Englebert

I don't gamble for money. Never have. Well, I think I might have wagered a bet of one dollar on occasion. I would have accepted, and still will, a gentlemen's wager, or one dollar. So no to my proposal? Got it. I didn't think you would go through with it. It was an assuredly absurd challenge. Anybody that knows anything about psychological testing knows that. And your dismissiveness of the GRE only reassures your ignorance or naivete of psychological testing. I'm really perplexed by your doggedness for attempting to parade your self-described analytical skills. Is it an inferiority complex? Is it a superiority complex, or a combination of both? Did you purposely try to make the rules to a point you knew I would not accept, only to then attempt to declare a win (i.e. bluffing)? Is it an compulsory need to engage in stimulating challenges? Is it some way to fill a void brought one by earlier bullying or maybe some other psychological trauma? I have no idea. And frankly, won't give it another thought. But I might go take the GRE anyway. I've been thinking about retaking it for a few years, just to see. The test is very different now than when I took it, so the two will not be very comparable. You are more than welcome to take it with me.

I guess I need to translate again: Blah blah blah blah blah. You are the one so confident in your skills. We can pick another test, one in which neither of us are familiar. I would like to take the GRE again so I can compare my scores from when I took it 30 years ago. For you to peruse: [Hidden Content] And no, I don't want to accept an absurd challenge. Like I said earlier, these tests do not, repeat DO NOT indicate superiority between scores. A battery of tests will give a good range, which can be used to differentiate people per ranges. You seem to be laughably under the false impression that one test will determine something. I will agree to taking one only because you seem substantially over-confident in your own narrative. But one thing I fully understand, having taking multiple graduate level classes on psychological testing, that this will only serve at best as amusement. It is clearly evident that you absurdly think you can accomplish your seemingly goal of superiority, which I have never even challenged. Somehow you seem to have gotten butt-hurt and need to lash out. I'll waste a Saturday just to see if you can back up your superiority claims. I make no such claims, but am interested to see if you are up to the challenge.

Clarification: You won't accept a challenge with me on the GRE. Going from your earlier posts, I'm not prepared to drop down for that level of schooling. You've displayed your analytical and logical reasoning skills enough tonight. I just hope you don't have too many board members confused as to your lack of skills tonight, along with the superiority complex you seem to harbor. And you sure did back out awfully fast.

If we are going to do just one, then the GRE. It is considered by many to be the superior test. We can just take the analytical portion. From the sounds of your earlier braggadocious posts, you must be real familiar with the LSAT to beat all of those people you claim. (How does that feel?) I've taken the GRE and so have you, that makes it more even. The pot shots I was taking were in response to yours. As usual, you seem to be employing transference again.

Set it up. We take the LSAT, then the GRE. Highest combination of scores declared fictitious "winner". Maybe this will prompt you to educate yourself on the fallacy of single test scores.

Again, why do you keep attributing your inflated ego onto me? Where have I ever claimed to be a genius? Where have I even claimed to be smart. Oh yeah, those are your claims. What do you think the phrase "bring it on" means. To use your words, do you need it spoon-fed? Has your comprehension skills degraded so much that you are confused by this? See, I can be condescending also, but without the enlightened superiority attitude, although I'm sure you will falsely read that in somehow.

Such condescension based on imaginative and wholly non-existent elements. You stated that my ego was over-inflated. Please point out where you deduce this little tidbit of knowledge. Where I have stated, or even hinted, that I thought I was superior? These are traits you espoused about yourself. Even people not adept with refined analytical skills can see your fallacy of attributing/transferring your self-described traits onto me. I point out your wrongly attributed attributes, but yet you still continue with this outlandish practice. Who was it again that said they were in the top 1%? Was it me? I don't think so. In fact, show me where I ever referred to my skills. Oh yeah, that was your assessment. I surely hope this is just a case of liquor talking for you, because your analytical skills are pretty deficient tonight, while your imagination seems to be running wild. And please point out what I failed to deduce. I feel pretty confident in assuming this is just another case of transference you seem so proficient in. Your post might be a good place to attached that video you keep misplacing. I'm vaguely familiar with the LSAT test. I never took it but we discussed it a little bit in college, along with many other tests. There is nothing special/superior about this test over some others with higher reliability and validity scores, like the Graduate Records Exam (GRE). And I noticed you failed to provide your comments on what knowledge you expect to gain from a single score. If you had any formal education/training in psychological testing, you would realize that scores do not indicate precise measurements, only ranges. I'm not going to sit here and attempt an educational tutorial on psychological testing, but I'm amused you think that a single test score would prove who was superior. That's like saying when the Astros lost a game to the Dodgers, this proves the Dodgers are the superior team. But since you seem as adamant with this as you do with polygraphs (where studies have clearly shown their pitfalls), then bring it on. We can add a rider to the signature line of the "loser". Maybe we can go double or nothing on who can "beat" the polygraph machine.

That sure was a lot a bloviating to not answer a single question I posed. It is clear that all you have is just that...bloviating. Name the test along with the reliability and validity scores. Then give a little synopsis of what an individual score means. I am confident (as confident as you think you are of your analytical skills) that you have no formal knowledge in psychological testing, and what results render. Do you think you might be engaging is this bloviation to compensate for your deficiency in said skills. I don't know. I do know you have engaged in practices that highly analytical people do not engage in, thus me pointing this out. I'm curious as to why someone so (supposedly) skilled in a talent, and surprisingly overly confident in such abilities, seems to get perturbed when said skills are questioned (especially when accurately questioned due to flawed and contradictory uses). But alas, I'm not here to analyze. I just point out the facts when I see them. And again, you try that same ol' crap of pulling out of thin air some quality attributed to me that exists only in your head. I never said or even hinted in the slightest way that I would not accept your challenge. But in typical fashion, and highly contrary to analytical thinking, you seem to want to attribute "facts" that are conjured up and securely stored in your mind only. Seeing the evidence on that skill, I'm sure you would blow me away on an imaginativeness test.

Wow, you keep proving my posts to be 100% accurate. You are "confident" you can "win" based on what? Only someone deficient in analytical skills could draw a definitive conclusion base on unknown evidence. And more evidence of flawed logic can be garnered from the fact that you think this type of thinking can be considered flawless logic. I see now how you got fooled by the Man-Made Global Warming fallacy. You might want to get checked for TDS. That has been going around for the last year or so. The symptoms seem to be a loss of analytical ability and an enlightened but flawed sense of one's intellectual superiority based on one simple comparison of political affiliation, not to mention incorporating perceived derogatory personal attacks when discovering the analytical skills have diminished to the point of uselessness. I'm hopeful that self-reflection and introspective therapy can serve as a cure, but as to date I've yet to see anyone recover. And more evidence of flawed logic, though I'm curious to know. What is this infallible test of analytical ability you speak of? What are the reliability and validity scores? Is this a standalone test or a series of tests? Are results less or more accurate than polygraph tests? I'm guessing you have no formal background in the accuracy of these tests based on the fact that you actually tried to con us into to believing polygraphs are accurate. What do you suppose a truly analytical person could conclude from results of an intellectual test of any kind? (Hint: The answer is taught in an Introductory to Psychology course.)

You are the one showing your defiencies in this department. You draw conclusions from unknown variables...not very analytical. I'm just pointing these facts out. Luckily I try not to deduce "facts" from unknowns, otherwise I would be forced to conclude it would be easy money. The scant knowledge gained from a little ol' message board points that direction. I'm curious, what clues have you garnered about me that leads you to believe you have "way the best of it". I'm interested to hear what leads you to this conclusion. It must be some awfully good analytical skills to be so confident about something that is unmistakably an unknown.

We might be the leaders in the field of witnessing sheeple. I'm curious, do sheeple scream at the sky to convey their unmitigated devotion to their Liberal gods? Oh wait, we might have a video or two of that practice.

I'm not the one drawing conclusions on hear-say and agenda driven platitudes. Your continual protests just once again proves my post was accurate. And your analytical skills are just plain non-existent. Where in any of my posts am I trying to prove I know more than real scientists. I'm just asking for proof (like I've stated over and over...and over and over). For my audacity of asking just simple questions I get the reward of silly little labels. Disheartening, but expected.

Wow. Did you actually think that was an appropriate use of that video clip? It positively proves my post was 100% accurate, and that is something every real scientist can agree that enough proof has been shown to announce "the debate is over" (no skewing of data required).

I'm not worried about the source of the link. Most people would question the source of the accusation. Like I said, I will wait for proof instead of being led like a good little sheeple susceptible to the will of the self-anointed elitists. I'm baffled how a person who follows the long-adhered scientific method of proof would be labeled a doofus...but we've become accustomed to these silly little labels.

Do you actually believe this? As much fake news that has been spread about him, one should be more apt to question allegations without proof...especially ones in which both sides deny it. [Hidden Content] I will stick to the scientific method and wait for proof before declaring the debate is over. And did you actually post this after repeatedly questioning Reagan's posts? Hmmm.

IMO what many don't realize is that every time Trump opens his mouth the true colors of the Liberals are exposed. Keep it up Trump. And definitely keep tweeting. It makes Liberals lose what little mind they have left.

I will never underestimate the stupidity fervor of the Liberals. I have a feeling the better the economy, the more enraged and motivated the Left will be to vote against Trump. Adding a minority and a woman as the other choice, the Liberals might be able to persuade an historic turnout to oust an angry old White man. Don't forget, the Liberals hate prosperity, especially when said prosperity is generated by the Right. How the sane old Democrats will vote is a mystery. I sure do hope you are right though.

I know this question is way, way, way too far in advance of an election, but I'm bored and saw this topic. I started pondering on how both sides would react. The main problem is that I don't know any of Oprah's political views or positions on...well, anything. Until we know these things, this question is just silly to even pose. But I'm curious as to what your initial reactions are if this scenario was to come to fruition. I'm guessing that Democrats will vote for Oprah in overwhelming fashion, and the Republicans will vote for Trump in overwhelming fashion, per usual. The undefinable Independents is a totally mystery. What effect will the media have with their all-out negative assault on Trump? What affect will the economy have on the outcome, especially if the economy is in great shape?

[Hidden Content] Who would have guessed that the next presidential race might come down to two celebrities. If this happens, I'm curious as to what will become of all of the anti-Trump people who admonished the Trump supporters for voting for a man with no political experience. I'm guessing they will attempt to use the race and gender card to reconcile their blatant hypocrisy. What do y'all think? If the election was being held this year (based on the state of the U.S.), who do you think would win?

She was found safe: [Hidden Content] Not much detail in the article though.

Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough?

Maybe you should try to get your money back. The last time you tried this tactic it blew up in your face. Of all of the people on this board that actually have a college degree, yours seems to be the least discernible. Your professors are undoubtedly hiding in shame...knowing that their job was to teach you how to think for yourself instead of worshiping at the altar of the Liberal loons. Then again, they might be grinning from ear to ear in the knowledge that you're a shining example of their indoctrination. And I find it funny that I used the term "monolithic" a while back, and you were pretty upset with my post. You actually thought it was a negative stereotype. Now you use the term in practically every post, and on many occasions incorrectly, but have the audacity to (attempt to) deride others in childlike fashion. Your intellectual prowess is in dire need of some refining...or existence. Luckily you've figured out the art of "cut and paste". The formatting still seems to be a challenge for you.

It sure is ironic. This is the whole philosophy of the so-called and hilariously labeled "deniers". Too bad this philosophy is taken to heart instead of the worshipping at the feet of those who proclaim "the debate is over".

This video clip would be pretty funny if used at the right time. Using it to respond to a coherent and on-point post renders the response as completely out-of-touch and a parody of itself. I might steal it and use it when appropriate though.

I second that. I might venture to say the funniest post of the decade. And if you, Big Girl, want to hold an intellectual conversation, please pick a topic. I suggest we debate on the difference between debt and deficit.