed, being divorced within 5 years of marriage, having an illegitimate child, living in poverty, being on welfare, and incarceration. (Rushton & Jensen, 2005, p. 282)

First, as Rushton and Jensen (2005) realize, these correlations, like heritability coefficients, are all obtained under a given social system. Heritabilities of intelligence differ widely even across social classes (Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, D'Onofrio, & Gottesman, 2003). Moreover, in a social system that has no welfare (e.g., traditionally, Mexico), IQ is not correlated with going on welfare. In a social system in which the state ensures that no one lives in poverty (e.g., traditionally, Sweden), IQ is not correlated with living in poverty. Is divorce heritable? In a system that does not allow divorce (e.g., traditionally, Chile), IQ is not correlated with divorce within the first 5 years of marriage. And in a system that does not allow discrimination, who knows what the heritability of intelligence would be?

As Sternberg shows in his article, IQ is an artificial measurement that can be affected by so many forces as to be nearly useless as a social descriptor, and in any event, at its best it is of limited practical usefulness and is not even a universal or universally important trait of a socially valuable human being.

What, then, is the value of IQ in the current debate? We must look at how it is being used, by Rushton and Jensen and by Ny Nordland. When we look at the use of IQ in the current debate, we can reasonably conclude that the only thing IQ is really providing is a conveniently malleable set of numbers that racists can use to dress up (and depersonalize) their arguments in favor a social structure based on a system of privileges attached to race. By attaching the right numbers to the right colors they seek to create a system for attaching an automatic assumption of superior intellect even to the stupidest white person while making an excuse to exclude the smartest and most talented non-white people from profitable career tracks or public office. In practical application, Rushton and Jensen's proposals would have no other result. How do I know this? Because I can see clear as day that they are proposing nothing that has not already been proposed and tried in the USA, always resulting in more poverty, more inequality, more crime, and lower standards of living for both whites and non-whites. There is nothing new or different here.

In addition, Sternberg mentions in general that the subject paper seeks to conclude that social programs fail because the groups intended to be helped are naturally inferior and therefore, it is a mistake to try to take them out of their natural, inferior, subordinate position. Looking at the argument as presented by Ny Nordland, it is clear this is the meaning of it, and yet Ny tries to claim that he is not espousing racism. How can this assumption of superiority/inferiority based on race not be considered racist -- as well as elitist, btw? If the authors can try to justify racial inequality on such elitist grounds by claiming a natural superiority of whites over blacks, then I would be interested to hear what genetic explanations they have for the millions of poor, under-achieving whites in the world. It is the experience of the USA that racism is just one form of elitism, and if racist policies are tolerated, other discriminatory policies -- based on class, sex, religion, etc -- inevitably follow close behind.

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/302-2.html (HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ)

According to Nisbett

Rushton and Jensen's (2005) article is characterized by failure to cite, in any but the most cursory way, strong evidence against their position. Their lengthy presentation of indirectly relevant evidence which, in light of the direct evidence against the hereditarian view they prefer, has little probative value, and their “scorecard” tallies of evidence on various points cannot be sustained by the evidence.

This is a clear criticism of Rushton and Jensen’s methods, and to me, this invalidates the paper right from the start. A premise that has not been challenged and cannot be shown to have overcome those challenges is not a proven premise. Therefore, I will not accept it as the basis for a substantial argument. Done.

Btw, the rest of Nisbett’s article clearly and in detail debunks Rushton’s and Jensen’s claims by showing the flaws in their methods. The quoted paragraph just sums it up.

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/320-2.html (THE CULTURAL MALLEABILITY OF INTELLIGENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE RACIAL/ETHNIC HIERARCHY)

According to Suzuki and Aronson

Rushton and Jensen (2005) review decades of literature to support a genetic basis for the racial/ethnic group hierarchy in intelligence, a position they have held unwaveringly for over 30 years. ...

It is evident that to reach Rushton and Jensen's (2005) position on the meaning of the race differences in test performance, one has to accept a particular definition of intelligence and believe in the validity of IQ tests to measure it.

Reynolds (2000) called for members of the profession to base interpretations of racial differences on mental tests on empirical data and continually challenge assumptions about the meaning of these differences.

This is another indicator of the bias of the authors of the subject paper. They do not challenge their own assumptions, but merely cherry pick both their data to construct supporting arguments, and their methods to avoid challenging themselves. Because of this, the study does not actually prove its own premise, and their work has no value. If Rushton and Jensen had taken this premise they have been trying to sell for 30 years and subjected it to tests devised by their philosophical opponents, and if their assertions had held up under those tests, then they might have a point worth making, but that is not what they did. An untested, unchallenged, unproven hypothesis is just so much hot air.

The author's answer:

http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/~mbmiller/journals/pppl/200504/2/328-2.html (WANTED
MORE RACE REALISM, LESS MORALISTIC FALLACY)

From Rushton and Jensen’s Answer:
WANTED
MORE RACE REALISM, LESS MORALISTIC FALLACY
J. Philippe Rushton
Department of Psychology,*The University of Western Ontario
Arthur R. Jensen
School of Education,*University of California, Berkeley

The title of their rebuttal sums up their argument very neatly. They come out attacking their critics with emotional, propagandistic and non-scientific language. They offer no proof or further data to support their assertions. They only come back with dismissals and accusations. I guess we know why Ny likes them so much, but this level of judgmentalism and thin-skinned hostility destroys whatever credibility they may have claimed. Again, I am a consumer of information, looking for a solution to a problem which has already been negatively affected by biases. I am not interested in more bias. This answer to their critics makes me think that Rushton and Jensen are so personally invested in their premise of white IQ superiority that they cannot be trusted as objective social scientists.

Again, neither you nor GnI is qualified enough to conclude that this study has been debunked. The criticism were answered and you can not conclude which side is correct. The critisizm itself might have been dubunked. You gotta link me some scientific consensuss.
Once again, you claim your opponents are unqualified while not giving any qualifications of your own. In fact, you have already admitted that you actually have no qualifications in this subject. The fact is that, academically and professionally, Jocabia and GnI are both more qualified to comment on this study than you are, but leaving them aside, the experts who conducted the peer review certainly ARE qualified to comment on it, and they rejected it and explained their reasons for doing so convincingly enough for me, as a consumer of such information, to agree with them and reject it too.

This is a clear criticism of Rushton and Jensen’s methods, and to me, this invalidates the paper right from the start. A premise that has not been challenged and cannot be shown to have overcome those challenges is not a proven premise. Therefore, I will not accept it as the basis for a substantial argument. Done.

There it is. Concisely, this is the problem with every argument Ny Nordland has ever made to us and it is the very problem he simply doesn't realize is a problem. You can't cherry pick your data, but that is all Ny does. As scientists and really anyone who cares about making a good argument, we must start by answering any no critiques to our position, not jump to only accept the data that supports our claims. Ny and these gentlemen start with assumption in hand and never allow it to be challenged and when it is, respond with vitriol. The writers of the study could be Ny for their similarities.

It's funny because Ny admits that he STARTED with an interest in protecting racial purity in his country and we're supposed to buy that it's just coincidence that the only things he finds to be convincing support that goal no matter how many critics any particular argument along those lines brings. I've never seen him adjust to an argument or adjust his position. Are we just supposed to buy that it's a massive coincidence that all avaliable data supports his agenda even though the agenda was formed before look at the evidence and is not based on the evidence. With luck like that, I would recommend the lottery.

Jocabia and GnI have been critiquing this study of yours based on the same criteria as the experts who did the peer review. They have academic and professional experience in this kind of data-based work, so naturally, they take this approach. I do not have this background. I read this as a consumer of such data looking for practical proposals to real life issues. I also reject this study, and I think I should lay out in detail my reasons.

I am a citizen of a racially and culturally diverse country that has serious problems with poverty, social inequality, and crime (the USA). I am interested in seeing social status and quality of life improve for everyone in my country. I am in the market for public policies that will accomplish that.

However, my country also has a long and bitter history with racism and xenophobia, including generations of severe violence. If someone comes to me and says that the key to social problems is race, they are going to have to do some grade-A convincing to persuade me that they are not just more racists and segregationists like the ones that caused so much trouble in the past. I will not be satisified with just a confident manner and a big shiny resume.

The problem with this study about race and IQ that you are so in love with is that it just isn’t credible because it has serious problems with its methodology, which are described in detail by its critics. It starts with a premise that is based on an assumption, but it does not try to prove that premise by challenging it. This is not the way to prove that a premise is sound. All this study tells us is that Rushton and Jensen think race is important. It proves nothing else. Therefore, as a citizen and a voter looking for solutions to social problems, this study is useless to me and I reject it.



According to Sternberg:



The study begins with the assumption that race is a deciding factor. It does not ASK if this is so, it assumes it. Then, assuming that this is a truism that does not need proof, it goes on to claim that failure to account for race is the reason social equality programs haven’t achieved projected goals (i.e. Rushton and Jensen say you can’t make unequal people equal) and it proposes that social programs should be based on race. But since they do not and cannot PROVE that race is the deciding factor that they say it is or has the effects they say it has (Sternberg’s “no public policy implications” criticism), then none of their other statements, based on race, can stand either.

The following quote from Sternberg sums up how this destroys the credibility of the study:


Further, according to Sternberg:



As Sternberg shows in his article, IQ is an artificial measurement that can be affected by so many forces as to be nearly useless as a social descriptor, and in any event, at its best it is of limited practical usefulness and is not even a universal or universally important trait of a socially valuable human being.

What, then, is the value of IQ in the current debate? We must look at how it is being used, by Rushton and Jensen and by Ny Nordland. When we look at the use of IQ in the current debate, we can reasonably conclude that the only thing IQ is really providing is a conveniently malleable set of numbers that racists can use to dress up (and depersonalize) their arguments in favor a social structure based on a system of privileges attached to race. By attaching the right numbers to the right colors they seek to create a system for attaching an automatic assumption of superior intellect even to the stupidest white person while making an excuse to exclude the smartest and most talented non-white people from profitable career tracks or public office. In practical application, Rushton and Jensen's proposals would have no other result. How do I know this? Because I can see clear as day that they are proposing nothing that has not already been proposed and tried in the USA, always resulting in more poverty, more inequality, more crime, and lower standards of living for both whites and non-whites. There is nothing new or different here.

In addition, Sternberg mentions in general that the subject paper seeks to conclude that social programs fail because the groups intended to be helped are naturally inferior and therefore, it is a mistake to try to take them out of their natural, inferior, subordinate position. Looking at the argument as presented by Ny Nordland, it is clear this is the meaning of it, and yet Ny tries to claim that he is not espousing racism. How can this assumption of superiority/inferiority based on race not be considered racist -- as well as elitist, btw? If the authors can try to justify racial inequality on such elitist grounds by claiming a natural superiority of whites over blacks, then I would be interested to hear what genetic explanations they have for the millions of poor, under-achieving whites in the world. It is the experience of the USA that racism is just one form of elitism, and if racist policies are tolerated, other discriminatory policies -- based on class, sex, religion, etc -- inevitably follow close behind.



According to Nisbett



This is a clear criticism of Rushton and Jensen’s methods, and to me, this invalidates the paper right from the start. A premise that has not been challenged and cannot be shown to have overcome those challenges is not a proven premise. Therefore, I will not accept it as the basis for a substantial argument. Done.

Btw, the rest of Nisbett’s article clearly and in detail debunks Rushton’s and Jensen’s claims by showing the flaws in their methods. The quoted paragraph just sums it up.



According to Suzuki and Aronson



This is another indicator of the bias of the authors of the subject paper. They do not challenge their own assumptions, but merely cherry pick both their data to construct supporting arguments, and their methods to avoid challenging themselves. Because of this, the study does not actually prove its own premise, and their work has no value. If Rushton and Jensen had taken this premise they have been trying to sell for 30 years and subjected it to tests devised by their philosophical opponents, and if their assertions had held up under those tests, then they might have a point worth making, but that is not what they did. An untested, unchallenged, unproven hypothesis is just so much hot air.



From Rushton and Jensen’s Answer:


The title of their rebuttal sums up their argument very neatly. They come out attacking their critics with emotional, propagandistic and non-scientific language. They offer no proof or further data to support their assertions. They only come back with dismissals and accusations. I guess we know why Ny likes them so much, but this level of judgmentalism and thin-skinned hostility destroys whatever credibility they may have claimed. Again, I am a consumer of information, looking for a solution to a problem which has already been negatively affected by biases. I am not interested in more bias. This answer to their critics makes me think that Rushton and Jensen are so personally invested in their premise of white IQ superiority that they cannot be trusted as objective social scientists.


Once again, you claim your opponents are unqualified while not giving any qualifications of your own. In fact, you have already admitted that you actually have no qualifications in this subject. The fact is that, academically and professionally, Jocabia and GnI are both more qualified to comment on this study than you are, but leaving them aside, the experts who conducted the peer review certainly ARE qualified to comment on it, and they rejected it and explained their reasons for doing so convincingly enough for me, as a consumer of such information, to agree with them and reject it too.


Another excellent post... today has been a good day for me - I have seen a number of TRULY excellent posts. It is most gratifying.

I say, again... excellent post.

*bows*

Another excellent post... today has been a good day for me - I have seen a number of TRULY excellent posts. It is most gratifying.

I say, again... excellent post.

*bows*

Yeah, I didn't say it before, but it was an incredible post. I suspect our Nordic friend will dismiss with one of two tactics. "You're not qualified to make those conclusions" or by simply dropping the argument claiming it's just more bias. In fact, that would be the same quality rebuttal we got WITHIN the study.

Yeah, I didn't say it before, but it was an incredible post. I suspect our Nordic friend will dismiss with one of two tactics. "You're not qualified to make those conclusions" or by simply dropping the argument claiming it's just more bias. In fact, that would be the same quality rebuttal we got WITHIN the study.

I, also, fear that the work put into the post will be largely wasted on Little Ny. But, even if that were the case, the effort was gratefully received by you and I, at the very least. :)

I, also, fear that the work put into the post will be largely wasted on Little Ny. But, even if that were the case, the effort was gratefully received by you and I, at the very least. :)

We're not the only ones reading. It will be well-received by many, methinks. See what happens when you get a little sleep, GnI?

We're not the only ones reading. It will be well-received by many, methinks. See what happens when you get a little sleep, GnI?

Shhh... I nearly woke my lil' boy, from laughing out loud... :)

Funny thing is.... I've slept, maybe, 4 hours a night, average, for about two decades...

Last night, I finally got... I don't know... 6 or 8 hours, and today - NS is full of excellent posts.

I'm trying to work out HOW the two can be connected... :D

Shhh... I nearly woke my lil' boy, from laughing out loud... :)

Funny thing is.... I've slept, maybe, 4 hours a night, average, for about two decades...

Last night, I finally got... I don't know... 6 or 8 hours, and today - NS is full of excellent posts.

I'm trying to work out HOW the two can be connected... :D

God did it. ;)

Another excellent post... today has been a good day for me - I have seen a number of TRULY excellent posts. It is most gratifying.

I say, again... excellent post.

*bows*
Oh, I thank your lordship. *effusive and elaborate bowing* ;)

I know what you mean. It's like, the more inane the jerks on the forum, the better the smack-downs. It's like we're the oysters and they are the grit.

Yeah, I didn't say it before, but it was an incredible post. I suspect our Nordic friend will dismiss with one of two tactics. "You're not qualified to make those conclusions" or by simply dropping the argument claiming it's just more bias. In fact, that would be the same quality rebuttal we got WITHIN the study.
And I thank your lordship as well. *more effusive bowing* :)

I bet he'll use both. However, I'll be surprised if he actually reads the damned thing. Remember in his Angry White Female thread how he bragged about being too lazy to read long articles or posts?

God did it. ;)

Great... you did it again... and this time I did laugh out loud. I'm in trouble now.

Sorry... just got this mental image. Standing in the kitchen. Dog sat there doing puppy dog eyes. Wet patch on floor. "God did it"...

Great... you did it again... and this time I did laugh out loud. I'm in trouble now.

Sorry... just got this mental image. Standing in the kitchen. Dog sat there doing puppy dog eyes. Wet patch on floor. "God did it"...

That time I did it on purpose.

Oh, I thank your lordship. *effusive and elaborate bowing* ;)

I know what you mean. It's like, the more inane the jerks on the forum, the better the smack-downs. It's like we're the oysters and they are the grit.

Most welcome. I don't give out much in the way of praise... so I think it's usually VERY well earned, when I do. And, this isn't a fluke, either... I seem to recall I've had to effusively gush (wow... that looks like it means something different...) over your work before...

I'm officially leaving this reply, now... because it seems to have a mind of it's own....

I, also, fear that the work put into the post will be largely wasted on Little Ny. But, even if that were the case, the effort was gratefully received by you and I, at the very least. :)
Oh, I'm well aware that I would do better to have my cat read that post than Ny Nordland, but that's not why I write these speeches. I come here to practice my debating skills and to refine my arguments and positions for use in the Real World (tm). NSG is kind of a brain gym for me.

And I thank your lordship as well. *more effusive bowing* :)

I bet he'll use both. However, I'll be surprised if he actually reads the damned thing. Remember in his Angry White Female thread how he bragged about being too lazy to read long articles or posts?

Which makes me wonder... I'm pretty sure he has yet to read the 'evidence' he keeps throwing at us....

We're not the only ones reading. It will be well-received by many, methinks. See what happens when you get a little sleep, GnI?
Sleep, coffee, followed by long walks outdoors and fresh fruit. And more coffee. *flexes muscles* And then some coffee. ;)

Shhh... I nearly woke my lil' boy, from laughing out loud... :)
<snip>
When did you get a lil' boy? I knew about the daughter who likes to read, but -- how many do you have? And where did you get them all?

Oh, I'm well aware that I would do better to have my cat read that post than Ny Nordland, but that's not why I write these speeches. I come here to practice my debating skills and to refine my arguments and positions for use in the Real World (tm). NSG is kind of a brain gym for me.

Much the same reason I visit NSG, also... and I believe Jocabia has made similar profession.

That and acquiring power-ups for my arsenal.

Sleep, coffee, followed by long walks outdoors and fresh fruit. And more coffee. *flexes muscles* And then some coffee. ;)

Mmmmm. Coffee gooood.

Which makes me wonder... I'm pretty sure he has yet to read the 'evidence' he keeps throwing at us....

Ya think? Would that explain why he keeps misrepresenting it? Um, yeah, it would explain it. My conclusion, He cannot have read it. ;)

Most welcome. I don't give out much in the way of praise... so I think it's usually VERY well earned, when I do. And, this isn't a fluke, either... I seem to recall I've had to effusively gush (wow... that looks like it means something different...) over your work before...

I'm officially leaving this reply, now... because it seems to have a mind of it's own....
Hey, what can I say, man? I'm just a really good writer, I guess... ;)

When did you get a lil' boy? I knew about the daughter who likes to read, but -- how many do you have? And where did you get them all?

Only two, all told. The lil' boy is quite new... we've only had him a little over half a year (October 5th). He's actually been a regular of NSG over that time... albeit a silent regular, who largely contributes by dribbling and being heavy on my arm.

That's the only one I get to claim the biology for. The other one is my seven-year-old girl.. who, as you said, loves to read. She's my lil' darlin'... but, 'it was like that when I got here'. She's mine in every way that matters, though.

When did you get a lil' boy? I knew about the daughter who likes to read, but -- how many do you have? And where did you get them all?

From the stork. Some have tried to conclude that it comes from a natural birth process, but those 'scientists' are simply anti-stork.

Hey, what can I say, man? I'm just a really good writer, I guess... ;)

:D

I just didn't realise how good.... ;)

From the stork. Some have tried to conclude that it combs from a natural birth process, but those 'scientists' are simply anti-stork.

You're in trouble, mister... someone got woken up that time...

Mmmmm. Coffee gooood.
It's the elixir of life. Aahhhh, Javaaaah... :cool:

You're in trouble, mister... someone got woken up that time...
I knew that one would get you.

Only two, all told. The lil' boy is quite new... we've only had him a little over half a year (October 5th). He's actually been a regular of NSG over that time... albeit a silent regular, who largely contributes by dribbling and being heavy on my arm.

That's the only one I get to claim the biology for. The other one is my seven-year-old girl.. who, as you said, loves to read. She's my lil' darlin'... but, 'it was like that when I got here'. She's mine in every way that matters, though.
Oh, how cuuuuute! I'm actually a-scared of babies. They intimidate me. Ny doesn't, but babies do. Surprising? Not really.

Anyhoo...Congratulations. I love this image of you training GnIJr to smack down online jerks from early childhood. I heartily approve. :D

I knew that one would get you.
It got me too.

Right, I'm off for a bit. Time to eat and give my mom a call, and anyway, I have to put the laptop aside to change the tv channel away from Celebrity Poker.

I'm glad you both liked the post. I'm just sick of Ny claiming that nobody examines his evidence (the pot calling the kettle black). That's why I went to the trouble, but it was fun, too.

Oh, how cuuuuute! I'm actually a-scared of babies. They intimidate me. Ny doesn't, but babies do. Surprising? Not really.

Anyhoo...Congratulations. I love this image of you training GnIJr to smack down online jerks from early childhood. I heartily approve. :D

I discuss my posts with him. He doesn't say much but he nods a lot, and blinks at me. It does seem to have positive effects... he's been saying "Hey, dada" for about two months now... and my doctor says he should have a two-word-vocabulary by the time he's a year old.

I guess it's never to early to bring the little ones to the debating grounds.

Babies ARE scary. I honestly never thought I'd be 'a parent'... the damned things are just so wriggly and breakable-looking. And then... there's the disharging of bodily processes from both ends (babies, I mean... despite resemblence to... certain threads...)

Anyway... must stop talking about cute things. I have a reputation as an evil revolutionary Viking (or something) to protect...

I knew that one would get you.

I can be a bit evil at times too. I shouldn't be trying so hard to wake up your kid, but it's fun making you laugh.

I can be a bit evil at times too. I shouldn't be trying so hard to wake up your kid, but it's fun making you laugh.

Fortunately, it's after babybedtime, so he can go right back to sleep.

Unfortunately... that just means I get to wake him up again, a few minutes later...

Kobayashi Maru...