First off, "stupider" isn't even a word;
To wit:
Q: How much do _you_ know about immunology?
HINT: I wrote a book (unpublished as yet) about Type IV cellular immunity
as it pertains to allergies (specifically poison oak allergies).
DOUBLEHINT: I'm on record on this ng for being a contributing author to a peer-reviewed published paper on how microorganisms inherit antibiotic resistance, too. I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
it out of hand - because you're on Mount Stupid - but the adults in this newsgroup will believe me because, unlike you, I'm well educated in a
variety of fields, one of which is in the biological sciences.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger? >>>Wharton organizational psychologist Adam Grant famously popularized it in
his book *Think Again* so you are not so unique in "knowing" about this
fictitious representation.
Hi Hemidactylus,
The problem with you iKooks is you get _everything wrong_ in every case.
a. Alan Baker swears he's taken Physics & yet never heard of a catenary
b. Chris swears he has a medical-based Phd & yet ridiculed immunology terms c. Jolly Roger swears Apple fully patches older releases when Apple doesn't d. nospam swears graphical signal strength apps exist - and yet they do not e. You refute the D-K effect & yet you are ignorant of their seminal papers etc.
OBSERVATION:
*Strange low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks live squarely on Mount Stupid*
To wit...
I never said I was "unique in knowing about Mount Stupid", Hemidactylus.
In fact, everyone _except the iKooks_ seems to know this basic stuff.
Which is my point, after all...
<https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>Yet in that page you either didn't read or comprehend it is said of the
graphs in the D-K effect paper: "These graphics bare little resemblance to >> the ones found online - having no "mount stupid" in evidence. The online
images vary widely in their presentation, so if there is a primary source, >> then it would be good to know which one is the correct graphic, or if they >> are all fake."
Again, I know EXACTLY what the graphs look like in the seminal papers, Hemidactylus - and in fact you disputed that they tested English scores.
It's no longer shocking that you iKooks guess about everything.
It's why you know nothing.
It's why Alan Baker never heard of one of the most fundamental curves based on the forces of nature (which, let's be clear, work with centrifugal
forces the same way they work with gravitational forces).
BTW, do you see what I just wrote above?
Look at it.
Can you tell I have a vast educational advantage over you, Hemidactylus? Notice that most of the catenary cites will be about bridges.
But also notice the forces of nature apply to centrifugal forces also.
(Let's not get into the "fictitious forces" argument for the time being.)
Do you think Alan Baker caught that the forces work the same in the horizontal (sidewise) direction as they do in the vertical direction?
*I am sure he doesn't have a clue.*
He is an iKook, after all.
In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal
force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.
There are three facts I can tell you about Alan Baker which we proved:
a. He claims to support customers' computers and yet he is completely
ignorant about newsreader headers to the point that he's overconfident
in his knowledge as shown by his repeated idiocies proven here:
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
b. He claims to be knowledgeable in BMWs, and yet, he stated he's owned
them for years and yet he's never once heard of the term bimmer/beemer.
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
c. He claims to race and to even be a "racing instructor" and yet he can't
fathom how the Newtonian forces of nature which apply to a vertical
catenary apply equally to the centrifugal forces racing around a curve.
In fact, he claims that he's never heard of a catenary, even as claiming
at the same time that he has taken Physics and Calculus classes.
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[snip]
Yeah? https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/are-stupider-and-stupidest-real-words
First off, "stupider" isn't even a word;
[snip]
To what extent is there non-heritable somatic DNA change in B-lymphocytes after exposure to antigen (from pathogenic infection or vaccination)? What
To wit:
Q: How much do _you_ know about immunology?
HINT: I wrote a book (unpublished as yet) about Type IV cellular immunity
as it pertains to allergies (specifically poison oak allergies).
is this well known process of adaptive immunity called and what is its genetic mechanism? Don’t confuse it with somatic recombination, which itself makes T and B lymphocytes diverse enough to target a plethora of antigens.
Why is it wrong to say the mRNA based vaccines are a form of genetic engineering? What do these vaccines lack which prevents conversion into DNA and integration into the genome of a cell?
Why is the popular narrative that vaccination doesn’t result in minor genetic changes in very specific regions of immunoglobulin genes wrong? Why is it also wrong as the conspiracy theorists allege that the mRNA in these vaccines itself winds up in our DNA like it was a retrovirus?
Have retroviruses been instrumental in the evolution of placentation in mammals?
Why was ENCODE wrong in its PR dismissal of junk DNA in our genome?
So phages and/or plasmids? An example of evolutionary gene flow, subset horizontal gene transfer? If you are not blowing smoke up my ass I will
DOUBLEHINT: I'm on record on this ng for being a contributing author to a
peer-reviewed published paper on how microorganisms inherit antibiotic
resistance, too. I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
it out of hand - because you're on Mount Stupid - but the adults in this
newsgroup will believe me because, unlike you, I'm well educated in a
variety of fields, one of which is in the biological sciences.
give you credit for that. But that’s a HUGE threshold for you to surmount because I am not easily bullshitted on immunology or evolutionary biology.
On 2023-12-24 12:17, Wally J wrote:
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger?Wharton organizational psychologist Adam Grant famously popularized it in >>> his book *Think Again* so you are not so unique in "knowing" about this
fictitious representation.
Hi Hemidactylus,
The problem with you iKooks is you get _everything wrong_ in every case.
a. Alan Baker swears he's taken Physics & yet never heard of a catenary
That is simply a lie as I never once said anything like that.
b. Chris swears he has a medical-based Phd & yet ridiculed immunology terms >> c. Jolly Roger swears Apple fully patches older releases when Apple doesn't >> d. nospam swears graphical signal strength apps exist - and yet they do not >> e. You refute the D-K effect & yet you are ignorant of their seminal papers >> etc.
OBSERVATION:
*Strange low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks live squarely on Mount Stupid*
To wit...
I never said I was "unique in knowing about Mount Stupid", Hemidactylus.
In fact, everyone _except the iKooks_ seems to know this basic stuff.
Which is my point, after all...
<https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>Yet in that page you either didn't read or comprehend it is said of the
graphs in the D-K effect paper: "These graphics bare little resemblance to >>> the ones found online - having no "mount stupid" in evidence. The online >>> images vary widely in their presentation, so if there is a primary source, >>> then it would be good to know which one is the correct graphic, or if they >>> are all fake."
Again, I know EXACTLY what the graphs look like in the seminal papers,
Hemidactylus - and in fact you disputed that they tested English scores.
It's no longer shocking that you iKooks guess about everything.
It's why you know nothing.
It's why Alan Baker never heard of one of the most fundamental curves based >> on the forces of nature (which, let's be clear, work with centrifugal
forces the same way they work with gravitational forces).
BTW, do you see what I just wrote above?
Look at it.
Can you tell I have a vast educational advantage over you, Hemidactylus?
Notice that most of the catenary cites will be about bridges.
But also notice the forces of nature apply to centrifugal forces also.
(Let's not get into the "fictitious forces" argument for the time being.)
Do you think Alan Baker caught that the forces work the same in the
horizontal (sidewise) direction as they do in the vertical direction?
Forces work the same in general...
...but the specifics are very different.
*I am sure he doesn't have a clue.*
He is an iKook, after all.
In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal
force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.
I know precisely what centrifugal force is an more importantly
centriPETAL force.
There are three facts I can tell you about Alan Baker which we proved:
a. He claims to support customers' computers and yet he is completely
ignorant about newsreader headers to the point that he's overconfident
in his knowledge as shown by his repeated idiocies proven here:
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
Nope. That is not proven.
b. He claims to be knowledgeable in BMWs, and yet, he stated he's owned
them for years and yet he's never once heard of the term bimmer/beemer.
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
Nope. That's not what I claimed.
c. He claims to race and to even be a "racing instructor" and yet he can't >> fathom how the Newtonian forces of nature which apply to a vertical
catenary apply equally to the centrifugal forces racing around a curve.
In fact, he claims that he's never heard of a catenary, even as claiming
at the same time that he has taken Physics and Calculus classes.
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
I've never claimed not to have heard of a catenary, and I have taken
both physics and calculus (and in standard English grammar, they
shouldn't be capitalized).
What I claimed (because it is true) is that no instructor I've spoken
with as a student or as a colleague has ever mentioned the catenary in relation to racing.
:-)
Would someone please reply so we can laugh at Arlen then replying only
after removing every word I said?
Thanks!
Yeah, I agree. You sure told him.
Next, lets see how smart he is on quantum physics. I bet you're
a genius, right?
He'll still be attacking iKooks, while you destroy him with
your brilliance.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-12-24 12:17, Wally J wrote:Your wish is my command.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger?Wharton organizational psychologist Adam Grant famously popularized it in >>>> his book *Think Again* so you are not so unique in "knowing" about this >>>> fictitious representation.
Hi Hemidactylus,
The problem with you iKooks is you get _everything wrong_ in every case. >>> a. Alan Baker swears he's taken Physics & yet never heard of a catenary
That is simply a lie as I never once said anything like that.
b. Chris swears he has a medical-based Phd & yet ridiculed immunology terms >>> c. Jolly Roger swears Apple fully patches older releases when Apple doesn't >>> d. nospam swears graphical signal strength apps exist - and yet they do not >>> e. You refute the D-K effect & yet you are ignorant of their seminal papers >>> etc.
OBSERVATION:
*Strange low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks live squarely on Mount Stupid* >>>
To wit...
I never said I was "unique in knowing about Mount Stupid", Hemidactylus. >>>
In fact, everyone _except the iKooks_ seems to know this basic stuff.
Which is my point, after all...
<https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>Yet in that page you either didn't read or comprehend it is said of the >>>> graphs in the D-K effect paper: "These graphics bare little resemblance to >>>> the ones found online - having no "mount stupid" in evidence. The online >>>> images vary widely in their presentation, so if there is a primary source, >>>> then it would be good to know which one is the correct graphic, or if they >>>> are all fake."
Again, I know EXACTLY what the graphs look like in the seminal papers,
Hemidactylus - and in fact you disputed that they tested English scores. >>>
It's no longer shocking that you iKooks guess about everything.
It's why you know nothing.
It's why Alan Baker never heard of one of the most fundamental curves based >>> on the forces of nature (which, let's be clear, work with centrifugal
forces the same way they work with gravitational forces).
BTW, do you see what I just wrote above?
Look at it.
Can you tell I have a vast educational advantage over you, Hemidactylus? >>> Notice that most of the catenary cites will be about bridges.
But also notice the forces of nature apply to centrifugal forces also.
(Let's not get into the "fictitious forces" argument for the time being.) >>>
Do you think Alan Baker caught that the forces work the same in the
horizontal (sidewise) direction as they do in the vertical direction?
Forces work the same in general...
...but the specifics are very different.
*I am sure he doesn't have a clue.*
He is an iKook, after all.
In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal
force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.
I know precisely what centrifugal force is an more importantly
centriPETAL force.
There are three facts I can tell you about Alan Baker which we proved:
a. He claims to support customers' computers and yet he is completely
ignorant about newsreader headers to the point that he's overconfident
in his knowledge as shown by his repeated idiocies proven here:
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
Nope. That is not proven.
b. He claims to be knowledgeable in BMWs, and yet, he stated he's owned
them for years and yet he's never once heard of the term bimmer/beemer.
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
Nope. That's not what I claimed.
c. He claims to race and to even be a "racing instructor" and yet he can't >>> fathom how the Newtonian forces of nature which apply to a vertical
catenary apply equally to the centrifugal forces racing around a curve.
In fact, he claims that he's never heard of a catenary, even as claiming >>> at the same time that he has taken Physics and Calculus classes.
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
I've never claimed not to have heard of a catenary, and I have taken
both physics and calculus (and in standard English grammar, they
shouldn't be capitalized).
What I claimed (because it is true) is that no instructor I've spoken
with as a student or as a colleague has ever mentioned the catenary in
relation to racing.
:-)
Would someone please reply so we can laugh at Arlen then replying only
after removing every word I said?
Thanks!
In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal
force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.
I know precisely what centrifugal force is an more importantly
centriPETAL force.
I'm not an immunologist, but even to me that sounds like a very niche topic to be writing a book about.
DOUBLEHINT: I'm on record on this ng for being a contributing author to a
peer-reviewed published paper on how microorganisms inherit antibiotic
resistance, too.
By golly! A *contributing* author?! That's amazing. We are honoured to be
in the presence of such greatness...
Who was the senior author?
I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
it out of hand
So even you aren't confident on its significance.
BTW horizontal gene transfer (or inheritance) is quite well established in the microbiology literature. Not just for antibiotic resistance.
- because you're on Mount Stupid - but the adults in this
newsgroup will believe me because, unlike you, I'm well educated in a
variety of fields, one of which is in the biological sciences.
You *think* you're well educated. Posting pictures of books is not an education.
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal >>>> force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.
I know precisely what centrifugal force is an more importantly
centriPETAL force.
Kudos to Alan Baker for actually knowing the difference between centripetal and centrifugal forces, where that's exactly why I said, and I quote:
"(Let's not get into the "fictitious forces" argument for the time being.)"
While gravity isn't a force either, we're using Newtonian descriptions, as once we get into the true nature of gravity, it will knock your socks off.
The point was that all the furious googling in the world won't help you if you don't understand that the uniform forces of nature that work on a catenary in the vertical direction cause it to curve the way it does - just as the uniform forces of angular (mass:energy) movement:momentum (yes, some of which are fictitious) that work on a vehicle moving horizontally around
a curve also form a catenary when they're similarly uniform.
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
I'm not an immunologist, but even to me that sounds like a very niche topic >>> to be writing a book about.
Hi Chris,
I have a good memory, even after the recent spate of operations, where you >> ridiculed the use of "vehicle" in immunology - and yes - you RIDICULED it. >>
If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,
I disagree.
so let's just
accept that you do not have any training in immunology & leave it at that. >>
DOUBLEHINT: I'm on record on this ng for being a contributing author to a >>>> peer-reviewed published paper on how microorganisms inherit antibiotic >>>> resistance, too.
By golly! A *contributing* author?! That's amazing. We are honoured to be >>> in the presence of such greatness...
Who was the senior author?
First off, I was a lowly grad student, and secondly, all you have to do to >> be a "contributing author" to such peer-reviewed papers is do some of the
research
And what did you do that warrants you being able to still call yourself an immunologist decades later?
I did my bachelors and PhD in Chemistry I don't call myself a chemist these days. I lead research projects in other fields.
- so you again ridiculing it isn't warranted as my point was only
that I have degrees
That's what you claim yet won't directly evidence. The only thing others
can go on is what you say, which is worthless. Especially when you
constantly attack the messengers and name call.
in stuff that you iKooks don't and yet you iKooks
ridicule things such as a catenary & D-K quartiles & immunology terms.
Name calling isn't at all ridiculouS, of course.
The pattern, which you can't see of course, is you using terms incorrectly and then get all arsey when those who actually know stuff try to correct
you.
My point is simply that you're all squarely to the west of Mount Stupid.
You're so stupid - you don't even realize how stupid you are.
That's the nicest way I can put it, at least the nicest way I can think of.
What's most funny regarding all this DK nonsense is you don't recognise how relevant it is to you. The more you claim you're an expert the more you
come across as a know-it-all who actually knows little.
I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
it out of hand
So even you aren't confident on its significance.
One scientific paper? The significance? Not much. However it was seminal.
It can't be seminal if it wasn't very significant. Unless it's about
semen...
We studied the organisms and we studied their reactions and we surmised how >> what we observed could possibly have happened given the organisms were
never exposed to what they were found to be immune to and we looked at
patterns and we made assessments based on the facts as we knew them - which >> - turns out - a decade later - we were vindicated in all our premises.
You could easily tell us who the senior author was. They likely published dozens if not hundreds of papers which wouldn't divulge anything we don't already know.
If any of this true, I suspect you didn't travel far so would have likely been at UCSF or UCSD.
When you ridicule textbooks, it hints of you having never attended college.
I'm not ridiculing books. I'm ridiculing you for using photos of books as evidence of your college degrees. The fact you feel the need to even do
this speaks volumes about your fragile ego.
You're right, I never attended college. I went straight to university from school.
My bad. Here's my actual book... https://img.ricardostatic.ch/images/e001bb9b-bf5e-4d5e-bf83-0e6db146e3cd/t_1000x750/physical-chemistry-atkins-de-paula
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
My bad. Here's my actual book...
https://img.ricardostatic.ch/images/e001bb9b-bf5e-4d5e-bf83-0e6db146e3cd/t_1000x750/physical-chemistry-atkins-de-paula
I asked you three extremely basic freshman inorganic chemistry questions, Chris. Can you answer them? Or not?
I'll repeat EXACTLY what I had asked you to show that you know the most
basic of the simplest of the chemistry concepts that anyone should know.
What's the reason that water is such a good solvent, Chris?
Do you know?
HINT: You're furiously googling (much as Alan Baker would), but that's an easy one to find in Google searches - so it's an easy one for you too.
Let's try what this means '1s22s22p6' (offhand I'm pretty sure that's correct) as some things in chemistry (such as .0821) stick in your mind because you use them so often.
What is the significance of those two sets of things above to chemistry? Hint: They're both huge so if you have to google, you don't know chemistry.
You're right, I never attended college. I went straight to university from >> school.
He's already one up on you though. He posted pictures of his
books, and you haven't.
Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid> wrote
You're right, I never attended college. I went straight to university from >>> school.
He's already one up on you though. He posted pictures of his
books, and you haven't.
Actually two up since I don't ever say anything I can't easily prove.
HINT: Have you ever found me NOT backing up EVERY one of my claims Hank?
(And, no, it doesn't count when I've backed it up a thousand times and the iKooks say they missed the first thousand times so I need to do it again
for them because that's a classic child-brain ploy of Alan Baker.)
I don't say something is a fact that isn't a fact, Hank.
Because my belief systems are _based_ on the facts.
*That's a key difference between an adult and a child-like iKook.*
For example, nospam repeatedly claims apps in the app store that don't
exist, and Chris claims, in this case, that he didn't say what he did.
Who is that stupid?
Nobody right?
*Except the iKooks.*
JollY Roger repeatedly claims Apple fully patches all releases, when
clearly Apple does not. Who is that stupid? Nobody right?
*Except the iKooks.*
Alan Browne repeatedly claims there is no walled garden when every day he logs into the very same walled garden he claim doesn't exist.
Who is that stupid?
Nobody right?
*Except the iKooks.*
Now we have Chris claiming to have a PhD when clearly he does not, where he hasn't yet answered the simplest basic questions of chemistry I asked him, but more so, he claims he didn't ridicule common immunological terms when
all I had to do was look up those terms to find that he did.
Who is that stupid?
Nobody right?
*Except the iKooks.*
That's why all the iKooks are far to the left of the D-K Mount Stupid. They're all so stupid that they don't even realize how stupid they are.
Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
You stated you'd find the cites.
You're so stupid,
Any chance of those promised cites?
I don't say something is a fact unless it is a fact, unlike the child-like >> iKooks who repeatedly claim facts that they can never back up with cites.
The only one not backing up with cites in this thread is you. That makes
you the "iKook" here, doesn't it?
I posted them already Chris. It was trivial to find since you said it.
No you didn't. Why are you lying?
That is what I'm trying to show the world, Chris.
That's quite an inflated ego you have there. Not sure the world cares about your opinions.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 343 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 28:58:19 |
| Calls: | 7,556 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,733 |
| Messages: | 5,655,449 |
| Posted today: | 1 |